Chapter 31
The Grail legends
Much has been written on the Grail legends and the Grail’s
connection to Arthur and Joseph. The conundrum has been the connection
between the Grail, Arthur and Joseph and what makes them all common to
Glastonbury. We have two options; Firstly, it seems to me one could not add
more with the hope of elucidating the shambolic theories which currently
exist without understanding their commonality being derived from Henry
Blois. Secondly we could resign ourselves to the scholastic considered
opinion that the salad made itself by a fortuitous convergence of factors.
What I have attempted to elucidate up to the moment is Henry’s connection
to the Matter of Britain, but unless modern researchers accept that Henry
Blois is the author of the HRB and the initiator of the Grail legends…. there
will be no further understanding of the relationship between our three
genres. These obviously link through the prophecy of Melkin and Henry
Bloisknowledge of it, which effected events and lore at Glastonbury. The
modern consensus and acceptance of what appears to be random
associations will remain a quagmire of pick and mix theories as long as
certain baseless a priori positions are defended by modern scholars.
Much of the piecing together relies upon our current experts pet theories
and specifically some erroneous assumptions have dated certain
manuscripts which has made it less likely to uncover that Henry Blois could
have been the originator of the Matter of Britain, i.e. it is a common
assumption that Chrétien is the first to mention the Grail in writing. But
Chrétien is surely not the first. This for the main part is based upon Robert
de Boron’s mention of Chrétien in his manuscript and the presumption
indicates that Robert followed or had heard of Chrétien’s lead concerning
the Grail. It is a fact that both Robert and Chrétien heard the same story
from Bleheris. Bleheris could only have promulgated Grail legend up to
1170 as he spent the last year of his life blind at Winchester. Any scholar
who thinks that the initial Grail legends were formed after this date is
seriously deluded.
The guesswork not only denies Henry Blois as the originating author of
Grail literature but supplies no comprehensive theory as to how these
histoires were transmitted to Chrétien or who wrote the book Chrétien
attests to. We should also not forget that Henry Blois hiding his identity as
the promulgator of the initial Grail legends was patron to Gerald…. and
Giraldus Cambrensis’ Bledhericus is the ‘famosus ille fabulator’ who had
lived "shortly before our time".
It would be a madness to think that a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’
made Chrétien randomly connect the ‘Glass’ of Glastonbury and
coincidentally find it transliterated in French. It is hard not to see that
Chrétien de Troyes has heard a version from Henry Blois or Maistre Blehis
when in Erec
at King Arthur’s court Erec is married by the Archbishop of
Canterbury in front of guests:
Along with those whom I have just mentioned came Maheloas, a great
baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre. In this island no thunder is heard, no
lightning strikes, nor tempests rage, nor do toads or serpents exist there, nor
is it ever too hot or too cold. Graislemier of Fine Posterne brought twenty
companions, and had with him his brother Guigomar, lord of the Isle of
Avalon. Of the latter we have heard it said that he was a friend of Morgan the
Fay, and such he was in very truth. Davit of Tintagel came, who never suffered
woe or grief.
It would also seem beyond the bounds of coincidence that the little
known insular VM story of Merlin’s madness where Morgan is mentioned
on Insula Pomorum, just happens to be a friend of Guigomar Lord of
Are we supposed to believe this has nothing to do with Master Blihis?
Does this coincidence transpire entirely independently in the Chrétien
rendition emanating from the court of Champagne where Henry’s two
Nephew’s and their wives (known proponents and promulgators of Grail
literature) were situated and were known patrons of Chrétien?
Chrétien de Troyes, Erec, Vv.(1915-2024A).
One Arthurian episode appears in Caradoc of Llancarfan’s, Life of St.
Gildas and also Chrétien de TroyesThe Knight of the Cart. The fact that it is
in a work by Chrétien becomes relevant once we understand that the court
of Champagne
is hearing of the Grail through a Master Blihis. The point
right now is that… it is Arthuriana which is closely connected with
Glastonbury, long before the famed discovery of Arthur at Glastonbury.
Chrétien himself testifies to the fact that his knowledge of the Histoires
came from Master Blihis. Strangely, Robert de Boron prefixes his own name
with the title Meistres in one case followed by ‘Bouron’ and secondly as
Messires followed by ‘Beron’. ‘Blihos Bleheris’ is Robert de Boron’s greatest
teller of tales at court and also ‘Blaise is given the honour of having
recorded three of Robert’s Histoires.
Modern scholars misunderstanding of the provenance of Grail
literature and their blindness to Henry Blois’ relation to Melkin’s
prophecy…. where it is witnessed as ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspiration (and
specifically scholars dismissal of the directions to the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea by Melkin’s prophecy), has prevented Joseph or the body of Jesus
being re-discovered. Hundreds of experts’ have tested the shroud of Turin
which once covered the body of Jesus, yet, not one scholar admits the image
was made (formed) in Cedar oil from the human corpse of Jesus as put
forward by Goldsworthy.
But, without accepting that there was a body of
Jesus long after his death, how could experts possibly concede that the
shroud image was made over time by the body? They could not…. as this
would deny the very essence of Christianity.
One would have to accept the theory that Jesusbody existed somewhere
on earth which goes directly against the eschatology presented in the
Gospels. Scholars deny the image of the Turin Shroud was formed in Cedar
oil not because they can definitively say the residue image is not formed
from dried Cedar
oil and anaerobic bacteria deposits…. but simply because
they cannot conceive of the body of Jesus on Burgh Island.The Scientists or
In Chretien’s Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, it is fairly obvious that he is supplied the material: Since my lady
of Champagne wishes me to undertake to write a romance…….. Here Chretien begins his book about the Knight
of the Cart. The material and the treatment of it are given and furnished to him by the Countess, and he is simply
trying to carry out her concern and intention..
Michael Goldsworthy. And did those feet
Goldsworthy indicates that the scientists admit it is an organic resinous residue surrounding the fibres.
experts in this fiels are totally ingnorant that the Templars having
discovered the shrouds whereabouts, shortly before they were all
exterminated on orders from the pope. The fact that the Shroud of Turin
first appeared in the hands of a Margaret de Charney
granddaughter of a
murdered Templar seems irrelevant. Especially if one cannot conceive of
the body of Jesus still being preserved in Cedar oil c.1300AD. What is a fact
is that all these Scientists after the tomb is unveiled will concur that it came
from Burgh Island and hey presto it will carbon date to c. 35 AD.
