About The Author

Francis Lot
The Reverend Francis Uriah Lot was born in 1943 and lives in Cambodia. His uncle was the French scholar Ferdinand Lot. Francis Lot started out in his early life working for a French missionary organisation and then retired from a life of service. He then went into business in Cambodia after the war there. The Reverend Lot speaks two Asian languages and three European, and his grasp of English comes from his English wife.

What seems like a life-long interest in the ‘The Matter of Britain’ came about when he inherited volumes of literature and manuscripts relating to the ‘Matter of Britain’ in 1972. By reading the subject matter of the vast collection, his interest was in solving what seemed to be a historical conundrum. So, he too embarked on the same path that Grail hunters, Arthurian scholars, academics and researchers have been on since the turn of the twentieth century.

 When Francis Lot first saw the decrypted geometry derived from the obtuse Latin prophecy of Melkin, first decoded by Kim Yale in 2010; Francis knew that it would be very unlikely that the Melkin Prophecy’s unintelligible Latin was able to pin point an Island by chance, especially by geometric decryption of the Latin wording.

The Reverend Lot deduced there must be some validity to the prophecy of Melkin and that it was not a fake, given its close association to the Island of Ynis Witrin donated to Glastonbury abbey by the King of Devon in 601 AD. The Reverend Lot understood that the cryptic information revealed in the so called prophecy i.e. the geometry of the thirteen degrees and the 104 mile line could only be pertaining to a location of the grave of Joseph of Arimathea on the Island in Devon.

So, Francis Lot set out like so many before him, to find how the Island of Avalon (Insula Avallonis) appeared in Glastonbury legend alongside Geoffrey of Monmouth’s invention. Hence, the following volume; written in an untutored hand and in uncomfortable English phrases with sentences to motivate the complacency of modern scholars.

The Reverend Lot has nothing personal against any scholar named in this script, but his disappointment is aimed at scholar’s intractability to recognise what has been open and in the public domain for several years and is incontrovertibly true. Not one scholar to date has been able to refute the findings of his research. Instead they say ‘we don’t believe it’. The conclusions of this work are not matters of belief!!

Francis Lot’s vexation is aimed at the scholars still teaching students what is undoubtedly incorrect with the knowledge today that Geoffrey of Monmouth was indeed Henry Blois, while understanding Glastonbury lore and the Grail legends were promulgated by Henry Blois. It is now evident that the Abbot of Glastonbury is the ‘Culprit’ and architect behind the ‘Matter of Britain’ by rational researchers.

The disjointed aspect of modern scholarship is akin to the separated schools of science in the late nineteenth century where little overlap hindered the progression of knowledge. So we have it today, where scholars and biographers of Henry Blois have become compilateurs of material from 12th century chroniclers; and thus form an opinion about Henry Blois based solely on opinions of contemporaries. Like wise with no overlap of knowledge, students of the HRB and ‘Geoffrey’s’ prophecies of Merlin can only contemplate what has been taught by previous scholars; all who suspect there is ‘something about Geoffrey’; but none have been able to conceive that maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth was not a real person. This is simply because of the nature of inherited knowledge in the award system of doctoral degrees in Medieval scholarship being handed out by teachers and mentors. Free thinking students are generally not awarded a PhD unless they concur with the teachings of the mentor awarding the honour.

Commentators today understand Geoffrey of Monmouth is always one step ahead but have no idea why. So, experts on ‘Geoffrey’  are having to qualify all  their conclusions as ‘temporary or provisional’ until some new material comes to light which contradicts previous theories on ‘Geoffrey’ and his work or the motives behind his composition of HRB.  They still refuse to budge on several self debilitating ‘red lines’ which blind them to the answers they seek; the main being the acceptance that ‘Geoffrey’ was a nom de plume.

There is also the same blindness encountered with the authorship of HRB when it comes to recognising the primordial originator of the Grail legends. There is simply no crossover of  scholar’s understanding between Glastonbury Lore, Arthuriana and the known originator of Grail literature who has left his name in several forms as a teasing clue, such as: Master Blehis, Maistre Blohis, Blihos-Bliheris, Bleheris, Bleobleheris, Bledhericus, Breri or Blaise, or even ‘Blihos’ being an anagram for H Blois; all of which are named sources or authorities of the Grail stories.

