My initial aim, as stated in the preface, was to bring to the attention of archaelogists and scholars that bones of Joseph of Arimathea were on Burgh Island. Others have come to the same conclusion before me but this is so unthinkable for mainstream academia to comprehend.  The relics have not been unearthed simply because our scholars have advised the owner of Burgh Island that the prophecy of Melkin is a fake and the geometry displayed therein has no substance. My annoyance is at their incompetence. It is a question of competency versus credentials. One does not have to be an authority to realise that all the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy is exact and this could not happen by chance. The reason no scholar has counteracted what Yale and Goldsworthy have pointed out is simply because there is no way to counteract the truth without seeming in denial, especially in Carley and Crick’s case.

There are also glaring questions to which we may never find an answer and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line deriving from the Beltane line or English Meridian as Melkin calls it. We can understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical mile line, but how is it that that line passes through Montacute and terminates on Burgh Island? It is these types of questions which have made the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible. All the icons mentioned in the Melkin prophecy are relevant to its solution; thus, the thirteen degrees are relevant to the sphaerula at Avebury at the bifurcation of the line conveyed by the prophecy of Melkin; but maybe it is the simple geometric solution that evade’s scholars intellect.

So, let us recap on how we got here and how the scholastic community missed what common sense (for the most part) lights upon. If we start with the prophecies of Merlin and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I have exposed in this exposé…. we know Henry Blois must have written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the prophecies is the author of the HRB and VM and the JC version.

Once we understand that it is Henry Blois, we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth. We can now also clearly understand the circumstances and stages under which HRB was composed and that the misinformation regarding the person of ‘Geoffrey’ was meant to mislead, to mask Henry’s authorship. We then should ask, what other manuscript material has been tampered with? Now, someone who links themselves so closely with Cicero and who accounts authorship greater than any worth is hardly not going to write anything in his lifetime. So, scholars even if they do stick their head above the parapet will dismiss my findings on the basis that I have cited too many works composed by Henry Blois. Consider Cicero’s output!!!

We find that after Henry’s initial authorial foray with the psuedo history and Primary historia, it is his next endeavour which sets him on a course; Caradoc’s life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury.

Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from the book connecting Arthur to Glastonbury and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other specific expansions in Roman de Brut which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same author. We also can see plainly the author of HRB has placed his falsely historical fight against the Romans in Burgundy where he knows the lay of the land unlike a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’

So, if we follow the Glastonbury connection, because Henry was Abbot there…. we find Malmesbury’s book (DA) convinces us that Avalon is Glastonbury. The book was not only dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name Avalon was indeed invented by Henry Blois…. the author of HRB. Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to within yards, has the name Avalon on it and yet we now know Henry has transposed that name from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB and replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin Prophecy.

Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy originally have on it? Then we find that an Island mentioned by William of Malmesbury is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its King.

Logically, if the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the prophecy), locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could be Ineswitrin. When we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin, we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. We should also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury?

We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and the book of DA which was dedicated to Henry Blois. We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130 so the author of HRB’s famous colophon is misdirecting us.  We find also that an episode from Caradoc’s book is found on the Modena archivolt before 1140; just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia at Bec. So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough clout to have commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap episode at Glastonbury in his concocted life of Gildas.

Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we find that Diodorus describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west peninsula of Britain and his description of an Island matches Burgh Island. We have confirmation that Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas referred, because tin Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with an account from Strabo which explains how the tin ingots came to be found at the head of the Erm estuary.

The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’; and this island which sold tin to the ancient world had the biggest deposit of tin just 12 miles away and ample rivers behind the island for tin streaming and mining. Once the island of Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon, we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant.

Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us to the same Island purporting to contain Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre…. with an amazing display of geometric precision. We can then establish why this Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin Prophecy; we find that the only two places to which Joseph is assigned a burial place in literature i.e. Montacute and Ineswitrin….. are these two places existing on ‘a line’ that Melkin, through an encrypted document, has asked us to construct such ‘a line’, providing angle, length, and both start and termination points…..which terminates on an Island in Devon called Ineswitrin. This line, 104 miles long as melkin states, bifurcates at 13 degrees as stated by Melkin the geometer in his cryptic geometric message.

We then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked, and we find that the author of the book HRB who first mentions Avalon is the abbot of Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy is found which links Avalon to Joseph. Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus and Robert de Boron’s allusion to Vaus d’ Avaron. If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?

We see it in DA as both King Arthur and Joseph are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which anachronistically joins Arthur to Joseph emanates from the Blois region and its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patrons of Chrétien and Walter Map.