We have the same problem also with our expert on Geoffrey. She refuses
to accept that HRB and the Merlin prophecies were not authored by Henry
Blois. How may we have any real furtherance of understanding of
Arthuriana. Shoaf a supposed expert on Arthur also chooses to remain
ignorant and like most scholars insults those independent researchers like
mewho have differing views by dismissing them in a haughty display of
arrogance in her ignorance. If Carley refuses to accept that the Melkin
prophecy is a real encrypted document then ignorance is the repository of
the unconnected.
Nearly every theory put forward to date is conjectural and cannot be
tested. Most certainly the theory which puts Joseph of Arimathea on Burgh
Island can be. The Devon Archaeological society has taken advice from the
‘expert’. The present Jewish owner of the Island who denies permission for
a ground penetrating radar to locate the tomb has been advised by ‘experts’
that there is no merit in such a search. Ironically enough the owner of the
Island wants to cover the tomb with 200 Solar panels
and the residents of
Bigbury are up in arms that it might destroy the ambiance of the Agatha
Christie Hotel. What is laughable is that by the time the scholars have
understood that Joseph’s relics are on the island, no-one will be able to put a
ground penetrating radar over the tomb because it will be covered in
panels. The real problem is that the various disciplines of scholastic
endeavour are so protective of their own specialised domain that the
various branches remain insular with no cross-over. Hence our three
genres of study remain unconnected.
Geoffroi De Charney was burned at the stake with Jack de Molay, the final Grand Master of the Templars in
See image 5
We can see plainly it is not in the interest of either of Carley or Crick or
Cunliffe to expose the truth because the indifference of their so called
‘scholarship’ will be exposed.
A set of events of such importance which would expose the ‘Vatican lie’
of a bodily resurrection is being repressed by the very people who profess
to enlighten us through their scholastic efforts?
My dissatisfaction at
modern scholarship and the establishment’s complacent ignorance having
been stated, I hope to elucidate and show the reader how it is that Henry
Blois has been able to hide himself as the author of the Matter of Britain
while propagating his ethereal propaganda in the trappings of a tale.
Therein is hidden a truth which will change modern religion. The real
problem is that no-one wishes to find the bodies for fear of the
ramifications. The anonymous author of the primary Grail legends such as
Perlesvaus, Chrétien’s Percival and Robert’s source all came from one mind.
The elusive Master Blehis, Blihos-Bleheris, or Blaise has purposefully
secreted his authorship. He has used the same ploy as ‘Geoffrey’ in
advocating a mysterious book from which his authority is derived. The only
problem is that it is not a book; the inspiration for Henry Grail is the
prophecy of Melkin.
There are only two authors who concern us here regarding the early
promulgation of Grail literature. Chrétien de Troyes who was a trouvère at
the court of Marie de France at Troyes and Champagne in the heartland of
the Blois region; and Robert de Boron, who, as we shall see, is either a
pseudonym for Henry Blois
or Henry Blois is the direct source of versified
material from which a living Robert de Boron transposed into prose his
trilogy. At this stage I think we can safely say that ‘The High History’ and
A recent discovery of a bible dating as far back as 2,000 years turns modern Christianity on its head. The
Gospel of Barnabas indicates that Jesus may not have been crucified (or at least lived) and does not claim him to
be the son of God, but instead a prophet. It states that the Apostle Paul was “The Impostor.” In the Book of
Barnabas, Jesus wasn’t crucified, but ascended to heaven alive, and Judas Iscariot was crucified instead. Not that
this is any more accurate than the four gospels, it shows that there was a discrepancy about where the body of
Jesus went from a very early date. With Joseph’s connection to Ictis and Melkins prophecy directing us to the
body of Abbadare, it should not take academia too long to figure out the rest.
It is my opinion that a verse edition of Robert’s four manuscripts once existed which may have come from
Henry Blois. The reason for thinking this is because Robert’s work brings together loose ends found in HRB and
consolidates Henry’s position concerning the Grail, Joseph, Merlin, Blaise and a host of other loose ends.
Perlesvaus derive from Henry. There may never have been a person called
Robert de Boron in reality, but we shall get to that shortly. Scholars have
always dated Robert’s material after 1191 just because it fits their erroneous
theory concerning the appearance of Avalon and Joseph at Glastonbury.
Robert’s material was contemporary to Chrétien’s material regardless of
when Arthur was exhumed.
It is necessary to understand that Henry Blois was a man of immense
power, who, due to his blood line and Norman aristocratic connections,
commanded influence through the most powerful courts in both England
and on the continent. After the death of his brother Theobald and the
Empress Matilda, he was the last surviving grandchild of William the
We have seen how the HRB went through a transition up until its
completed Vulgate form in 1155 and to understand its transmission and the
capability of Henry Blois to remain in the shadows as the author, we should
also understand that Henry held sway over several monastic institutions
where monk scribes resided who were conversant in Welsh, Cornish,
French and Latin. Because no manuscript was released in the same
environs where it had been copied or produced, the likelihood of it being
traced back to Henry was reduced. We can look upon Henry as a courier
and propagator of his own propaganda through the monastic system and
continental courts and in England.
It was possible to spread Arthuriana on the continent which had been
transcribed by insular monks and vice versa to spread his French
versifications to the Norman aristocracy in Britain without being
discovered. A presentation manuscript to a court or to an influential
personage could be passed off as an inconsequential gift. Henry
nonchalantly could appear as having picked up some manuscript on his
travels, or he could disseminate his propaganda by any such deception. In
my opinion this is how Helinand in Froidmont had heard of the Grail and
the story of it from a British monk.
The copying of any amount of manuscripts to most struggling authors
like a ‘realistic’ Geoffrey of Monmouth would have been difficult and costly.
As we know, the dedications of HRB are falsified retrospectively and the
dissemination of the HRB manuscripts was carried out by the wealth of
Henry, not by patronage of the dedicatees as is pretended. With Henry’s
influence over various scriptoriums full of monks ready to do his bidding, it
is not difficult to see how the edifice which eventually was to become the
Matter of Britain was made popular initially as the Arthurian epic
presented in the latter half of HRB and then popularised by the supposed
By the time HRB manuscripts were being dedicated to dead people and
dead people were being referenced as patrons post 1155…. ‘Geoffrey of
Monmouth’ was also already supposedly dead and no-one could trace him
or Walter’s book. There is not a single record of someone talking to a living
Geoffrey (excepting the fictitious meeting between him and Theobald of Bec
with two spurious witnesses); and any that took offence at what he had
written did not comment until after his supposed death.