The most important of all Grail stories is about Perceval where we also witness in the Bliocadran, Perceval’s father is even called ‘Bliocadran’ (the face or ‘Dial’ of Blois in the shadows),  while  Chrétien does not even mention Bliocadran; so one can hardly credit Chrétien as the source of Grail legend with so many ‘Blois’ sounding sources!!! 

Any modern scholar who still advocates that Henry Blois did not have a copy of the Melkin prophecy and advocates the Melkin prophecy a fake, should first ask himself how did the Grail relate to Glastonbury and whose name is best known as the originator of Grail literature and…. is the enigmatic duo fassula the template for Henry Blois’ Sang Real? 

If Master Blehis, Breri, Blaise, Bledhericus, Bleheris, Blihos Bleheris and material seen in the Bliocadran don’t in anyway give a clue that ‘Blihos’ might make an anagram of H. Blois and H Blois was Abbot of Glastonbury whose family are known Grail story propagators at the court of Champagne…. then of course you too are in the hallowed company of Lagorio and Carley and Crick and Shoaf etc. etc. etc.

Even the sedentary Medievalist scholar grasping his ‘entry certificate into academia’ should recognise he is being made to look like an ass by Henry Blois; especially because Blihos-Bliheris is a person ‘who no man at Arthur’s court knew’; Blihos Bleheris is Robert de Boron’s greatest teller of tales at court; Master Blihis, ‘who knew the Grail mystery’, and gave solemn counselling about its revelation; the Blihos-Bliheris, ‘who knew the Grail’, and many other tales’; the Bréri, who knew all the legendary tales concerning the princes of Britain; and the famous story-teller Bledhericus.  No modern scholar seems to grasp the connection between King Arthur and Avalon in HRB, eventually and serendipitously being located at Glastonbury by the Abbot of Glastonbury, in the period the Grail legends were promulgated by his close family; unless they open their eyes to the obvious. 

‘Geoffrey’ is the abbot of Glastonbury.  In ‘Geoffrey’s’ VM, Henry Blois leaves no doubt c.1155 that Insula Pomorum is commensurate with Glastonbury and confirms this propaganda in his interpolations into Willliam of Malmesbury’s ‘Antiquities of Glastonbury Church’ by citing Avalon also as the same location.

 No scholar today recognises Henry Blois’ hand in the promulgation of Arthuriana. It is commonly understood by present day scholars that whoever wrote the Merlin prophecies also had to have written the History of the Kings of Britain.  John of Cornwall’s rendition of the Merlin Prophecies is elucidated at the end of this work and shows quite clearly that Henry Blois the brother of King Stephen for a period of three years (while in self imposed exile at Clugny) had designs upon becoming king of England. Few scholars understand that the prophecy of the ‘seven kings’ elucidates this clearly.  There is a definitive brick wall put up by scholars who deny Henry Blois had any designs for power, nor do they accept that Henry Blois is responsible for composing the History of the Kings of Britain and the Arthuriana of Grail legend.

Our self appointed expert on the subject James Carley clearly denies Henry Blois, the brother of King Stephen, as author of the Merlin Prophecies and the HRB and yet pontificates:

Geoffrey’s Arthur stood as an emblem of a unified kingdom; by analogy the kings of England needed only to show that they were legitimate successors to Arthur, both literally through their genealogies and also metaphorically in their role as Arthur redivivus, in order to assert their sovereignty over the whole island.  Yet this supposed ‘teacher’ and a whole host of  other wannabe experts never make the connection that Henry Blois implies this in the prophecies of Merlin and provides ample examples of just this devise in the text of HRB which was composed (to a point) but purposefully made public just after the beginning of the Anarchy so that the barons would not rebel against his brother Stephen. 

So, we await a new less indoctrinated and open minded set of student Medievalist scholars to overcome the old intractable dogma of previously held erroneous theoretical positions on the Matter of Britain founded on incorrect a priori.

The Reverend Francis is sanguine about the possibility of this generation of fading but unbending scholars ever admitting there is truth to his work but instead Francis relies on what is written at the end of the Melkin prophecy regarding Joseph of Arimathea: “when his tomb is discovered, it will be seen whole and untouched and will be open to the whole world.  Open shall these things be and told to the living”.