Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?

908 views
Skip to first unread message

W. David Samuelsen

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:27:16 PM9/10/07
to Gen-Medieval
Don't make fun or insult on this one....

I see 3 different husbands for Anna of Arimathea, daughter of Joseph of
Arimathea now.

one is 3 generations apart.

1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
bef 162 BC, died 72 BC

2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr)

and now this...
3. Manogan, Celtic King of the Druids
(father of Beli Mawr, son of Eneid

one entry I found, even showed Anna married to #2 then #1

Can anyone clear this one up in an hurry?

David Samuelsen

Most often, many listed #2.

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:33:13 PM9/10/07
to
Hilarious!

Funniest post I've seen in weeks.

Your chain has been pulled -- repeatedly.

DSH

"W. David Samuelsen" <ds...@sampubco.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2091.1189448...@rootsweb.com...

Séimí mac Liam

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:36:21 PM9/10/07
to
"W. David Samuelsen" <ds...@sampubco.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2091.1189448...@rootsweb.com:

What sources are you using?

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:46:04 PM9/10/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Does it not occur to you, that Anna if such a person even existed, as daughter of a man obviously *living* at least until 30 AD let's say, could not herself be married to a man who was *dead* by 70 BC more than one hundred years previously ?

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:48:21 PM9/10/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time, ds...@sampubco.com writes:
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr) >>

----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem

Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:48:33 PM9/10/07
to
He's not a thinker.

DSH

"WJhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2093.1189450...@rootsweb.com...

Hovite

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:51:15 PM9/10/07
to
On Sep 10, 7:27 pm, "W. David Samuelsen" <d...@sampubco.com>

> Can anyone clear this one up in an hurry?

None of those people ever existed.

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:52:43 PM9/10/07
to
"WJhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2094.1189450...@rootsweb.com...

RIGHT!

The brother of Jesus of Nazarath. <G>

DSH

> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson


D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:54:28 PM9/10/07
to
But he needs it IN A HURRY! <G>

DSH

"Hovite" <paulv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189450275.0...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 3:05:39 PM9/10/07
to
Recte:

RIGHT!

The brother of Jesus of Nazareth. <G>

DSH

Pax Vobiscum

> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson


Peter Jason

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 5:46:40 PM9/10/07
to

>
>> Does it not occur to you, that Anna if
>> such a person even existed, as daughter of
>> a man obviously *living* at least until 30
>> AD let's say, could not herself be married
>> to a man who was *dead* by 70 BC more than
>> one hundred years previously ?

Then it *must* be necrophilia.


taf

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 9:03:17 PM9/10/07
to

As others have pointed out, there is no surviving evidence that any of
them ever existed. These are all invented individuals.

taf

Hovite

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 3:25:20 AM9/11/07
to
On Sep 10, 7:27 pm, "W. David Samuelsen" <d...@sampubco.com>
> born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales

The ancient name for Monmouth was Blestium.

Siluria is a modern invention; it does not occur in any source.

The people were the Silures, who are mentioned in several sources,
including Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy.

Their capital was Venta Silurum, now Caerwent, in Gwent (previously
Monmouthshire).


a.spencer3

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 5:30:08 AM9/11/07
to

"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:i6gFi.94$DU5...@eagle.america.net...

Siluria is in Alabama.

Surreyman


Hovite

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 3:18:16 PM9/11/07
to
On Sep 10, 7:27 pm, "W. David Samuelsen" <d...@sampubco.com> wrote:

> I see 3 different husbands for Anna

She Anu, the Celtic Earth goddess.

> 1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons

He is Belinos, a Celtic god, consort of Anu.

> 2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
> (Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)

Bran Vendigeit is another Celtic god; Brian Boru was a King of Ireland
(died 1014).

> 3. Manogan, Celtic King of the Druids.

"the name of Manogan is interpolated by a Welsh redactor from native
sources, to form an extra generation, which is absent from Geoffrey's
text".

(Studies in Early British History)

taf

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 3:24:42 PM9/11/07
to
On Sep 11, 12:18 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:27 pm, "W. David Samuelsen" <d...@sampubco.com> wrote:
>
> > I see 3 different husbands for Anna
>
> She Anu, the Celtic Earth goddess.
>

etc.

Thanks for the details. Certainly more convincing than my simple
denial.

taf

PIPPHI...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 6:29:21 PM9/11/07
to
There was no such person as Anna of Arimathea, however, according to
the Byzantine historian Sophronius of Jerusalem one of Jesus' (so-
called) "sisters" was an Anne (Blinzler, 1976, pp 36-8).
The genealogy of The Holy Family appears in "Matthew" and "Luke" and
bits and pieces in the writings of early church fathers, and
historians. The genealogy of The Holy Family has always been known by
the Jews, and appears in early Jewish literature.
The fact that Jesus had siblings needed to be explained as the
doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity became widespread and
eventually universally accepted as true. They had to be harmonized
with the dogma, so brothers and sisters became cousins, step-siblings,
etc.
Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
ex-king Dubnovellus [who was himself an exile in Rome], who eventually
returned to Britain with her and had issue. This Belus (c. AD 35/50)
is not to be confused with his ancestor Beli Mawr, who sacked Rome in
386BC in the "First Celtic Storm". See the "Beli & Anne Pedigree" in
Bartrum's "Early Genealogical Tracts".

pip phillips


WJhonson

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 6:50:10 PM9/11/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/11/07 15:30:27 Pacific Standard Time, PIPPHILLIPS18 writes:
Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
ex-king Dubnovellus [who was himself an exile in Rome], who eventually
returned to Britain with her and had issue. This Belus (c. AD 35/50)
is not to be confused with his ancestor Beli Mawr, who sacked Rome in
386BC in the "First Celtic Storm". See the "Beli & Anne Pedigree" in
Bartrum's "Early Genealogical Tracts".

pip phillips

The above is not legend but rather fantasy. Perhaps anyone at all listening would care to try to find any of this related in any credible history book modern or ancient.

Will

PIPPHI...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 12:27:25 PM9/12/07
to
Will wrote

> The above is not legend but rather fantasy. Perhaps anyone at all listening would care to try to find any of this related in any credible history book modern or ancient.
------------------------------------------------------------
you are not very well read, are you?; or at least have never research
this subject

pip


WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 12:34:40 PM9/12/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 9/12/2007 9:30:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
PIPPHI...@aol.com writes:

you are not very well read, are you?; or at least have never research
this subject


--------------------------
I tend to stay away from connections based on fantasy, conspiracy theories
and lizards.

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

taf

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 12:50:33 PM9/12/07
to
On Sep 11, 3:29 pm, PIPPHILLIP...@AOL.com wrote:

> Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
> Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
> persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
> she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
> ex-king Dubnovellus [who was himself an exile in Rome], who eventually
> returned to Britain with her and had issue. This Belus (c. AD 35/50)
> is not to be confused with his ancestor Beli Mawr, who sacked Rome in
> 386BC in the "First Celtic Storm". See the "Beli & Anne Pedigree" in
> Bartrum's "Early Genealogical Tracts".