This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental literature (supplied by the like of Bihos-Bleheris); but also, in a tract called the Perlesvaus. The Perlesvaus tract relates to the Old church at Glastonbury and its ‘lead roof’. It mentions in the colophon to Perlesvaus that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury…. but more importantly, it speaks of the vessel which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin at Glastonbury.

We then find that features of the Melkin prophecy relate to the composition of the HRB in that the Island of Avalon which has been substituted by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin is named as the mysterious island where Arthur is last seen. This island, as we all know, turns out to be Glastonbury, established for the naïve by the existence of a bogus ‘leaden cross’. The cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where it is, obviating where it is found is in Avalon; not forgetting, Avalon is Henry’s own invention in HRB from a town in his family’s region.

Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the finding of Joseph’s relics in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being named as the last place Arthur is seen), that King Arthur (if we are naïve) was also buried and found in Avalon. We see that the Grail object is modelled on the duo fassula (if we have our eyes open).

Also, the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself. We find that two pieces of evidence i.e. the purchase of Looe island and the search at Montacute indicate Henry Blois is looking for Ineswitrin.  Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the same object in la quête du Graal or Chrétien de Troyes Perceval or le Conte du Graal. Here it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object i.e. the Grail, that is said by the  Melkin prophecy to be in the tomb along with Joseph’s relics.

Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which gullible scholars search for meaning in the Grail procession.867 This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked: Glastonbury and Henry Blois.

867The Grail procession is a fatuous invention with seemingly mystical relevance, which in fact uses two other icons, the Menorah and the lance mentioned in the Gospel of John 19:34, One of the soldiers, however, made a thrust at His (Jesus) side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out. Henry recognises the duo fassula as a religious object but has no idea what it is, except from the allusion to two vessels in the prophecy. However, at the battle of Ascalon where Henry’s father was killed, Raymond of Aguilers carried the relic of the Holy Lance which had incredibly been discovered recently at Antioch.

The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to and interpolated by Henry Blois.  We know it could only be him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical Glastonbury because Gerald says the location of Arthur’s body was previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.

If we ignore the ignorant decrees of the experts…. it could only be Henry Blois (who has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location, because whoever planted the body knew where he had located it between the pyramids. It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon, in Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely accepted) between his death and Arthur’s disinterment. It could only be Henry Blois for he is the first to imply Insula pomorum is at Glastonbury c.1155. 

Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who pointed out where to find the grave.

It does not take a huge amount of imagination to understand that his inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave, ‘to be found in the future’, is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the future; overtly spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in Devon because of the 601 charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist there (and the reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin merchant). Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is not a fake, but was extant in the era of Henry Blois. Quod erat demonstrandum; unless of course, you have the credentials and profess to understand more than mere mortals but have been blinded by the very fact you account yourself an expert.

What has prevented these events coming to light is simply the arrogance of the scholars. They have made some money on the gravy train regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation postulating untenable positions employing a method peculiar to the modern medievalist scholars much like a pick and mix. Some scholars have positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. So practised is this methodology, that one references the utterances of others in reverence of their learning and thereby has an inverted pyramid been built over the last two hundred years; unfortunately, the cap stone is the last thing to be added which those builders had denied and the whole edifice comes crashing down.

I do not pretend accuracy in every statement, far from it; but I have put forward an explanation because I have understood that no scholar wants the gravy train to stop. Joining the dots goes against the very nature of Medieval scholarship; focus on one area of expertise has its just rewards. Without an overall explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail; hence, the trail of flawed and unfounded theories concerning our three genres of study. Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.

There are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s erroneous edifice is built and when these a prioris are not accepted (founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture emerges.

But before anything can begin to unfold, comprehending the Matter of Britain begins with the acceptance that Henry Blois is ‘Geoffrey’. The only way to that conclusion initially is through the prophecies of Merlin and then through the text of HRB where Henry Blois has left his affilliations.

Firstly, if one does not insist that any mention of Arthur buried in Avalon could only transpire by interpolation after the exhumation of Arthur’s supposed bones; the answer to several questions become more discernible, because several solutions become tenable…. which, by spurious chronology had been previously unacceptable as a red line dreamed up by modern scholar’s deductions. To go beyond a red line would then invalidate another false assumption and heaven forbid we might contradict the hallowed utterance of a previous member of the cabal; until we see a teetering edifice is exposed built upon a faulty foundation.

Avalon had existed at Glastonbury since Henry’s death and the place of Arthur’s burial was pointed out in DA.

  We do not have to ask why Gerald is saying there is previous knowledge of the location; why dig in that spot etc. The only previous solution before was to ignore his testimony!!! Who cares when the dig happened; it is how and why it happened.

