Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 25 March 2015
This book is a recommended read for ANY one of Welsh bloodline.

The established rulers (False royalty/nobility) are covering up the truth as this did happen, Arthur the great King was NOT a myth, he is a true heroic Welsh ruler, fair, honest, kind and he booted Rpman religious zealots out of Britain for stealing/slaving/raping OUR people. Chased them back to Italy, only problem, he was too kind and allowed them to live. They built castles to dominate us across our land, and as we still resisted, they decided in 1800s to fire ALL the Welsh teachers, teaching the TRUE history of Wales rulers (Arthur his bloodlines etc, Joseph of Aramathea, Jesus where do you all think he went missing from bible for many yrs Wales, Britain lol). They then hired only English speaking teachers, 90% of children spoke Welsh only, and hit children with canes in public for speaking our native tongue to make us forget. IF you are of the slightest bloodline Welsh, be proud, learn about OUR true rulers, who we loved so much 1400yrs later after they tried making us forget, we STILL Remember and await our True King.

I know I live here, right exact spot the book lists, and since a child I played in the ruins of ancient forts, castles, churches allowed to go to ruin because they wanted us to forget. After reading this book, it all makes sense. I detest them, globally they cover up pre-ice-age civilisations as it messes up the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions versions of history (they are the ultimate and all history starts from them, why fanatic Muslims destroy all monuments/idols to make a point. I Certainly don't mean decent muslims of which there are most of.)
0Comment|5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 December 2015
I really did. But Adrian Gilbert seems to take his 2 "co-authors'" words as holy writ. Often "facts" are presented as "So and so says, but Alan/Baram explained that x,y,z is really true" with no explanation. Geoffrey of Monmouth is acknowledged to have made huge clangers at best and so what he says is (rightly) taken was a huge pinch of salt by Gilbert or (wrongly) ignored or treated with a flat "he got it wrong" with no explanation, wheras at other times Geoffrey of Monmouth's statements are taken as self evidently true.
Dating is hugely problematic in this era but it won't ever be helped by obvious errors such as confusing the Passion of Jesus as being his birth (and thus c. 1AD) rather than his death! But despite this huge hole in Gilberts knowledge of the gospels we are expected to believe (again on no real evidence or even much explanation of his suppositions) that Barabbas is Jesus' brother and father of Anna (Jesus niece) who is recognised as being so important that a Roman emperor (Claudius) adopts her and a British king marries her to get the bloodline of the "Holy Family" producing the legendry king Beli. This is supposed to be believable when Gilbert also (barely) acknowledges the all but certain reported story that the great-nephews of Jesus were brought before the Emperor Domitian who decided that they were no threat at all to the empire, which doesn't make sense of Gilbert's whole narrative.
And that's without even commenting on his knowing where the true cross is in Wales due to a psychic, or that the Kings of Gwynedd 's lineage and authority is diminished for the Kings of Glamorgan (where Adrian Wilson is from) and then in an appendix that same linage is used as proof of Gilberts Arthur 1 and 2 theory!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 February 2002
I first read this book out of interest, then i read it again as the information sank in, the authors fill in the background history as well as investigate the truth of King Arthur, there are some very startling conclusions...
0Comment|10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 April 2015
Its an interesting proposal, but is hard to read, with too much dancing around the dates. I think we are at the point where there is some acceptance, even amongst professionals, that Arthur has some basis in fact, even though there is strong disagreement of how much. This book goes some way to examining possibility, but its style leaves much to be desired.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 October 2001
Despite the smears and censors, Wilson and Blackett have always provided detailed evidence to support their claims. They have rediscovered the truth about ancient British history - the truth which was deliberately subverted by the English establishment...
Bear in mind that Edward Llwyd, an historian of note based at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, concluded that it was indeed Arthur 1 who defeated the French at Sassy/Soissons. This is the same king Anhun, Anthun, no doubt about it. Polydore Virgil, King Henry V111's historian, was right when he noted that the mythical "Arthur" figure in our histories would had to have been 250 years old to have done what was claimed. The truth, as Wilson and Blackett show, is simple. There were two Arthurs! The genealogies of the ancient Kings proves this!