Perhaps you could cite some primary data that suggests otherwise, but
I don't know that there is a single thing in this paragraph that
represents solid history (e.g. recorded less than, say, 500 years
after the events being reported). As to Bartrum, he was compiling
pedigrees that appear in 15th century (and later) manuscripts, not
reporting authentic history, and he makes this distinction clear.

taf

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 1:24:55 PM9/12/07
to
On Sep 11, 6:29 pm, PIPPHILLIP...@AOL.com wrote:
> There was no such person as Anna of Arimathea, however, according
> Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
> Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
> persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
> she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
> ex-king Dubnovellus [who was himself an exile in Rome], who eventually
> returned to Britain with her and had issue. This Belus (c. AD 35/50)
> is not to be confused with his ancestor Beli Mawr, who sacked Rome in
> 386BC in the "First Celtic Storm". See the "Beli & Anne Pedigree" in
> Bartrum's "Early Genealogical Tracts".

No persons referred to above are mentioned in near-contemporary, non-
biblical sources, except Jesus (Joseph._AJ_28.3). Four brothers and
at least two unnamed sisters appear in the Bible, as well as Joseph of
Arimathea, the latter seen in biblical criticism as a fictional
character invented as a plot device [J. D. Crossan,_Jesus_9 (San
Francisco, 1994), 156-8;_The Oxford Companion to the Bible_(New York,
1993), s.v. "Joseph of Arimathea"]. Rabanus Maurus, a ninth-century
German monk, is the earliest writer to connect Joseph with Britain.

Christopher Ingham


PIPPHI...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 5:50:07 PM9/12/07
to
On Sep 12, 1:24?pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
?Four brothers and at least two unnamed sisters appear in the Bible,

as well as Joseph of Arimathea, the latter seen in biblical criticism
as a fictional
> character invented as a plot device [J. D. Crossan,_Jesus_9 (San
> Francisco, 1994), 156-8;_The Oxford Companion to the Bible_(New York,
> 1993), s.v. "Joseph of Arimathea"].
------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe i am not reading your post right, are you saying that Joseph of
Arimathea was a fictional character ???

pip


WJhonson

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 6:55:14 PM9/12/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

pip >>

---------------------
You are reading it correctly. He is citing a work which has (within it, probably a contributor) Crossan stating that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional plot device.

It's not new that biblical criticism points out things about the Bible that may startle the more conservative Biblicist.

Will

sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 10:27:59 PM9/12/07
to
On 12 Sep, 23:55, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> You are reading it correctly. He is citing a work which has (within it, probably a contributor) Crossan stating that Joseph > of Arimathea is a fictional plot device.

Dear Will

What if someone two thousand years hence knowing only this thread were
to say that Crossan is a plot device?

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 10:34:13 PM9/12/07
to

taf

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 10:44:08 PM9/12/07
to

Then they will be scholars of the type that Crossan could appreciate,
thinking critically about their sources rather than just blindly
accepting them. Further, these future researchers, if they only knew
of Crossan from this thread, would know that whether he was a reality
or a plot device he had no place in a pedigree, there being no
surviving contemporary record of his parents, wives of children.

taf

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 11:03:56 PM9/12/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/12/07 19:30:19 Pacific Standard Time, sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
What if someone two thousand years hence knowing only this thread were
to say that Crossan is a plot device? >>

--------------
He'd be ecstatic that he is still remembered at all.

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 12:52:07 PM9/13/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 9/13/2007 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
PIPPHI...@aol.com writes:

good Lord, your references are bogus and you are beyond ignorance to
even consider them worthy of any consideration
i have a reference for you: "thinking themselves to be wise, they were
really fools" (Rom.1:22)
you have sold your soul to the devil for this brief flirtation with
false fame - oh, and when you open your eyes in hell ask yourself "was
it worth it"


------------------------
They are not *my* references you silly monkey.

PIPPHI...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 6:09:09 PM9/13/07
to
On Sep 13, 12:52?pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/13/2007 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> They are not *my* references you silly monkey.
--------------------------------------------
is that the best you can do?; i was expecting more from an educated
person like you
i don't know where you got your education but i think you should ask
for your money back

pip

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 6:53:20 PM9/13/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/13/07 15:10:16 Pacific Standard Time, PIPPHILLIPS18 writes:
is that the best you can do?; i was expecting more from an educated person like you i don't know where you got your education but i think you should ask for your money back >>
------------------------
You were expecting more abuse and high falootin insultin here at this ho down ?

I don't yet know you well enough to truly insult you with passion and verve. But keep it up mister smart aleck and we'll see ;)

Will

wjhonson

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 7:19:29 PM9/13/07
to
On Sep 12, 10:24 am, Christopher Ingham

<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:29 pm, PIPPHILLIP...@AOL.com wrote:
>
> > Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
> > Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
> > persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
> > she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
> > ex-king Dubnovellus ...

>
> No persons referred to above are mentioned in near-contemporary, non-
> biblical sources, except Jesus (Joseph._AJ_28.3). Four brothers and
> at least two unnamed sisters appear in the Bible, as well as Joseph of
> Arimathea, the latter seen in biblical criticism as a fictional
> character invented as a plot device [J. D. Crossan,_Jesus_9 (San
> Francisco, 1994), 156-8;_The Oxford Companion to the Bible_(New York,
> 1993), s.v. "Joseph of Arimathea"]. Rabanus Maurus, a ninth-century
> German monk, is the earliest writer to connect Joseph with Britain.
>
> Christopher Ingham

A small caveat. Epiphanius does mention by name two sisters of Jesus,
calling them the daughters of Joseph by his "first wife" : Mary and
Salome. In another work he has Anne and Salome, but editors have
wondered if the word there might be a scribal error and thus would
possibly erase Anne.

Sophronius who is probably dependent on Epiphanius merges these to
have Anne, Mary and Salome.

As to "... British prince Belus, the son of the British ex-king
Dubnovellus ...", I wonder if this does not refer to the same
individuals that Geoffrey of Monmouth calls : Belinus, King of
Britian, son of Dunwallo [Molmutius], King of Cornwall then of all
Britain who reigned for forty years.

This Belius is further given a son "Gurgiunt Brabtruc" who became in
turn King of Britain.

There is nothing in this part of the history that allows me to give a
chronology, but IF there is indeed *some* legend that Jesus and
Dunwallo or Belinus were contemporaries that would certainly help the
situation. Of course that legend should be properly cited and
quoted. But it's certainly not in Geoffrey's work, so I don't know
from where it comes.