How the dissemination of Grail literature took off was slightly different
in its proliferation because an appetite for Arthurian adventure tales had
been prompted by the chivalric Arthur in HRB and by ‘Wace’sversification
of it. Arthuriana c.1159-60 was now of some renown in aristocratic circles.
The real difference in dissemination is that the stories concerning Arthur,
his knights, Joseph and the Grail were shorter and were transmitted by
conteurs at court in verse rather than incorporated in the all-encompassing
vulgate tome of the more highbrow historicity of HRB.
The Grail legend’s popularity was forged not so much through the
manuscript but through the trouvère tradition after the initial material had
been exposed at the Court of Champagne by Henry. This may well have
been carried out by reading from a book to a court audience by someone
Henry Blois had employed at court and probably serialised in the longer
versions. In the shorter versions like Chretien’s and the various offshoots,
by continuators and imporvisors (mangling his tales and mixing his icons,
places and personages) these were made shorter. There is even a strong
possibility that on occasion Henry disguised himself as a trouvère. It is
certain that Henry Blois is the propagator of these stories and therefore
even though the evidence in written form suggests that Grail literature
emerged in the 1170’s, the origins through Henry were surely proliferated
from 1164 -70. By 1170 Henry Blois was old and blind.
There is reasonable evidence, which we will cover shortly, that Robert
de Boron’s three prose works were originally derived from versified
originals which were read out at the various courts (including Marie of
Champagne’s) and this is how Chrétien first came to hear of the Grail…. and
its connection to Joseph related by Robert’s material.
The very idea of a quest or search for the tomb of Joseph (as we have
already covered) was carried out in Montacute by Henry Blois and the fact
that the duo fassula is the forerunner or inspiration for the Grail is
significant. This possibility of the Melkin prophecy acting as an
inspirational template is especially highlighted in Glastonbury’s connection
to Henry Blois; Henry’s connection to HRB; and Melkin’s prophecy being
connected with Glastonbury and Avalon. All these coincidences must lead
one to see that the puzzle that Melkin set posterity is Henry’s blueprint for
the idea of a quest or search for the Grail. In other words the prophecy itself
is in fact the originator of a quest to find the Island on which the Grail (duo
fassula) exists. If one can unlock the riddle of the Melkin prophecy, one will
find Joseph’s tomb.
For the prophecy to have such ‘coincidence’ in its geometry, it would be
astounding, if as Carley suggests, it was put together from various sources.
In essence therefore, it would have no cohesion and must be meaningless
and yet in reality locates an island in Devon by the data. By whatever
method the subsequent material to HRB concerning Arthur, his knights,
Joseph and the Grail was transmitted, its initial proliferation in the period
from 1159 to 1170 is plainly through the aristocratic court contacts Henry
Blois had both in England and France.
If we were to briefly look at the contacts at court where an association to
Philip of Flanders is specifically mentioned by Chrétien and of course Marie
of France, we can grasp how easy it was for Henry to disseminate his
material as his familiar connections were the highest of the aristocracy and
they ran the very court milieu where Arthuriana was soaked up.
If for example we take a brief detour to highlight the connections, we see
Theobald the Great (Thibaut de Blois 10901152), Henry’s brother, who was
Count of Blois and of Chartres (as Theobald IV from 1102); and who was
Count of Champagne and of Brie as Theobald II from 1125; he held Auxerre,
Maligny, Ervy, Troyes, and Châteauvillain as fiefs from Odo II, Duke of
Burgundy. He was of course son of Stephen II, Count of Blois, and Adela of
Normandy, also Henry’s mother and father. After Adela’s retirement to
Marcigney in 1125, Theobald had rule over the Blois family properties.
However, King Louis VII of France became involved in a war with Theobald
by permitting Count Raoul I of Vermandois, the seneschal of France, to
repudiate his wife Eleanor and to marry Petronilla of Aquitaine, sister of
the (then 11371152) queen consort of France Eleanor of Aquitaine. The
Eleanor who was slighted by Raoul was Theobald's and Henry Blois’ sister
and the insult caused a war which lasted two years from 11421144 while
Stephen was still alive.
The war was marked by the occupation of Champagne by the royal
army and the capture of Vitry-le-François, where many persons perished in
the deliberate burning of the church by King Louis. This Ralph I of
Vermandois (Raoul) who caused the offence was son of Hugh I, Count of
Vermandois, and Adelaide, Countess of Vermandois and paternal grandson
of Henry Ist of France. Ralph’s uncle was Philip I of France. Through him
Ralph was a first cousin of Louis VI of France and a first cousin, once
removed of Louis VII of France.
Anyway, under pressure from Queen consort Eleanor of Aquitaine,
Louis allowed this Ralph to divorce his wife Eleanor, (the said sister to King
Stephen, Theobald and Henry) in favor of Eleanor of Aquitaine's sister,
Petronilla of Aquitaine. However, to connect another grandee in the courtly
web; Philip of Flanders reign began in 1157, and he became regent for his
father, Thierry, who was frequently on crusade. In 1159 Philip married
Elisabeth of Vermandois, elder daughter of this count Ralph I of
Vermandois and Petronilla of Aquitaine. Now, more importantly and
greatly having a bearing on this investigation…. when Louis and Eleanor’s
marriage was annulled in 1152 custody of Marie of France and her sister
Alix, was awarded to their father, King Louis. As we know, Eleanor of
Aquitaine their mother, married Duke Henry, Count of Anjou and Duke of
Normandy, who later became King Henry II of England.
In 1160, when Marie’s father, King Louis, married Adele of Champagne,
he betrothed Marie and Alix (his daughter’s by Eleanor of Aquitaine) to
Adele's brothers, Henry and Theobald V (Henry Blois’ two Nephews) not
forgetting Adele of Champagne, was the daughter of Theobald II, Count of
Champagne, Henry Blois’ brother.