Our ancient Khumric-Welsh manuscripts are not in doubt and archaelogical digs undertaken by Wilson, Blackett, Dr. Eric Talbot and Alan Wishart (MA) of Glasgow University in 1990 are detailed in The Holy Kingdom and prove, beyond any doubt, that St.Peters Super Montem is, perhaps, the most important early Christian site in Europe.
No wonder the Catholic church is concerned, because it emerges, in Wilson and Blackett's book and through their 25 years of research, that Christianity arrived here in AD 37, "the last year of Tiberius", and that the ancient Welsh manuscripts, whose provenance is not in doubt, show this. The dig at St. Peters indicated that it dated to the 1st Century AD. So Rome is the daughter, not the mother, church. (And I was bought up in the high Anglo-Catholic church and have no problem with it from a religious point of view!)The irony is that Cardinal Baronius, chief historian of the Roman Catholic church, stated that Christianity arrived in Britain in AD35. Nennius concurs, he claimed AD37!
The academics are running scared from Wilson and Blackett and that's why so many people are afraid of their remarkable conclusions. Your history, my history, British history, was painted over by those in favour of a different, Orwellian nightmare version of English history with the Angles and Saxons in prime position.
Luckily, we have brave men like Alan and Baram to defend the ancient kings.
I encourage anybody reading this to buy their book and support their work.
Tim Matthews, Ancient British Historical Association.
0Comment|20 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 August 2001
I have read around this topic before. Then I read what opponents say (such as critics on this page). Basically, Wilson and Blackett are not perfect (who is?) but they ARE worth listening to. (Don't be confused by the Adrian Gilbert name - he only wrote up their stuff. This is much better than the books he authored himself in my opinion.)
Yes, it is true that the book jumps to conclusions in some areas. That is inevitable, given the nature of the material. There are a few parts in particular that I have problems with. But in general, it seems to me that Wilson and Blackett make a number of claims that their critics simply do not address.
I could be wrong - I do not read Welsh - but from the evidence I have seen (this book, others like it, the response of critics, an amateur interest in the late sixth century) the authors have more to offer than their critics.
One more point. I am always skeptical or revisionist historians - people who try to re-write a nation's history. Wilson and Blackett are not suggesting anything new or revolutionary. They are just saying that the original history should be respected. Maybe, just maybe, the Roman and Saxon version of British history was just a tiny bit biased.
Finally, the issues raised by critics on this page have been answered elsewhere. But this is a review, not a discussion forum, so I will leave those things alone. Buy this book!
0Comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 June 2015
I am welsh but live in Somerset. To my utter shock it was revealed that Glastonbury is nothing to do with king Arthur. Makes me proud of my country. A definite must read for all !!!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 January 2014
This is a very interesting book that is somewhat tainted by the main "author" being known mostly for new age fantasy style histories. That shouldn't put people off reading it as the work of relevance and detail is entirely that of Wilson and Blackett and it is their work that provokes much thought about the origins of the myths and legends. The biggest problem for this book is that there are many willingly lining up to attack it. Firstly you have the it's all made up brigade who have no interest in anyone saying otherwise in any way shape or form, many of the reviews around are of that type. Equally you have the vested interest of places like Somerset's many Arthurian sites who have no desire to see a reinvention as a Welsh figure. The irony of the English, i.e. the people Arthurian legend revolves around defeating and throwing out of these islands, latching onto Arthur as their own is lost on too many people for the subtlety of a post Rome Romano-British warlord to register with them. No one can know whether the book is accurate, close or not even near the truth but the amount of evidence they do have deserves more investigation and debate than the name calling and insult throwing that has been used, when the book/work is even acknowledged.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 February 2015
fascinating, amazing, superb,the loss of our true histories is heartbreaking,
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 July 2000
This book presents theories as facts and then builds upon them, creating a structure that will hopefully sink into a swamp and remain gone forever. One for the new-agers and conspiricy theorists, it is devoid of firm contemporary textual or archaeological evidence to substantiate any of its claims. Oh, and the 'Sword of Constantine' featured on the cover? It's fullered, quillioned with a lobed pommel and broad tapering blade; in other words a classic example of a Saxon or Scandinavian weapon of the 9th/10th centuries AD. An interesting find in its own right but certainly not of Roman provenance.
33 comments|18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)