Will Johnson

Jwc...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 7:43:24 PM9/13/07
to GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com, Jwc1870@AOL..com
Dear Will,
I seem to recall reading in the forward of my penguin
paperback edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth`s " History of the Kings of Britain" that
Geoffrey copied a lot of his material from earlier work written by Welsh monks
which doubtless came from the lips of Welsh poets and genealogists who had
it from the lips of their teachers, et cetera.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 8:15:26 PM9/13/07
to Jwc1870, GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com, Jwc1870@AOL..com
<<In a message dated 09/13/07 16:44:24 Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870 writes:
I seem to recall reading in the forward of my penguin
paperback edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth`s " History of the Kings of Britain" that
Geoffrey copied a lot of his material from earlier work written by Welsh monks
which doubtless came from the lips of Welsh poets and genealogists who had
it from the lips of their teachers, et cetera. >>

--------------------

Geoffrey states that he got his material from an old book. The accepted wisdom is either that he made it all up which seems hardly likely if you read it; OR that he was relating actual stories mixed in with some of his own fiction.

Certainly it seems pretty odd that he would believe that King Arthur (who per the loose chronology I've built based on Geoffrey, must have reigned around 500) had actually conquered Paris and all of Gaul, etc, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark....

That part, I can certainly believe, Geoffrey very greatly exaggerated. Arthur it seems, based simply on the *amount* of material he gives him and his exploits, was the main point of the work, although we don't get *to* Arthur until the last few "books" (12 books in all).

He mentions Merlin here and there, but quite a lot of the book is very dry detailing of genealogies, apparently stretching back to perhaps 1500 to 2000 BC, not all of which obviously connect to each other. If this is a work of pure fiction is a very boring one, and judged by the things he says about Arthur he certainly *could* have made up a lot more about everyone else. If you're going to write a whopper of fiction pretending to be fact, why make parts of it dreadfully dull?

In particular, although he claims British lineage for Constantine the Great among others, he doesn't really dwell on what Constantine exactly did. Seems a bit odd to just skip merrily past one of the greatest leaders of the past if your main point is to show how amazing the British were.

Will Johnson

taf

unread,
Sep 13, 2007, 8:26:43 PM9/13/07
to

My question is, is this the best _you_ can do? You have attacked his
education, his reading, and the well-being of his soul. What you have
not done is support your position.

taf

Hovite

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 10:44:18 AM9/14/07
to
On Sep 14, 12:19 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> As to "... British prince Belus, the son of the British ex-king
> Dubnovellus ...", I wonder if this does not refer to the same
> individuals that Geoffrey of Monmouth calls : Belinus, King of
> Britian, son of Dunwallo [Molmutius], King of Cornwall then of all
> Britain who reigned for forty years.

These people are unknown to history, but they could be corruptions of
Cunobelinus and Dubnovellaunos, who were real kings.

They were not, of course, Kings of Britain.

Dubnovellaunos was King of the Trinovantes, from about 15 BC to about
10 AD.

Cunobelinos was King of the Catulvellauni, from about 10 to about 40
AD. His coins indicate that he successfully absorbed the Trinovantes,
as some were minted at Camulodunum. Others state his parentage:
Tasciovani f.

In a sense, therefore, Cunobelinos was the successor of
Dubnovellaunos, but they came from different tribes and were members
of different dynasties.

Cunobelinos could also be the origin of the Beli myth, as on some
coins the king's name is abbreviated and split between two panels:

CVNO
BELI

But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.


PIPPHI...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 11:40:06 AM9/14/07
to
On Sep 13, 6:53?pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 09/13/07 15:10:16 Pacific Standard Time,

> I don't yet know you well enough to truly insult you with passion and verve. But keep it up mister smart aleck and we'll see

> Will
----------------------------------------------
is that a threat? communication of threats is against the law? I think
I will consult my cousin, a lawyer, as what options I have

Pip


WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 12:44:07 PM9/14/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 9/14/2007 8:40:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
PIPPHI...@aol.com writes:

is that a threat? communication of threats is against the law? I think
I will consult my cousin, a lawyer, as what options I have

-----------------------------
Please do, it would be a hoot.

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 1:47:54 PM9/14/07
to

> BELI> CVNO


>
> But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.

Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in an era when it was trendy to imitate
the_Aeneid_, and to trace particular groups of peoples (in his case,
the Celts) back to the Trojans, all the while showing how these
peoples merited the favor of the gods due to their superior virtue
over all others. Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
work as a "tissue of lies."

With Epiphanius, writing centuries after the events described, one has
to fall back on the refrain, "What are his sources?" And as to the
kings, whose existence is only documented in a smattering of
references in Roman histories, make of it what you will.

Christopher Ingham

Hovite

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 2:31:26 PM9/14/07
to
On Sep 12, 6:24 pm, Christopher Ingham

> No persons referred to above are mentioned in near-contemporary, non-
> biblical sources, except Jesus (Joseph._AJ_28.3).

"This note is either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that
it can no longer be presented as credible evidence"

A. Schweitzer: "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", page 359.

He cited the the passage as "Antt. 18, 3, 3" so I'm not entirely sure
this is the same reference. Anyway, the paragraph he quoted is very
obviously a later insertion by a Christian.

Besides Josephus, the earliest sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, and
Pliny, all from about 100 AD. They are all somewhat hostile, and
therefore their comments are more likely to be genuine.


Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 3:08:19 PM9/14/07
to

Yes, the passage is 18.3.3 from_Antiquities_. The authenticity of the
passage is under question but not outright dismissed, except for the
latter part containing the_testimonium_, "He was the messiah."
Josephus, living in Rome and writing to please a Roman audience,
certainly would not have made such a statement.

Christopher Ingham

taf

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 3:32:33 PM9/14/07
to
On Sep 14, 11:31 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They are all somewhat hostile, and
> therefore their comments are more likely to be genuine.

Then this group has been quite genuine, of late.

taf

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 7:13:39 PM9/14/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/14/07 07:45:29 Pacific Standard Time, paulv...@gmail.com writes:
Cunobelinos was King of the Catulvellauni, from about 10 to about 40
AD. >>

--------------------
Am I right in thinking this was Shakespeare's Cymbeline aka Kymbelinus ?

If so, he is also mentioned by Geoffrey, but as a different person. He states in particular that this Kymbelinus was "brought up by Augustus Caesar" which at least allows us a chronological peg at this point in his narrative.

He gives the father of this Kymbelinus as Tenuantis (aka Tasciovan), Duke of Cornwall and later King of all Britain, who must have lived per my framework from say 90/70 BC until at leat 50 BC

The father of this Tasciovan being King Lud

The son of Kymbelinus is given as Arviragus who fought against Claudius' armies [which occurred in 43 AD]. This Arviragus is given there as marrying Claudius daughter, named Genuissa.

This is fable by the way, but I'm interested only to see if the chronology can hold together. This Genuissa has to be the daughter of Valeria Messalina. I do not have a source describing *exactly* when Claudius married Valeria and hopefully someone has a very good primary source for this, as plenty of secondary sources can't seem to agree.

We do know it must have been sometime between 31 AD and 40 AD. Valeria was stabbed to death, on the orders of Claudius in 48AD. So we have a pretty narrow window for Genuissa's birth which is good.