So, as we have mentioned, Henry Blois was the last survivor of the
illustrious Blois brothers and uncle to the young Henry and Theobald and
they of course were married to daughters of King Louis VII and Eleanor of
Aquitaine before their separation. Now, this is only a small cross reference
which shows the coincidences of the names which are linked to the initial
propagation of the Grail stories i.e. Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marie of
Champagne (Marie of France)
and Alix, King Henry II, Philip of Flanders
and the count of Poitiers before he became Richard I and their connection
to Chrétien and to Henry Blois. The old city of Troyes where Henry Blois
father had been count, was where Marie held her court, and was the womb
of continental Grail literature. It was at Troyes that Chrétien was led to
write romances which form the ideals of French chivalry which of course
was the zeitgeist of the 1160-70’s.
This fascination with Arthuriana had been brought to the fore by
‘Geoffrey’s’ chivalric Arthur in HRB and flourished in the continental courts
after the Anarchy was over when Henry II became King; mainly through
the introduction of King Arthur by Henry Blois’ impersonation of Wace.
As an ideal of social conduct, the code of chivalry was the aspiration of
the aristocracy, the concept of the "honette homme". That Henry Blois was a
part of its emergence is seen in its portrayal by Arthur in HRB upholding its
moral code and also by the code of conduct mentioned by Henry Blois as
the author of GS; especially escorting Matilda to her brother Robert at the
beginning of the Anarchy and such episodes as the jousts before the rout of
Winchester. The pastimes of the aristocratic class of readers and courtiers
were jousting, hunting, and making love and the poetry of those who
entertained them reflected their interests. The descriptions of women
famed for their beauty are many throughout Grail literature, but so was the
interest of Women in the literature and hence the preponderance of these
matters in the poems of love affairs to entertain the leisure hours of such at
the court of Marie.
Chrétiens romances, written in eight-syllable rhyming couplets, treat
respectively of Erec and Enide, Cliges, Yvain, and Lancelot, but "Perceval le
Gallois", was composed for Philip, Count of Flanders who had given
Chretien the source book of the material c1160-70. What we know of
Chrétien we learn from his works. The dedication of Lancelot or the
Chevalier de la Charrette informs us the work was composed for Marie de
Champagne daughter of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine. It was Marie
who became countess of Champagne by her marriage to Henry’s brother
See appendix 35
Theobald’s son also called ‘Henri’ in 1164. Therefore we can know Lancelot
was composed after that date.
The prologue of Perceval or the Conte du Graal is dedicated to Philippe of
Alsace who became Count of Flanders in 1168. However, he could have
been referred as Count of Flanders before that date as reign began in 1157,
while he acted as regent and co-count for his father.
He died at Acre in 1191 so the Conte du Graal was started between these
dates. My guess would be from 1165-69. Marie was widowed from
Theobald’s son Henry in 1181 and Philippe of Flanders is known to have
proposed marriage to Marie, but this was long after Henry Bloisdeath. But
still, the proximity of the relationships to the known patrons or propagators
must be taken into account when making any conclusions on the
provenance of the primal material in Grail literature having come from
Henry Blois. Most commentators have expressed the view that this material
arrived after 1189 because of the erroneous belief that Avalon at
Glastonbury is only possible after Arthur’s unearthing; automatically
excluding Henry Blois from being connected with Grail literature.
If we can accept that Henry Blois is the instigator of the Grail legends
propagated in various forms, separated by characters, episodes and motifs,
yet linked purposefully and loosely corroboratively, we can get a better
grasp of the transitions through which the tales have been reworked and
how it is that scholarship has been left bewildered.
There can be no understanding of the Grail or the Arthurian and
Josephian literature which connects it to Glastonbury without including the
name of Henry Blois or Melkin. There is simply no present day credible
authority on the Grail; although many would put themselves forward as
such in an instant. R.S Loomis
is the closest to being accepted an expert,
but in his compendium of rationale regarding Arthuriana and Grail
Henry Blois is not even named. Until scholarship accepts the
Prophecy of Melkin as existing in the era of Henry Blois (even though it is
not attested until John of Glastonbury’s Cronica) there can be no
Roger Sherman Loomis (October 31, 1887 October 11, 1966) an American scholar hailed as the foremost
authority on medieval and Arthurian literature.
Arthurian Literature in the middle ages. R.S. Loomis
furtherance in understanding of the provenance of the Grail, Grail
Literature or Glastonburyana.
The fact that one single man has been capable of engineering what
became known as the Matter of Britain and has been able to keep his
identity secret has left all theories which deal with the spawning of Grail
literature incomplete. Henry Blois himself was mystified by the item of the
Grail (which was based on Melkin’s duo fassula). What we know of
‘Geoffrey’s’ methods in his composition of HRB, we can see that there is
barely a single item which we cannot trace to another source for its
We know by the Meusan plates Henry refers to his own muses. The one
story that Tatlock could not find a source for was the story of King Lear but
even that has a source and is based on Henry Blois’ own father’s rejection
on his return from the crusades in disgrace and thus is of familiar source.
We can trace many of the pivotal parts in the Matter of Britain which
are inspired by the prophecy of Melkin once it is understood Henry Blois
had a copy.
For instance, one might say the most important inspirational
part of the Melkin prophecy to influence events in the Matter of Britain is
the burial of a body to be found in the future on Avalon; the mystical
location of an island. The same is of course posited of Joseph’s remains in
the original prophecy on Ineswitrin. The forerunner of the Grail itself is the
duo fassula and the ‘Quest’ for the Grail itself (or Joseph’s tomb) is part of
the purport of Melkin’s puzzle. Therefore, it should not come as a shock that
Henry’s Graal is directly related to the duo fassula (or at least the
understanding of it by Henry himself).
As I have stated, Henry Blois’ use of the Melkin prophecy spawned, not only the sacred vessel, and the search
for the vessel, but provided the template for Arthur’s body to be found in the future on Avalon and Britain’s
eventual re-instatement to God (once the question is asked in Grail legend or likewise when the duo fassula is
discovered in the prophecy). Yet, the whole of the Matter of Britain is based upon the genuine burial of Joseph
on Ineswitrin. The fact that both the prophecy and Joseph become part of Glastonbury’s later lore does not
preclude the existence of the prophecy in the time of Henry Blois; especially when we can plainly see the
prophecy’s connection to the etymology of the Graal itself (i.e. sang real)…. as the medieval mind would
naturally think Jesus blood was contained in the one of the vessels mentioned. If the prophecy itself had been
included in DA, Henry Blois would have been exposed by all the commonalities which lead back to
Glastonbury, but all the commonalities to Henry Blois shows that he originally was inspired by the prophecy of
He must have had a copy because we know the geometry does not apply to Avalon but Burgh Island. It was
Henry who converted Glastonbury to Avalon in DA and Perlesvaus.