If we accept the location between the pyramids was presented in DA which indicated where Arthur and his wife were buried before the dig transpired; we have to accept it was Henry Blois all the evidence considered.  There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before Arthur’s disinterment. The reason we should allow this possibility is there is no other information surrounding the dig given in DA. Someone had to have set up the gravesite. If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation, after the disinterment; some circumstances about the dig would have been related in DA and certainly the cross would have been mentioned. Especially, if the whole idea was to make capital and Henry de Sully was responsible.

Henry Blois provided the only information he could before the event while remaining incognito. The entire account of Arthur’s disinterment would not have been left in the hands of Gerald to relate If Henry de Sully was the culprit for the fraud.  Once this position is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of the events but also who did what and who wrote what when.

If there is no intransigence and insistence that Avalon was not previously known as Glastonbury before the ‘leaden cross’ was discovered, this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois death and the disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury at least was known at the abbey because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin and written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guinevere’s burial at Glastonbury, could have existed prior to the disinterment.

Therefore, it enables us also to implicate Henry Blois as the original inventor of Grail material which ties the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald to have lived ‘shortly before our time’.868 He has now become a chronological possibility as a promulgator of early Grail material as the similarity of his name is found always connected as the originator of Grail literature. Just as Henry Blois had deposited the original HRB edition at the abbey of Bec to be discovered, in the Queste it is even spelled out that  “the adventures of the Holy Grail as he had seen them were put in writing and kept in the book depository of Salisbury,(the Cathedral Library) from where Master Walter Map drew them in order to make his book of the Holy Grail for the love of King Henry, his Lord”. Walter Map is hardly the originator at the court of Champagne as many scholars has suggested.

868The passage in which Gerald of Wales refers to Bledhericus, famosus ille fabulator who tempora nostra paulo praevenit, was written c. 1193.  So, Gerald has no idea that the man he refers to, who had died 20 years previously, was in fact his patron in Gerald’s youth.

But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and allows that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation; and of course, mention of him to be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171 at Henry Blois’s death.

Lastly, the most despicable act of negligence and intransigence by modern scholarship is the insistence that Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On this subject in particular there are only misleading haughty pronouncements of hot air. The denial of the geometry found in the prophecy of Melkin could only be maintained by professor Carley with a good reason to reject it; and it is not the geometry which lacks veracity.  It is his ludicrous yet bizzare notion that Melkin’s Abbadare is to be identified with Baybars (in Arabic al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-Bunduqdari), Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who had captured the fortress of Safed, Melkin’s ‘Saphat,’. No No No. Melkin was not talking about a fortress of Safed, he was trying to show us on which Island Joseph of Arimathea was buried.

It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after one’s name, and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury. The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to the continent.

The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA; and then miraculously Joseph lore at Glastonbury just evolved by a fortuitous convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous; especially in terms of storyline where much of this consolidated convergence is supposedly carried out by Robert de Boron on behalf of ‘Geoffrey’, William of Malmesbury, and Master Blehis.  Well done Robert!!!!

If we don’t recognise Henry Blois as supplier of all material to Robert, then Robert is a very clever chap since he never was in possession of the prophecy of Melkin to associate the Grail with Joseph. Nor would he take it upon himself to tie together Merlin from the Vita Merlini with Ambrosius Merlin from HRB; wrapping up so many inconsistencies to make a consolidated Merlin. So, to think that Robert’s/Henry/s story of Percival is not heard at the Court of Champagne while Henry is alive is untenable as an opinion or theory. Henry Blois’ invention is the start of the edifice of the Grail that all continuators including Chrétien get their inspiration from. It is the architect who managed affairs at Glastonbury who ties Joseph and the Grail to Glastonbury, but it is Henry’s ‘Percival’ not Robert’s that gives the Grail its mystical origins in the trappings of a tale.

This exposé may have seemed like a rant against scholarship and expertise and it is plain to see I excel in neither in my turgid and wearisome report. My attribute is that I am not a scholar and as I said at the beginning of this exposé …. what I have said is verifiable.

Now, the reader may enquire how it is that I know Joseph’s relics exist on Burgh Island. There are two ways of answering this and only one would you find credible and that is the explanation found in these pages. My credibility lies in the fact that hopefully the reader has been able to follow my erratic (and apparently mad) explanation of how the Matter of Britain transpired. The proof is in the pie. But unless one presents the facts so that scholars can understand it; ‘Geoffrey’ will continue to be real to them and Joseph and Jesus’ relics will never see the light of day; but most importantly of all to the modern world; the Roman religion will continue to perpetuate the lie.

F. U. Lot. 

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This