Their son is given as Marius, King of Britain the father of Coillus "brought up at Rome" (probably as a hostage?)

Marius is the father of "Old King Cole" aka Coillus or Coel who is mentioned at stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/ancient/ae/brittany1.htm#link1
Cole appears to alternatively be given a mother of "Penardun" ? this might be an error in my database, its possible Penardun is a male, but given a father of "Bran of Siluria" which following Paul Heath should be rendered Bran of the Silures aka Bron the Blessed which I suppose implies that he comes from the Mabigonian although I haven't yet read it to see what it does or doesn't say to support this.

This Bran or Bron is that same one that many people have as married to Anna "of Arimathea" which started this whole thing, but also given as a daughter of James the Bishop of Jerusalem, brother to Jesus.

ALL OF THIS IS FABLE. Just thought I'd throw that in. It's going to prove impossible to co-relate ALL the legends together, but at least we can discuss whether any one of them even works by itself at all.

An alternate mother to Coillus "Cole" is given as "Julia of the Iceni" on stirnet supposed there to be a daughter of Boedicea "Queen of Britons" by Prasutagus, King of the Iceni.

Boedicea BTW is one person who Geoffrey never even alludes to much less mentions by name.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 7:17:31 PM9/14/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/14/07 10:50:15 Pacific Standard Time, christop...@comcast.net writes:
With Epiphanius, writing centuries after the events described, one has
to fall back on the refrain, "What are his sources?">>

-----------------------------
As I stated Epiphanius *may* have only known two sisters Mary and Salome. Anna as a sister may be the result of a corrupt textual descent. Epiphanius no place mentions all three sisters together, but three times he mentions Mary, twice Salome, and once this "Anna".

As to his sources, there is a reference to the "three Marys", called in one place his mother, his sister and his companion. Supposedly they were steadfastly with him from the beginning.

Salome of course is a well-known figure, just not as his sister in particular, although reading the text with that in mind, there is no contradiction that can be drawn.

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 6:05:05 PM9/15/07
to
On Sep 14, 7:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The son of Kymbelinus is given as Arviragus who fought against Claudius' armies [which occurred in 43 AD]. This Arviragus is given there as marrying Claudius daughter, named Genuissa.
>
> This is fable by the way, but I'm interested only to see if the chronology can hold together. This Genuissa has to be the daughter of Valeria Messalina. I do not have a source describing *exactly* when Claudius married Valeria and hopefully someone has a very good primary source for this, as plenty of secondary sources can't seem to agree.
>
> We do know it must have been sometime between 31 AD and 40 AD. Valeria was stabbed to death, on the orders of Claudius in 48AD. So we have a pretty narrow window for Genuissa's birth which is good.
>
> Their son is given as Marius, King of Britain the father of Coillus "brought up at Rome" (probably as a hostage?)
>
> Marius is the father of "Old King Cole" aka Coillus....

Although the ancient sources do not explicitly state the date, the
marriage of Claudius to his third wife, his third cousin Messalina, an
adolescent, is fixed at between AD 38 and 40 (B.
Levick,_Claudius_[New Haven, 1990], 55;_OCD_, 3rd rev. ed. [2003],
s.v. "Valeria Messal[l]ina" [J. P. V. D. Balsdon and M. T. Griffin]).
Messalina forestalled her own imminent execution in 48 by committing
suicide. Her children, Claudia Octavia and Britannicus, were executed
by Nero, stepson of Claudius by his forth wife, as was the only other
surviving child of Claudius, Claudia Antonia. Her marriage is closely
covered by Tacitus (e.g., _Ann._11.29-32, 34-8), among others, and she
is definitely not the mother of any Genuissa.

Keep plugging away, though, Will; I'm sure that one day you will at
last establish a definitive history of primeval Britain.

Christopher Ingham


Volucris

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 6:42:40 PM9/15/07
to
Christopher,

As I'm rereading a book that I found on the bookshelve, that mentions
Geoffrey of Monmouth and his famous work, your remark drew my
attention.

> Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
> scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
> work as a "tissue of lies."

Who are you talking about, when did they and in what work?

Hans Vogels


On 14 sep, 19:47, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:


> On Sep 14, 10:44 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]


> > But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.
>
> Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in an era when it was trendy to imitate
> the_Aeneid_, and to trace particular groups of peoples (in his case,
> the Celts) back to the Trojans, all the while showing how these
> peoples merited the favor of the gods due to their superior virtue
> over all others. Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
> scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
> work as a "tissue of lies."

[snip]
> Christopher Ingham

Volucris

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 7:41:33 PM9/15/07
to
Hi Will,

An interesting post you made here. Friday, dusting the bookshelves, I
came across an English book I bought in Canada in 2000:

Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd with John Baldock, 'The Keys to Avalon. The
true location of Arthur's kingdom revealed' (2000).; HB ISBN 1 86204
735 9 and PB ISBN 1 86204 723 5. Published in the USA in 2000 by
Element Books, Inc., 160 North Washington Street, Boston, MA 02114.

It seems that Geoffrey translated a book in the Welsh language into
Latin, that Walter the archdeacon of Oxford brought with him from his
travels to Wales. In translating the text Geoffrey interpretated
wrongly the geographical names with the consequense that (his-)stories
happening in the past of Wales were situated in Great Brittain (England
+Wales+Scotland). These stories as Geoffrey related them have been
long regarded long as real. They have even been politically exploited
but as time went by and new generations of reseachers and historians
found faults, Geoffreys work has been categorised as a fancyfull mix
of facts and fiction.

'Brittain' in 1136 should be read as Wales. The authors deduced that
as Geoffrey was translating a Welsh book there may have been more
Welsh versions of the text he had in front of him. Those versions do
indeed exist. There are over 70 surviving manuscripts of a Welsh text
known as Brut Y Brenhinedd (Chronicle of the Kings). These manuscripts
have been thought versions of a Welsh translation of the Latin
translation of Geoffrey. The Brut has details that Geoffrey's
translation does not have:

"within Geoffrey's translations there are numerous instances where the
name is still to be found in its original Welsh form alongside the
'corrected' location provided for the book's Norman audience." "These
corrections - or 'explanations' - were absent from nearly all of the
Welsh copies of the Brut, presumably because because the latter were
intended for a Welsh audience who would have known where these places
were."

So Geoffrey kind of corrupted the Welsh text and provided all who just
read his work a wrong track for study, research and debate. It is not
my intention to claim the work of Geoffrey is factual, but it seems
that in the Welsh versions of the Brut there may be more real facts
and hints that meet the eye than in Geoffreys work. So anyone quoting
"The History of the kings of Britain" should stop doing that. Try the
above mentioned book as an eye opener and for some new research
tracks.

I can say no more on the subject as I just started reading it again in
my spare time.