Henry’s comprehension of Melkin’s words was that there were two
‘vessels,’ one of which held the Lord’s blood. As we know from my previous
coverage of the meaning of ‘blood and sweat’ found in the prophecy; the
actual wording alludes and directly relates to what constitutes the Turin
Shroud itself (or what Melkin thought the shroud image was composed of).
It seems to me that Henry’s miscomprehension of the prophecy was that the
blood of Jesus would be focused upon as a visualization of an episode of it
flowing from Jesus’ body…. as was described in the Gospel of John 19:34. In
Robert de Boron’s Percival it leaves no doubt what the Grail vessel contains:
And this vessel, called the Grail holds the blood that Joseph gathered as it
flowed from His wounds to the earth. It is just macabre to think that one
vessel contained sweat and is probably why the Grail became singular. In
reality though, the Turin shroud contained both blood and sweat as is
stated in the prophecy.
Now, if it is Henry Blois that is the propagator of the legend concerning
the Graal and he is doing this in vernacular French and basing it on what he
had understood was being alluded to in the prophecy of Melkin, then we
should understand that the Graal is based quite simply on sang réal, which
in vernacular French translates as "royal blood"; and is based entirely on
what Henry assumes has been collected by Joseph of Arimathea at the
crucifixion site. Henry Blois as the inventor of insula Avallonis and the
person who had substituted its name for Ineswitrin on the Melkin prophecy
would know that Ineswitrin was in Devon as it is corroborated as such in
the genuine 601 charter found also at Glastonbury.
However, because of Henry’s different outlets and modes of
transmission for his Grail propaganda; by the time that Chrétien or Robert
de Boron had retold what had been told orally or had been written down by
Henry as verse; the sang réal had morphed into a san graal or san gréal by
oral transition just as Roi Pecheurmay have evolved to or from Roi Pescheor
(King of the sinners). Probably through Henry’s initial inability to grasp its
dual substance (two vessels), the Grail became a singular un Graal’, but still
un san Graal by its connection to Jesus and ultimately by later translation
becoming the ‘Holy Grail’.
Henry ties what could be conflated as an ancient Welsh magic cauldron
with the concept of the Grail to which Arthur is then connected. It is also
Henry Blois’ ploy in both HRB and Grail literature to pretend its source is
from antiquity by saying there are ancient volumes or volumes in Latin.
Barber states: The origin of this material is clearly Celtic, but the form in
which it is preserved is interesting: these fragments, notably the story
contained in the first item above (which is paralleled in the opening scene of
Perlesvaus), represent a stage in the evolution of Arthurian romance of which
little remains- the Latin versions of Celtic or traditional local stories. How
extensive these Latin versions were must remain a matter for conjecture but
it is possible that the claims of the romance writers to have used Latin texts
should not be totally dismissed; they may well have taken incidents like these
from Latin sources and woven into the larger tapestry of their stories.
Commentators have thus assumed that the source of the Grail emanates
from its association with the Celtic otherworld. But, this is simply a concept
of the Grail caused by the purposeful conflation of Henry Blois to the Spoils
of Annwfn. Thus we hear from Loomis et al. about the Christianization of a
Pagan object which is pure piffle which is regurgitated by Carley. The
Cauldron of the chief of the otherworld and the nine maidens who tended it
are conflated with the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s
island of Sena and then again with purposeful intent with the nine maidens
on Insula Pomorum in VM. One would have to be sedentary not to accept
that in chapter 5 of DA it is Henry Blois’ own words which compose the
conflation with the Welsh Afallennau: Apple island from avalla in British is
the same as poma in Latin. Or it was named after a certain Avalloc who is
said to have lived there with his daughters….
To believe, as Gaston Paris did (who taught Jessie Weston), that Chrétien
crossed the channel to obtain his accurate knowledge of places in Western
England, or to assume that Joseph d’Arimathie and his ‘vessel’ (fassula) was
brought to the Vaus d’Avaron in the west, independent of Henry’s influence,
ignores Glastonbury’s connection to Avalon as early as 1156-7 in VM as
Insula Pomorum. Especially, when taking into account that the author of the
Perlesvaus has understanding of Glastonbury topography and the old
Scholarship has been so severely duped by the invention of the persona
of ‘Geoffrey’, few have even considered the connection from bishop Henry
Richard Barber, Was Mordred buried at Glastonbury.
Blois to Monseigneur Blehis, Master Blihis, or Blihos Bleheris. The common
denominator of our three genres of Glastonburyana, Arthuriana and Grail
literature is their connection to the Prophecy of Melkin and Henry Blois. If
we deny Melkin’s prophecy as a fake and choose to remain ignorant that
Henry Blois impersonated Geoffrey, and Henry interpolated DA; then an
answer to this salad of material and confused opinion will never unlock the
bigger issue that remains hidden in the trappings of a tale.
To deny that the fount of these Histoires came into being at the exact
time (i.e. 1160-70 and onward) when Henry Blois was at liberty to expand
and embellish his self-motivated propaganda is ignoring the solution and
circumstantial evidence to many unanswered problems. Henry Blois
developed an historical chivalric Arthur from an unremarkable warlord in
antiquity whose worth had been partially aggrandized by Nennius recycled
by Lambert of St Omer,and who had been mentioned anecdotally in Saints
lives and Welsh poetry, and was a part of an oral tradition of the hope of a
conquered populace…. to become part of Henry’s evolving tapestry of
ancient British History.
Initially the embellished Arthuriana in HRB was built upon a foundation
of an already written pseudo-history composed as a work initially intended
for Empress Matilda. It was in 1137 a pseudo-history, the purpose for
which it had been written now made it redundant…. before becoming the
Primary Historia found at Bec. This too was driven by the popular cult of
Arthur current at the time, obviated by the reference at the end of EAW.
