There are things about British history that many of you do not realise. We have mentioned already about the Romans being invited to Britain to aid in tribal wars, rather than them invading us. We have also mentioned that there is no evidence whatsoever about a Celtic invasion of Britain. In fact it was made up by the Anglo - Saxons to remove our true heritage and leave us more open to their history. We also know that many University Professors also believe that their was no Celtic invasion or mass settlement.
In 1714 King George I became king of Britain, this was around the time that British history was to become a thing of the past, and the new false history would begin due to the court historians making it more acceptable to the House of Hanover. It was though only when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert Saxe-Coberg-Gotha that this suppression of the true history of Britain really took hold, through the newly appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University Bishop William Stubbs (1866). It was Bishop Stubbs who set about completely reforming the subject and suppressing all the texts from before this time. He based his new approach to our history around the newly emerging science of archaeology. With this approach he revised all British history within all our schools and universities, which todays archaeologists and historians still swear by.
The Anglo - Saxon invasion is another made up piece of history. The true story is that when they came to this land to settle they found it primarily empty due to the comet of 562AD that devastated Britain and left it inhabitable for about a decade. The true British having left for Britanny and other parts of Europe till they could return. When they did return they found these Anglo - Saxons here and began to push them back out. These are the tribal wars that you hear about but are not told the entire truth surrounding them.
Yes we mention a comet in the year 562AD, that most of you will not have heard of, or read about or even been told by any teacher at school, but it did happen. If you ask they will tell you it never happened. Well, this comet is actually mentioned by various people writing about our history such as Gildas, Sir Thomas Mallory and Tysiios. All these writings are dismissed and ignored by archaeologists and historians. If these people were not telling the truth then why would there be a stone in St. Pauls, London that was found in 1850 telling the story of the comet, because it does not fit in with current thinking.
Just like the above these same historians and archaeologists tell you that the ancient British did not leave written records, but they did. These ancient texts still remain mainly in other countries and in Wales but these again are dismissed as fairy stories. This was mainly due to historians and archaeologists of the past saying that well, Troy does not exist, so these histories of Britain that also mention Troy are not real. Since then though most people now know that Troy was actually discovered in 1876, so is fact and not fiction. So why is British history still being ignored.
It is like they believe that most of these ancient writers about our land are idiots that got it wrong. Yes they may have altered the writings for political and religious viewpoints of the time, but the fact still remains that they still show Britain in a good light. So these people like Gildas, Sir Thomas Mallory, Julius Caesar, Homer and Marcellinus just to name a few all got it wrong, I don't think so.
For instance Marcellinus states that the Greeks got their alphabet from the British. We also have Julius Caesar saying that the British alphabet was similar to the Greeks.
Another myth surrounding the ancient British is that of the Roman invasion of Britain and what they did for us. Now Tacitus tells us that "In Britain after the captivity of Caradoc. the Romans were repeatedly defeated and put to the rout by the single state of the Silures alone". The Silures by the way were a tribal kingdom from the South West of Britain. We also know that the Britons used chariots for war as Diodorus Siculus (60BC) states: "The Britons live in the same manner that the ancients did: they fight in chariots, as the ancient heroes of Greece are said to have done in the Trojan wars". These chariots are what were used by the Britons when they sent the Romans packing in 55 and 54BC. This to me does not sound like a land of Barbarians who were invaded and run by Romans. This sounds more like a civilized society who could keep anyone from their land. We do also know that in times of invasion all the states of Britain would join together under the leadership of the Pendragon. So if the Romans could not defeat a single state here, then how could they have invaded and controlled us. It just does not make any sense. Its like historians telling you that the Romans built our roads, when you can see from what ancient writers wrote on the country that we used chariots. Surely we would have roads for these.
Now if you read most books on ancient Briton you will notice one strange thing about them, they all start generally with the Celts and the Romans. This seems strange that they do not dwell much on before this time, when most of our countryside is of monuments to the peoples that date from about 1000BC and before. Is this because we were too civilized for world history.
In a book which is a reprint of an article from the "Archaeologia Cambrensis", New Series, 1854 titled "An Account of Two Druidical Circles and a Roman Camp on a mountain near Trecastle in Brecknockshire by William Rees" there is a footnote by Edd. Arch. Camb. that gives two fascinating and interesting ideas and facts surrounding stone circles. Even though it states that these are Druidical Circles which is obviously incorrect, but was probably a thing of the time, it mentions what peasants actual thought stone circles were used for and also contains information about Phoenician monuments that resembled Stonehenge in every detail. This just shows, how modern history keeps old information quiet. As these are two details that even some of the most knowledgable people on stone circles will not of heard of or about.
The following is the footnote in its entirety:
"1 The popular belief of the peasantry respecting these circles is, that they were formed for the purpose of the celebration of Games by the early Britons, at some remote period. The same opinion was expressed by a peasant to some of the members of this Association, who made an excursion to the Druidical circle at Nant-y-nôd, near Aberystwyth. Such a belief, if traditional, might possibly have arisen from the heathen practice alluded to in Exodus xxxii. 6-19, when after sacrificing, offering and feasting, the people "rose up to play." There appears also to be a similarity, if not identity, between the Phoenician worship of Baal in their sacred groves and circles, and the worship established in this country by the Druids; Lord Lindsay reports in his Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land, that there are at Soaf, Phoenician monuments identical in every respect with Stonehenge. - [It is to be observed, however, that permanent circular enclosures bearing the title of Plân an guare (the "playing-plain") are extremely common in Cornwall. They are surrounded by raised seats of turf, and in one instance (the Plân an guare of St. Just) of stone. The Cornish miracle-plays, of which specimens are still extant, were performed in them. -(Borlase's Cornwall, pp. 207, 208.) Do the coincident traditions mentioned by Mr. Rees, point to a similar practice in Wales? Or may they not show that primeval circles were used in later times for these purposes? On the other hand, as we know that games were connected in heathen countries with both religion and sepulture, Mr. Rees' supposition is quite compatible with either a ritual or a monumental use of the objects in question.-EDD. ARCH. CAMB.]"
Written and researched by Robert Worrall (ORRAR President)