Hans Vogels

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 8:09:56 PM9/15/07
to
> > Christopher Ingham- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I confess that I relied on reference books for this assessment. Here
are some comments:

"_The Historia regum Britanniae_, published sometime between 1135 and
1139, was one of the most popular books of the Middle Ages, although
its historical value is almost nil....Denounced from the first by
sober historians, Geoffrey's fictional history nevertheless had an
enormous influence on later chroniclers."
[_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 15th ed., s.v. "Geoffrey of Monmouth."]

"The_Historia_ was attacked as a worthless historical account but
became very popular and survived even the harshest denunciations by
scholars."
[M. Bunson,_Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages_(New York, 1995), s.v.
"Geoffrey of Monmouth."]

"Geoffrey's_History_is, on the last analysis, a prose romance and...a
palpable excursion in fiction....[I]n the words of William of
Newburgh, the entire work is a tissue of 'impudent and shameless
lies.'"
[_The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in Eighteen
Volumes_, vol. 1 (1907), 9.9, "Geoffrey of Monmouth," consulted
online.]
http://www.bartleby.com/211/0909.html

I read other unflattering quotations from Geoffrey's contemporaries,
but I can't recall at this moment in which texts they are located.

To be fair, Geoffrey did did rely on some Celtic documents, now lost,
and he probably recorded much current lore.

Christopher Ingham

Volucris

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 8:36:14 PM9/15/07
to
Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd work as historical consultants for the North
Wales tourist board.
John Baldock is a teacher, art historian and pubished author.

Some of the catching phrases from the back cover:
Avalon exists. It is a real place with geographical boundaries and a
turbulent history. It is the treasure house of Arthurian legend. It is
the secret location in which the identity of an entire nation has lain
buried. Until now ... Intertwining the mystery and romance of ancient
myth with the exitement of modern historical discovery, The Keys to
Avalon:
- exposes the rewriting of history and the olitical intrigue which
robbed a people of their heritage and cultural identity,
- is the first book to establish a viable setting for the Arthurian
legacy,
- challenges the accepted theories about early British history and
Arthur, providing a solution to the mystery of Avalon,
-substanciates its claims with detailed references to original Welsh
textual sources, maps and genealogical charts,
goes beyond well-known Arthurian texts to their roots in ancient
Welsh manuscripts ande the history of the land.
The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past
that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap which
is as real as it is hauntingly magical.

Hans Vogels

> > Will Johnson- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


taf

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 10:12:25 PM9/15/07
to
On Sep 15, 5:36 pm, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
> Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd work as historical consultants for the North
> Wales tourist board.
> John Baldock is a teacher, art historian and pubished author.
>
> Some of the catching phrases from the back cover:

. . .

> The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past
> that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap which
> is as real as it is hauntingly magical.

This would all be more believable if the same claim wasn't made
several times a year on the jacket of every new book on Arthur, and
each one giving a different "key" to the past.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 10:33:08 PM9/15/07
to
So the past should only have ONE magical key?

Hilarious!

DSH

"taf" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1189908745....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 15, 5:36 pm, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

>> Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd work as historical consultants for the North

>> Wales tourist board John Baldock is a teacher, art historian and
>> pubished [sic] author.

"Pubished" Indeed...

>> Some of the catching phrases from the back cover:
>

>> The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past

>> that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap [sic]

lostc...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 10:34:56 PM9/15/07
to
On Sep 12, 9:34 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/12/2007 9:30:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> PIPPHILLIP...@aol.com writes:
>
> you are not very well read, are you?; or at least have never research
> this subject
>
> --------------------------
> I tend to stay away from connections based on fantasy, conspiracy theories
> and lizards.

>
> ************************************** See what's new athttp://www.aol.com

Lizards?

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 11:45:42 PM9/15/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 9/15/2007 7:35:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lostc...@yahoo.com writes:

Lizards?


------------
Yes google for David Icke.
You're out-of-the-loop if you don't already know that all positions of power
in the world are, and always have been controlled by shape-shifting lizards.

The Bush's are lizards also. Icke never really explains how the lizards can
be related to non-lizards through all the elaborate genealogy we've built
up, but then again HBHG never explained why Pierre Plantard should be singled
out among the millions of Merovingian descendents for special attention, or
why the rest of us weren't invited to join the Piory.

Will

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2007, 11:54:13 PM9/15/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 9/15/2007 4:45:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
volu...@kpnplanet.nl writes:

It seems that Geoffrey translated a book in the Welsh language into
Latin, that Walter the archdeacon of Oxford brought with him from his
travels to Wales.


=============
Hans I'd say a more accurate way to express this is "he SAID that he was
translating a book....". Other historians, perhaps most if not all, have argued
the possibility that he was lying through his teeth, i.e. that there was no
such book and Geoffrey just took some old legends and spun a support
structure around it.

taf

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 12:06:07 AM9/16/07
to
On Sep 15, 8:54 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/15/2007 4:45:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> voluc...@kpnplanet.nl writes:
>
> It seems that Geoffrey translated a book in the Welsh language into
> Latin, that Walter the archdeacon of Oxford brought with him from his
> travels to Wales.
>
> =============
> Hans I'd say a more accurate way to express this is "he SAID that he was
> translating a book....". Other historians, perhaps most if not all, have argued
> the possibility that he was lying through his teeth, i.e. that there was no
> such book and Geoffrey just took some old legends and spun a support
> structure around it.

Along these lines, Dumas makes a claim not so dissimilar when
introducing The Three Musketeers, and Edgar Rice Burroughs with A
Princess of Mars. It is such a commonly used literary artifice that
Eco begins The Name of the Rose with the words, "Naturally, a
manuscript."

taf

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 3:23:58 AM9/16/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Hmm after reading a later reviewer's comment that Tysilio ALSO records a
daughter of Claudius marrying Arviragus, now I shall have to read Tysilio and
co-relate it to what I've built from Geoffrey of Monmouth....

Here I thought this whole Cladius to- Britain connection was wholely
Geoffrey's invention.

Hovite

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 4:58:48 AM9/16/07
to
On Sep 15, 11:42 pm, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> Who are you talking about, when did they and in what work?

Anyone with any knowledge of history would known that what Geoffrey
wrote was rubbish. Here is just one example (others are more graphic):

"It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his
successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards,
was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an
inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons."

(William of Newburgh, about 1190)

Volucris

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 5:43:40 AM9/16/07
to

Hi Todd,

True. A book title can make the difference between taking it in the
hand or looking further. The cover text makes you decide to open it or
put it back. Many a book is of the category HBHG and DVC. Even then it
can be amusing to read how authors can spin a story out of nothing.

The 'claims with detailed references to original Welsh textual


sources, maps and genealogical charts, goes beyond well-known
Arthurian texts to their roots in ancient

Welsh manuscripts ande the history of the land' made me curious enough
to browse through.