But, the embellishments of Arthur and his Avalon does not negate the truth
or accuracy of the Melkin prophecy or the certainty of Joseph of Arimathea
having been buried on Burgh Island and having brought the body of Jesus
to Britain…. all deposited in an ancient tin vault. Especially, the Joseph lore
is obviated how the circumstances transpired…. when the Island of
Ineswitrin happens to be an island known as Ictis, spoken of in the ancient
There is substance to these ‘rumours’ of the Britons as attested by
It is impossible to see how the British could prefer their own
church over any other if it did not have its own established tradition which
made it separate in its tradition from Rome. The Roman Vatican’s monopoly
"who preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world"see chapter36
of power over souls encompassing a third of the population of the Globe
rested upon expunging any reference of Britain’s connection to the Holy
family. This transpired early in Britain’s history, but should not make the
geometry in Melkin’s prophecy worthless or deny the blatantly obvious fact
that the body of Jesus must exist somewhere. If this is too hard to believe
for a Christian, then at least we should recognize that Joseph’s body has not
been found. Bodies do not evaporate to Heaven, Spirits do!! They say that
knowledge which is readily accepted by the mass is only fully understood
when at last the intelligencia has grasped it and articulated it.
Who amongst the British scholars would deny British independence
from the Roman church, the early evidence for which is apparent
throughout Cornwall from the earliest dawning of Christianity? Most in the
modern era believe the English church’s separation from Rome was caused
by Henry VIII’s division on some facile point of marriage. This is true, but
derives from a deeper and subliminal understanding of the British church’s
independence from Rome.
The real separation is rather a consequence of the earliest Jews close to
Jesus and Joseph, fleeing Jerusalem to join their long lost cousins from the
earlier diaspora.
This was the reason Joseph chose to bring Jesus’ body to
Britain as he had been here as a tin trader and found the remnants of like
minded people from the diaspora waiting for a Messiah. In all likelihood
(but it will be a speculation too far for most), Mary Magdalene was from
Britain and this is why she suddenly appears in the New testament accounts
(maybe at a marriage) and thereby affecting the decision of the body of
Jesus being transported to Burgh Island. To dismiss the link of the Jews
from the Diaspora settling Dumnonia, we should only look to names of
Jonas King of Dumnonia 530-540 and several named Judicaël King of
also King of the Bretons after the Saxon incursion.
There are still scholars today who believe that the story of the vessel and
the ‘Quest’ to find it originally sprang from the mind of Chrétien de Troyes.
Why this is still posited seems ridiculous given the testimony of both
Chrétien, Robert de Boron and the author of Perlesvaus, who all attest to a
Ptolemy, writing c.140 A.D says of the British Isles, ’they were peopled by descendants of the Hebrew race
who were skilled in smelting operations and excelled in working metals’. This is a reference to the people in the
south from Dumnonia of the same stock who first traded with Phoenicians in Pytheas’ era at the island of Ictis.
See note 6.
previous authority… all authorities on the Grail having a similar sounding
name to Henry Blois’s surname.
There is little other rational explanation as to the sudden appearance of
Un Graal except it having originated from sang réal to become san Greal.
The fact that Helinandus c.1210 explains the meaning of this previously
unknown word as a dish
has commonalities with the rationalisations of
Chrétien and Robert de Boron who both derived their understanding from
Henry, who clearly had to understand it as a vessel…. as in the Prophecy of
Melkin. That Helinand finds the need to provide an explanation shows
there was still uncertainty to the meaning of Un graal forty years after
Henry’s death. Between Henry’s initiation of a sang réal which morphed to
a san graal to Un graal there is a period of transformation from Henry Blois’
terming the vessel ‘the vessel of the Holy Blood’ which over the 40 year
period since its inception and arrival into the public domain, Helinand
thought needed clarification. The Grail’s initial derivation must be found in
Henry’s interpretation of the Melkin prophecy as a vessel containing the
blood of Christ.
There is no-one in their right mind who would attest that the prophecy
of Melkin was meant to bolster a cult of Joseph at Glastonbury when half of
the text seems unintelligible or irrelevant until deciphered recently by Kim
Yale. Logically, why make a fraudulent text which is not relevant to the
purpose? On the other hand, it would be a freak of coincidence if a
geometrically oriented puzzle about an island was randomly constructed
(even from various sources) and when every word of the prophecy was
utilised (and could be found to have relevance),….it then constructed a
geometrical line that just happened to locate an Island in Dumnonia.
So, besides constructing a line on a map which adheres to exact
measurements, we then find that all the other material in the prophecy is
relevant, (otherwise we could not construct the line which is the point of
the Prophecy). The St Michael line of churches sited along the line we are
At this time a certain marvellous vision was revealed by an angel to a certain hermit in Britain concerning St.
Joseph the noble decurion who deposed from the cross the body of our Lord, as well as concerning the paten or
dish in which our Lord supped with his disciples, whereof the history was written out by the said hermit and is
called ‘Of The Graal’ (De Gradali). Now a platter, broad and somewhat deep is called in French ‘gradalis’ or
‘gradale’, wherein costly meats (with their sauce) are want to be set before rich folk by degrees (gradatim), one
morsel after another in divers orders, and in the vulgar speech it is called graalz, for that it is grateful and
acceptable to him that eateth therein, as well.
sent to bifurcate also (not by coincidence) has two other churches dedicated
to St Michael on the very line which we are encouraged to construct. One at
the point on the hill at Montacute….for which I have maintained Henry
carried out a search because he was aware of its association with Joseph of
Arimathea (as Father Good relates). The other St Michael church is actually
on Burgh Island as Camden attests.
Given that coincidence…. it would be
silly to think that whoever laid out this design was not cognisant of the
solution to Melkin’s prophecy. The churches were certainly in place long
before John of Glastonbury recycles the prophecy. Since many of the
Crusaders were Templars and were predominantly from the courts of
Europe and would have heard of the Grail…. it is hardly surprising that they
discovered what is today called the Turin Shroud. They could only achieve
this if the Melkin prophecy existed and had been deciphered. The Roman
church organised the Templar’s demise, because by locating the body of
Jesus (and being able to produce the burial shroud), the Roman religion
would become redundant.
The very aim of every scholar is to find a niche of expertise and own it
for one’s life; to be an expert on some subject. Like a baton, the field of
scholarship involving our three genres has been passed on and our experts
are so well read on the voluminous opinion concerning the Matter of
Britain that it is virtually impossible to independently arrive at any other
conclusions than those built by previous generations. Each budding
graduate’s understanding is guided by the construct of their mentors. The
scholastic community, by not recognising Henry Blois as the common
denominator has, over the generations, built their own erroneous edifice
which has no definitive conclusion. If the foundations collapse the very
essence of scholarship is seen for what it is. The same goes for religion.
