Academic misdating and consequent breakdowns of Communication.
A major source of historical information is in the Welsh Annals.
This information is set out in the form of brief notations of major events listed by the years.
We get Year 1, then Year 2, then Year 3, and so on and on. The problem is simply one of "when was year one".
This has been dealt with in typical academic incompetence or more likely political deviousness deliberately designed to
obscure and confuse.
A famous letter was sent from Britain to Gaul and the time of this Communication was crucial to setting the date of Year 1
of the Welsh Annals.
The letter was sent to Agitius according to Gildas, and to Aganypys or Aganipus in the Khumric Welsh Histories.
There is in fact only one candidate for the recipient of this letter, and it would be hard to mistake him.
The English academics who are quite plainly Roman mad and talk incessantly of amazing, marvellous, wonderful, admirable,
Romans and so on, have alleged that the letter was sent from Britain to Gaul and to the hated Romans and that it was
addressed to the Hun general Aetius.
This then allows the wrong date of around 440 or 444 AD to be set for Year I of the Welsh Annals.
Once again a child can see that AG and not AE begin the name in the British records, and that the obvious recipient of
the letter was Aegidius Afranius Flavius Syagrius the King of the Seven Cities, and ruler of most of Gaul in the era
around 465 -485He was also elected as King of the Franks for eight years when the Frank King was deposed for constantly
abusing the wives of his noblemen.
Once the powerful Aegidius Afranius Flavius Syagrius is identified as the person to whom the letter was sent then the
start date of the Welsh Annals is corrected to c AD 473.
The result of this is to eliminate all the mass of muddles and confusions that bedevil and deface our ancient British
history up until around 700 BC and sometimes long after that.
The immediate effect is to transfer the Battle of Baedan from an impossible AD AD 517 to a very credible 551, and the
catastrophic Battle of Camlann is corrected to around AD 569, and all this makes perfect historical sense.
It has to be understood that Christianity arrived in Britain in AD 37, and the early Christians were of different
opinions regarding the nature of Jesus the Nazarene.
One very large group thought that Jesus was a man when he was born, lived, and died.
A second large number thought that he was born and lived as a man, but he became one with god when he died.
The third group thought that he was born and lived as one with God and became united so when he died. This means that
"the Incarnation" of Jesus the Nazarene was believed by the British to be when he died and the Romans believed the
"the Incarnation" dated from when he was born.
This is important because the only date given in the Bruts of England is that "King Arthur (meaning II) died 546 years
after the Incarnation of the Lord".
To the Roman Church and therefore to the English this would mean AD 546.
To the Khumric Welsh this would mean 546 + 33 = AD 579.
This is the correct date for the death of King Arthur II, and all ancient British History is then correct.
Various previous misunderstood dates become correct.
Or example Maelgwn became King of Gwynedd (North West Wales) 169 years after Owain Ffindu.
This Owain Ffindu (Blackbeard) was a brother of King Arthur I who died fighting the Irish in AD 434, and Maelgwn
became King of Gwynedd when Arthur II died in 589.
There are several other dates of this order in the Nennius Histories and they can all be now shown to be very accurate.
Owain Ffindu is still buried in his grave mound at Llanhileth in Gwent alongside a church of St Illtyd a first cousin of
All that is required is a little attention to detail and it is necessary for English Historians to show more respect
for the Khumric Welsh nation and the records.
There are very few mysteries.
HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN INDEX
Send an e-mail to email@example.com