I can't say that I regretted buying the book. As I remember I read it
from start to finish. But then again so many things are interesting
and others are more near the field that one can contribute to, so in
the end it ends up on the bookshelve. Summer 2000 was an expensive
year as I went home again with several extra kilograms literature. On
the subject I had bought 'The Holy Kingdom. The quest for the real
king Arthur '(Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett, Adrian Gilbert) and 'King
Arthur. The truth behind the legend' (Rodney Castleden). Of these
three books 'The Keys to Avalon' made made the most impression.

>From what I have reread so far the content and argumentation makes
sense (to an interested foreigner). In the end it is the factual
content that counts and not the cover. It certainly provides a deeper
understanding of the time before 1136 and on the quality of research.

Hans Vogels

Volucris

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 5:44:41 AM9/16/07
to
Muggezifter.

HV

On 16 sep, 04:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> So the past should only have ONE magical key?
>
> Hilarious!
>
> DSH
>

> "taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message

> > taf- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

Hovite

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 5:57:56 AM9/16/07
to
On Sep 15, 12:13 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

> Am I right in thinking this was Shakespeare's Cymbeline aka Kymbelinus ?

Yes.

> If so, he is also mentioned by Geoffrey, but as a different person. He states in particular that this Kymbelinus was "brought up by Augustus Caesar" which at least allows us a chronological peg at this point in his narrative.

Geoffrey didn't use chronology. You cannot apply dates to his fiction.

> He gives the father of this Kymbelinus as Tenuantis (aka Tasciovan), Duke of Cornwall and later King of all Britain, who must have lived per my framework from say 90/70 BC until at leat 50 BC

Tasciovanos was King of the Catuvellauni (Hertfordshire) from about 20
BC to 10 AD. He was indeed father of Cunobelinos.

Cornwall was the home of the Cornovii. Their god was the horned one,
Cernunnos. There were other Cornovii in Cheshire and Caithness.


>
> The father of this Tasciovan being King Lud

Lud is an invention to explain London. According to Geoffrey, Lud
rebuilt Trinovantum (New Troy) and renamed it after himself. But
London was never called Trinovantum, which is merely the genitive case
of Trinovantes, a people living in Essex, who did not come from Troy.

Lud is rather obviously not a British personal name, as the following
sequence shows:

Cassivellaunos
Tasciovanos
Cunobelinos
Caratacos

> The son of Kymbelinus is given as Arviragus who fought against Claudius' armies [which occurred in 43 AD]. This Arviragus is given there as marrying Claudius daughter, named Genuissa.

Claudius did not have a genuine daughter called Genuissa. His children
were: Claudius Drusus (died young), Claudia (not recognized), Antonia,
Octavia, and Britannicus.

The historical sons of Cunobelinos who fought Claudius were Caratacos
and Togodumnos.


Volucris

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 6:27:43 AM9/16/07
to
On 16 sep, 05:54, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/15/2007 4:45:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> voluc...@kpnplanet.nl writes:
>
> It seems that Geoffrey translated a book in the Welsh language into
> Latin, that Walter the archdeacon of Oxford brought with him from his
> travels to Wales.
>
> =============
> Hans I'd say a more accurate way to express this is "he SAID that he was
> translating a book....". Other historians, perhaps most if not all, have argued
> the possibility that he was lying through his teeth, i.e. that there was no
> such book and Geoffrey just took some old legends and spun a support
> structure around it.
>
> Will

That's the point Will.
Who said what en when, and what was his/their interest in the matter.

The Historia Regum Britanniae was written in the early 1130. It was
adapted in later editions as Tintagel (so called birthplace of Arthur)
was introduced after 1140 at the request of Robert, earl of
Gloucestor. In 1155 it was translated as 'Roman de Brut' into Norman
French in 1155 by Robert Wace and that too started an embellishmant by
poets and chroniclers. Historians and scientific scholars were not yet
invented in the time period.

In 1151 Geoffrey of Monmouth was made Bishop of St. Asaph in North
Wales and died in the year 1155. Robert de Torigny, the Abbot of Mont
St Michel, referred to ´Geoffrey of Monmouth who translated The
History of the Kings of Britain from British into Latin, who is the
bishop of Saint Asaph in North Wales´. So Geoffrey was already known
in his own time to have translated a book.

Hans Vogels

taf

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 8:01:48 AM9/16/07
to


Yeah, but I have a different one on my bookshelf that also goes beyond
the well-known texts into the other manuscript sources and also
presents a convincing argument, but reaches a completely different
conclusion. And there are many others besides yours and mine. About
once a year, some legitimate, serious scholar or scholars come out
with a revolutionary new insight that solves the problem, and they all
reach different solutions. I am sure yours and mine won't be the last,
either.

taf

Hovite

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 12:34:33 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> 'King
> Arthur. The truth behind the legend' (Rodney Castleden).

"... Current scholarship on the early Welsh sources is virtually
ignored. The dating of early Welsh texts is often ill founded and the
descriptions are confusing, misleading or simply wrong. These
criticisms are not quibbles over details, for these texts are among
the Arthurian documents cited and used as sources for the arguments
put forward. For example, had the author been in closer touch with
modern Welsh scholarship, he would have known better than to venture
to use the impossible "translation" of the poem, Marwnad Uthr Ben
(here Marwnad Uthyr Pendragon), still less to base any conclusion upon
it. The lack of knowledge of Welsh scholarship and thus of the status
of certain texts becomes particularly important in the closing section
of the book, when the "truth" behind Arthur's death is to be revealed.
The basis for the proposal that Arthur died at Whithorn is a triad in
one of the bogus documents forged in the eighteenth century by the
remarkable Iolo Morganwg. His so-called Third Series of triads has
been shown to be spurious since the early years of the last century
(it was suspect even to his contemporaries) and the text, together
with Iolo's "translation," has been discussed and annotated by Dr
Rachel Bromwich. Without this triad and the assumptions made, there is
no justification for associating Whithorn with Arthur or with the
location of his grave, and the elaborate scenario proposed here
collapses. ..."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_2_112/ai_79548489

Hovite

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 12:42:18 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> the subject I had bought 'The Holy Kingdom. The quest for the real
> king Arthur '(Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett, Adrian Gilbert)

"... With this point proved the rest of their argument falls to bits.
I could go on for pages, but this is not the place. The rest of the
book contains inaccuracies and leaps of faith based on the works of
South Wales antiquarians from the 19th century. These works where some
of the earliest attempts to look at welsh history, but are woefully
inadequate by today's standards. The Holy Kingdom may appear a good
story to those not familiar with Welsh manuscripts, but by ignoring
most of the modern academic works on Welsh history the authors have
achieved very little. ..."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/193122918X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop/105-1686123-7567627?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=1#R2H8W3GWOUT3P5

Hovite

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 12:49:38 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> 'The Keys to Avalon' made made the most impression.