This aside, what I can maintain is that the original connection of the
Graal to Arthur made by Chrétien and the propagation of the Grail’s
existence in connection with Joseph in French literature by Robert de
Boron, both stem from Henry Blois and his knowledge of the Prophecy of
Melkin found at Glastonbury when he was abbot there.
A Grail, wondrous but not explicitly holy, first appears in Perceval le
Gallois, an unfinished romance by Chrétien de Troyes and additions to
Camden:‘where the Aven's waters with the sea are mixed; Saint Michael firmly on a rock is fixed’refers to the
River Avon arriving at the sea around Burgh Island.
Perceval are six in number and two of these are referred to as prologues.
These are the Elucidation and the Bliocadran. The Elucidation survives in
only one manuscript and the Bliocadran in two.
Chrétien’s lack of sense of proportion and at times proper motivation of
many disorganized episodes is indicative of his having heard such stories
second hand from which he has used the characters and motifs. This may
well have stemmed from hearing Latin Grail poetry and similar stories in
vernacular. This might explain some tangles and plot contradictions with
similar episodes recounted at different times.
The Perlesvaus itself (High History) with its disjointed branches seems
to be a compilation of pre-existing more complete histoires. Henry Blois
himself had no duty to continuity which is evidently apparent in the three
transitional versions of HRB and can be largely held responsible for many
of the contradictions found in chronologies concerning Grail literature as a
whole. It is virtually impossible to divine which constituent parts of Grail
literature stemmed directly from Henry himself given the fact that his
motivation is often that of conflation.
What we can be certain of is that the Grail itself (as it exists in the Melkin
prophecy) was misunderstood by Henry Blois, but Grail is based directly on
its perceived description in Melkin’s Prophecy in Henry’s promulgation of
references to it. What can also be stated as a certainty is that Robert de
Boron’s association of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail stems directly
from Henry Blois having read the Prophecy of Melkin. This of course will
be verified when the tomb is opened and the prophecy is validated.
We should not dismiss the coincidence of Henry Blois being abbot of
Glastonbury and no mention of that place in HRB. This would only be for
one reason. The fact that Melkin’s prophecy turns up there to be recycled by
John of Glastonbury is not by chance either. John of Glastonbury obviously
had a copy of Perlesvaus and other output from Henry no longer extant
Commentators have pondered over the introduction of chess into Perlesvaus, but if I am correct about Henry
having first written Tristan and Isolde…. it too has allusions to the game also. The story of the Chess board is
elongated in Gautier’s continuation of Perceval, but it does indicate to me that Perlesvaus preceded Chrétien’s
stories. I will be castigated for positing this as a theory, but I believe it was Henry who improvised an earlier
game which resembles chess and named all the pieces on the board which gives us our current game today. A
castle, a knight, a bishop, a king and queen and all the little people; a game designed in Henry’s era. Henry was
fanatical about castles, he was a Knight and invented the most famous of them all; he was a bishop, and surely
thought he was going to be King…. and initially wrote the Historia to highlight queens in British history.
today. Arthur and his knight’s connection to the Grail is directly a
consequence of Henry Blois having read the Prophecy of Melkin and
Henry’s authorship of HRB. Henry invented the chivalric King Arthur in
HRB and without the Melkin prophecy there would not have been the object
of the Grail or the manufactured grave of Arthur at Glastonbury.
Robert de Boron’s reference to a vessel’ more commonly than the ‘Grail’
stems from the fact it was the earliest source (whether oral or written). It
was more directly connected to the fassula description from which the Grail
is derived. Robert had also heard of the object known as the Grail, as it had
already gone through the transition from sang réal to San Greal, yet both
Chrétien and ‘Robert’ have heard of the object second hand. From this point
we might deduce that it is Henry himself who has made the confusing
transition from Christ’s blood to a Holy Vessel. I cannot gauge if ‘Robert’s’
vessel of the last supper was a Henry Blois invention or not; but to my
mind, the fact that Robert introduces Bron, smacks of a Henry Blois
conflation which ties the Grail to the Welsh Bran just as he had done in VM
by locating Merlin Caledonius with Rhydderch. These would not have been
efforts or associations made by Robert.
However, in the Mons manuscript we find the Bliocadran prologue
concerning Perceval's father. Just looking at the name sends up an alarm in
its similarity to other phonetic names commencing with ‘Bli’ and their
association with the Grail. In the Bliocadran prologue a composition of 800
verses, Percival is not even mentioned. The Bliocadran/Bliocadron is in
direct contradiction to Chrétien’s family history as told by Perceval’s
mother, yet the poem has come from a common source; in that La Gaste
Forest (The Waste Forest) has the same name;the forest around Clugny
being the backdrop for Merlin’s madness in VM.
The point is that, understanding Henry’s disregard for the superfluity of
detail, adds to the very aura of in-preciseness and legendary all-
inclusiveness upon which the Matter of Britain is built. Chrétien does not
name Perceval’s father, yet the Didot Perceval calls him Alain le
Much of the hodge-podge detail of names in contradictory situations
and episodes, throughout the surviving Grail literature, has nothing to do
with this investigation. It may lead one to deduce that the original form of
One could posit the name derived from the work by Henry’s friend Suger on Louis Le Gros
the various stories/episodes told by Master Blehis to have been transmuted
in the 1160’s orally.
So, Percival was originated by Henry and this story was taken up by
Chretien. It is so evident that Robert’s work has to be very closely aligned
with Henry which I will get to shortly. But Percival and his story is the way
Henry Blois deals with the subject of the Grail removed from Joseph’s
association with it and thus it becomes mystical more than religious .i.e. to
Henry both were derived from Melkin’s prophecy a real duo fassula and a
real Joseph of Arimathea sepulchre, but Percival was about the search and
the adventures along the way (very much part of Henry’s life).
If the legends were transmitted by manuscript, such as an original
Queste, Perlesvaus or Grail book…. then intertwined with Henry’s already
existing oral tradition imitated by Chrétien; and then embellished by
subsequent continuators cross referencing the original output of Henry; it
seems fairly pointless looking for an original as this ground has been amply
ploughed by French and German commentators in the past.
If Henry Blois’ verse manuscripts ever existed and were read by conteurs
at court, it is only the later versions by Chrétien and Robert which we are
left with and these probably have their own embellishments incorporated.
Whereas HRB has survived in the continuity of the monastic system
(through its seemingly more historical content and Latinity), Grail literature
cannot be said to have survived in the more fractured court system.