"... The authors need to locate all the geographical names of the Brut
in Wales, so they actively seek candidates, based partly on the
similarity of modern names and partly on the hints given in the Middle
Welsh sources. They state that there is only one possibility for
identifying a Temys in Wales: the River Teme, a tributary of the
Severn. Whilst the modern name certainly contains the element *tam-
that would produce Tem- in Middle Welsh, the ­-ys ending of Temys
requires some sort of suffix in Brittonic, either *- s or *- ss . In
fact, the River Thames contains such an element, as it derives from
Brittonic *Tam ss , and there are Old English forms of the name with
the spellings Temis and Temes that parallel the Middle Welsh form
Temys precisely.

Their search for Llundain takes them back to Geoffrey of Monmouth,
where the name Kairlud is translated Londinium in Latin, but they
argue that the name is preserved in Ludlow, on the River Teme.
However, Ludlow is recorded in the twelfth century as Ludelaw, a name
containing Old English -hlæw ('hill') and a prefix that appears to be
Old English hl d ('loud'), probably a reference to the River Teme.

Kairlud is apparently an invention of Geoffrey, as it is not found in
earlier writers. Llundain, however, has a clear derivation that,
despite the most superficial of similarities, cannot be connected with
Ludlow. Llundain occurs as Cair Lundein in Old Welsh (the Harleian MS
of the Historia Brittonum Chapter 66a has Lundem in error, which has
made its way into the printed editions, while others have Lunden).
This Old Welsh form gives Old English Lunden and itself derives from a
Brittonic *L ndonion, attested as the Late Latin form Lundinium in
Ammianus Marcellinus's Res Gestae (xxvii.8, xxviii.3 and xx.1), the
earlier Londinium, London. ..."

http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/arthuriana/keys_to_avalon.html

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 6:17:17 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 14, 7:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 09/14/07 07:45:29 Pacific Standard Time, paulvhe...@gmail.com writes:
> Cunobelinos was King of the Catulvellauni, from about 10 to about 40
> AD. >>
>
> --------------------
> Am I right in thinking this was Shakespeare's Cymbeline aka Kymbelinus ?
>
> If so, he is also mentioned by Geoffrey, but as a different person. He states in particular that this Kymbelinus was "brought up by Augustus Caesar" which at least allows us a chronological peg at this point in his narrative.
>
> He gives the father of this Kymbelinus as Tenuantis (aka Tasciovan), Duke of Cornwall and later King of all Britain, who must have lived per my framework from say 90/70 BC until at leat 50 BC
>
> The father of this Tasciovan being King Lud
>
> The son of Kymbelinus is given as Arviragus who fought against Claudius' armies....

Tasciovanus was the son of Cassivelanus, kings of the Catuvellauni.
Caesar reinstated the heir of the kingdom of the Trinovantes, which
had been overcome by the Catuvellauni, and forbade Tasciovanus from
further harassing the Trinovantes (Caes._Bel Gall._5.18-22).

The continuing expansion of the Catuvellauni under Tasciovanus caused
Timcommius and Dumnobellanus, kings of the Atrebates and the Kentish
tribes respectively, to seek refuge in Rome. Augustus says,

"Ad mé supplices confug(_erunt_) regés Parthorum Tíida(_tes et
postea_) Phrát-(_es_) regis Phrati(_s filius_); § Medorum
(_Artavasdes_;_Adiabenorum
A_)rtaxa[res; § Britann(o)rum Dumnobellau(_nus_) et
Tim......." ["Kings of the Parthians, Tiridates, and later Phrates,
took refuge with me as suppliants; of the Medes, Artavasdes; of the
Adiabeni, Artaxares; of the Britains, Dumnobellaunus, and
Tim......." [_Res gestae divi Augustae_5.32, trans. F. W. Shipley
(Loeb). The lacunae in the Latin text is supplemented in the English
translation by the Greek version of the_Res gestae_from the_Monumentum
Ancyranum_(which I am not reproducing).]

Cunobelinus (d._c_.AD 40), the son of Tasciovanus, reigned for about
thirty or forty years. It was the threat of the continuing expansion
of the Catevellauni kingdom which served as a pretext for the invasion
of Britain by Claudius in 43. Dio Cassius, who is the only source on
this war (60.19-23), names Caratacus and Togodumnus as sons of
Cunobelinus.

Christopher Ingham


Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 8:00:17 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 16, 6:17 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Caesar reinstated the heir of the kingdom of the Trinovantes, which
> had been overcome by the Catuvellauni, and forbade Tasciovanus from

For "forbade Tasciovanus," read "forbade Cassivelaunus."

> "Ad mé supplices confug(_erunt_) regés Parthorum Tíida(_tes et

For "Tíida(_tes et," read "Tírida(_tes et."

Christopher Ingham

lostc...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2007, 8:07:10 PM9/16/07
to
On Sep 15, 8:45 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/15/2007 7:35:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>

Devastating news...I love lizards. They're my favorite animals. They
run all over my property, up and down my walls inside & out, do threat
display pushups when they see me - fabulous little things. And this
guy says they're related to Bush!?

Volucris

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 1:40:18 PM9/17/07
to
Thanks Paul, for this illuminating reference to a clear cut answer on
the internet. I've added the remarks of the author to the text of my
book as a clear warning that if it looks interesting and reads
interesting, it still can be suggestively misleading concerning to the
actual facts and knowledge.

Hans Vogels

Volucris

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 1:45:03 PM9/17/07
to
Thanks Paul,

I think that the co-author disagrees but the name Adrian Gilbert is
more associated with sensasional then with serious scientific
authorship.

Hans Vogels

On 16 sep, 18:42, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
>
> > the subject I had bought 'The Holy Kingdom. The quest for the real
> > king Arthur '(Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett, Adrian Gilbert)
>
> "... With this point proved the rest of their argument falls to bits.
> I could go on for pages, but this is not the place. The rest of the
> book contains inaccuracies and leaps of faith based on the works of
> South Wales antiquarians from the 19th century. These works where some
> of the earliest attempts to look at welsh history, but are woefully
> inadequate by today's standards. The Holy Kingdom may appear a good
> story to those not familiar with Welsh manuscripts, but by ignoring
> most of the modern academic works on Welsh history the authors have
> achieved very little. ..."
>

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/193122918X/ref=cm_c...


Volucris

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 1:57:31 PM9/17/07
to
Paul,

Thanks for the informative reference. At the time it looked like a
nice book for a interested outstander. In the English speaking
countries there seems to be so much more interesting books published
then in Holland. When abroad I ocasionly tend to indulge my historic
curiousity.

Hans Vogels

Volucris

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 2:33:03 PM9/17/07
to
Hello Todd,

You're right on that score. Is the one on your bookshelve of the ' The
Age of Arthur ' quality? As that book is from 1973 I can imagine that
since then there must undoubtly be a more recent updated scholarly
publication available?

Hans Vogels

>
> Yeah, but I have a different one on my bookshelf that also goes beyond
> the well-known texts into the other manuscript sources and also
> presents a convincing argument, but reaches a completely different
> conclusion. And there are many others besides yours and mine. About
> once a year, some legitimate, serious scholar or scholars come out
> with a revolutionary new insight that solves the problem, and they all
> reach different solutions. I am sure yours and mine won't be the last,
> either.
>

> taf- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 4:14:05 PM9/17/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Yes I agree that it seems reasonable that the Brut by Tysilio manuscripts in Welsh are not in fact translations from Geoffrey's Latin, but rather are, copies of the work which he translated into Latin.

The idea isn't new, I think we had a good row about it on Wikipedia a few years ago, based on a paper some decades old claiming the same thing (I don't recall the details).

Google Books purports to have this Brut, but the work they link is merely Geoffrey again. It's possible the Brut has never been translated independently into English. It would certainly be useful were the surviving manuscripts all collated and a scholarly edition published.

Will

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 4:17:25 PM9/17/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/16/07 03:00:25 Pacific Standard Time, paulv...@gmail.com writes:
Geoffrey didn't use chronology. You cannot apply dates to his fiction. >>

=============
Geoffrey used dates in his work in a few places. He also named people who we know are real such as Claudius. He mentions in several places things like "this occurred at the same time as Christ was born", or "this occurred when Solomon was king" or other things like that. So it is possible to apply dates to his work, sometimes firm dates such as when Claudius invaded Britain, sometimes squishy dates like when Moses was crossing the Red Sea.

I'm not the first person to try, there is an edition of his work on Google Books which purports to date the reigns of each king. Of course, just like trying to apply dates to all the events in the Bible, you run into problems which do not have simple solutions.

Will

taf

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 4:17:57 PM9/17/07
to
On Sep 17, 11:33 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

> You're right on that score. Is the one on your bookshelve of the ' The
> Age of Arthur ' quality?

No, it is of the "We have finally discovered the fascinating and
previously unsuspected truth behind the mystery" variety.

> As that book is from 1973 I can imagine that
> since then there must undoubtly be a more recent updated scholarly
> publication available?

I don't know that there is. A historical Arthur has lost favor in the
academic press, while the popular press needs a hook - mystery
sources, startling conclusions, conspiracies by the main stream.

Along these lines, has anyone seen a scholarly review of Tolstoy's
work on Merlin. It started fairly convincing, but seemed to grow
much less so as it went along.

taf

WJhonson

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 4:41:55 PM9/17/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<<In a message dated 09/16/07 03:00:25 Pacific Standard Time, paulv...@gmail.com writes:
Claudius did not have a genuine daughter called Genuissa. His children
were: Claudius Drusus (died young), Claudia (not recognized), Antonia,
Octavia, and Britannicus. >>
==================
By his first wife, Plautia Urgulanilla, Claudius had:
*Claudius Drusus choked to death on a pear, sometime between 22 and 28
*Claudia Antonia, who was repudiated by her father.

Claudius divorced Plautia on the grounds of Adultery abt 24. Very convenient that Drusus died isn't it.

Claudius married his second wife Aelia Paetina in 28 and they divorced in 31
By this second wife he had:
*Claudia Antonia who married firstly Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 43 but him dying between 45 and 50 allowed her to marry secondly Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix "consul in 52"

Sources disagree as to *why* Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus died, but they agree he was murdered or executed (as you will).

Felix was exiled in 59 and murdered in 62 by order of Nero. Claudia managed to survive until 66 when she was executed by order of Nero. They had a son Cornelius who died at age 2.

Claudius married his third wife Valeria Messalina who was also related to him in the following way :

Claudius' mother's mother's father was Gaius Octavius, Governor of Macedonia who died in 58 BC. Gaius married Atia Balba Caesoria daughter of Marcus Atius Balbus a Senator.

Messalina's father's mother's mother's father was this same couple Gaius Octavius and Atia Balba Caesoria.

Claudius and Messalina had two children:
*Claudia Octavia March 40 who married Nero and was executed 8 Jun 62 on his order
*Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus born 12 Feb 41 poisoned in 55

Claudius married fourthly in 49 to Julia Vipsania Agrippina Minor, his cousin, and the mother of Nero his successor.

Claudius and his fourth wife were even more closely related, both being descendents of Marc Antony by Octavia and also the "wicked" Livia Drusilla by her first husband Tiberius Claudius Nero. Julia was Claudius' niece....

They had no children.

Claudius died 13 Oct 54 "perhaps poisoned by his fourth wife, his niece Agrippina". That fourth wife, mother of Nero was executed on his order Mar 59,

Nero died without children and thus ended the Julio-Claudian house. They all wiped each other out.

Will Johnson

Christopher Ingham

unread,
Sep 17, 2007, 11:44:23 PM9/17/07
to
On Sep 17, 4:41 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> By his first wife, Plautia Urgulanilla, Claudius had:
> *Claudius Drusus choked to death on a pear, sometime between 22 and 28
> *Claudia Antonia, who was repudiated by her father.
>
> Claudius divorced Plautia on the grounds of Adultery abt 24. Very convenient that Drusus died isn't it.

Barbara Levick, (_Claudius_[1990]), after determining that Claudius
suffered from cerebral palsy (pp. 13, 200n.7), has this to say about
Claudius Drusus (p. 23): "The marriage [to Plautia Urgulanilla]
produced offspring, a son asphyxiated in adolescence as he played at
throwing up a pear and catching it in his mouth (physical agility
might well preoccupy a son of Claudius...."

Slightly OT.

Christopher Ingham

bettycam...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2014, 5:43:03 PM4/22/14
to
My research shows that Cardoc King of Siluria was the son of Bran Fendigold "the blessed." AP Llyr Lieddiarth born 20 BC

bettycam...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2014, 5:44:22 PM4/22/14
to
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 18:43:03 UTC-3, bettycam...@gmail.com wrote:
> My research shows that Cardoc King of Siluria was the son of Bran Fendigold "the blessed." AP Llyr Lieddiarth born 20 BC and his mother was Anna Arimathea.

Hans Vogels

unread,
Apr 23, 2014, 2:04:53 AM4/23/14
to
Op dinsdag 22 april 2014 23:43:03 UTC+2 schreef bettycam...@gmail.com:
> My research shows that Cardoc King of Siluria was the son of Bran Fendigold "the blessed." AP Llyr Lieddiarth born 20 BC

You probably intended to write: my opinion is that .... As you do not provide a basis for this "fact" is must be a presumption.

Hans Vogels

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Apr 23, 2014, 8:07:07 PM4/23/14
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<bettycam...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6aac95df-b8c1-4c59...@googlegroups.com...
> My research shows that Cardoc King of Siluria was the son of Bran Fendigold "the blessed." AP Llyr Lieddiarth born 20 BC

Unfortunately, these entirely mythical individuals come from various discredited genealogies which are incessantly repeated by amateur genealogists (and also by some who should know better). None of the above individuals ever existed, and any source which claims that they did is not trustworthy.

Stewart Baldwin
0 new messages