Whatever we are to make of the Bliocadran as a work, we can see many
similarities which tie the work to Henry Blois. Bliocadran had twelve
brothers and Glastonbury was populated by one of twelve brothers; a
certain Glasteing who found his sow sucking ‘old church apples there.
Apart from the relevance for the apples linking Pomorum to insula
Pomorum of VM fame and Glastonbury (through the apples) with Avalon….
the twelve brothers had several territories in Wales. One of which was
Gower and the other Kidwelly and this Bliocadran was the father of
There is a designer to this array legend and since we know Henry is
Abbot of Glastonbury and ultimately this all concentrates itself at Avalon or
the Vaus d’Avaron or the vales of Avalon it is hardly surprising that the
protagonist is per-ce-val (singular) through this vale’ is incorporated in a
book called Perlesvaus per-les-vaus (plural) ‘through the vales’. You have to
give Henry credit for a good sense of humour!!!!
The story of Perceval was
Henry’s way of including the quest or search for the Grail which he had
himself carried out, but now portrayed in the form of a mystical procession
based upon the mass processional but mystified by Henry’s muses with the
objects solemly passing by a speechless Percival. Because Henry Blois did
not have the answer, nor did Perceval; but he was blamed for not asking the
question. It is hardly surprising then that we hear of Perceval le Blois.
The whole edifice of the Matter of Britain is built on tangential
coincidences which taken as a whole have to have been interrelated by an
architect. The literary composer who evolved the design from unconnected
works mentioning Ynis Gutrin to an Isle de Voirre; and the anachronism of
Arthur’s connection to Joseph, had a fortuitously long life. The fact that it all
ties to Glastonbury as Avalon is by ‘haphazard design’ partially dictated by
events over time, if we look at the sequence of events tied to Henry’s
agenda’s, but its inter-connectedness is derived from one mind. Henry
constructed the Matter of Britain as it could only take shape by design.
If it had not been for the great fire at Glastonbury in 1184, where so
many books were destroyed, I am sure Henry Blois’ part in the manufacture
of the false historicity which constitutes the Matter of Britain would have
been discovered many years ago. The strange circumstances of a man who
wrote an utterly unique book in HRB and who was in the unique position to
do so; with a unique intelligence at an opportune time in history and who
was in possession of a unique prophecy…. made it possible to compose a
unique legend. No crime committed (except the second biggest lie in
history) so, why look for a culprit? It is only when the relics of Joseph are
exposed that the Roman crime will be revealed and then Henry’s part in the
Matter of Britain will come to light.
Do we really live in an age where a conclave of Cardinals, some of which
have abused young boys, are capable of choosing a man in each generation
who is deemed infallible?
Henry placing Gorilla bones and a plait of blonde hair in Arthur’s grave with a ridiculous cross from Avalon
inside along with the string of namesbeginning BL which all aresources of the Grail legend and his several books
of authority must have given him a smile in old age. But for me the prophecies of Merlin were his finest poke at
Observations upon the Prophet Daniel. Issac Newton commenting on the fourth beast: By its eyes it was a
Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King.
And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the Church of Rome……..With his mouth he gives laws to kings and
Henry Blois seeing his fate and the potential destruction of his
powerbase after the 1155 royal council meeting conducted at Winchester
(at which the invasion of Ireland was discussed), put plan into action to
escape the pending revenge from Henry II and had Peter the Venerable
carry all his transportable wealth to Clugny a month prior to his departure.
In verse 635 of the Bliocadran prologue: One whole month before, the lady
had taken her treasure, which abounded in silver and gold, and sent it out of
the land.
In the Elucidation, in line 12 we hear of "Master Blihis". Blihos-bleheris,
(anagram H.Blois) is mentioned in Chrétiens Eric and Enid.
What has
come down to us is a mixture of Henry Bloisown tongue in cheek play on
words of his own name included in his literature and the genuine
reverberations of Henry Blois having stood in French courts in disguise or
having employed someone to read his verse under the name of Master
Blehis. It is not by accident or coincidence the Bleheris who, according to
Wauchier, had ‘told tales concerning Gawain and Arthur's court’; and the
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, of whom Gerald
of Wales speaks are all coincidental concoctions. These are not separate
people, or mere inventions of the separate writers. It would seem as if
Henry, may well have deserved the title ‘famosus ille fabulator’, and it is not
by chance that the similarity of his name appears in many forms in
connection with and as an authority on the Grail.
The ‘master’ of Master Blihis has its derivation from ‘Monseigneur’
through Monsieur and even Blaise, the writer of the supposed ‘Grail book
posited by Robert de Boron is ‘master’ of Merlin.
Wauchier the continuator
of Chrétien refers to what he thinks is the original author by name and calls
him ‘Bleheris’ the first time. On the second occasion he states specifically
that this Bleheris was of Welsh birth and origin, et engenuïs en Galles’.
He says this in connection with a tale being told to a certain, Comte de
nations as an Oracle; and pretends to Infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the whole world; which is
to be a Prophet in the highest degree.
‘Tristan who never laughed sat beside Bliobleheris’.
Robert de Borons prose Merlin from the Modena manuscript. So said Merlin to his master Blaise, explaining
what he had to do. Merlin called him ‘master’ because he had been such a support and guide to his mother.
Poitiers, whose favourite story it was, saying ‘he loved it above all others’.
This anecdote infers that it was not the only tale the said ‘Bleheris’ had
recounted to the Count.
As we saw in the prophecies when Henry Blois
refers to himself as Hericus the Hedgehog that built the Holy hole under
Winchester we now see him as Blehericus. If he is not laughing at our
expense he must be Tristan!!
From the beginning of Henry Blois’ impersonations, he bases the source
of all his Arthurian pseudo-history in Wales; as he does also through the
persona of a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’. He continues this façade as the original
Chrétien/Wauchier’s storyteller. However, Robert’s Blaise is firmly placed in
Northumberland. Henry Blois had differentiated his Merlin Ambrosius of
HRB fame to create a new Merlin Sylvestris or Merlin Caledonius in VM.
This was solely to tie in with Welsh poetry and the mention of Myrddin
Wyllt ,Myrddin Emrys, who became Merlinus Caledonensis, or Merlin
Sylvestris by association with such people as Rhydderch who came from the
Old North of Britain and by connection to Taliesin etc. This indicates that
Robert de Boron’s Blaise (who was Merlin’s master) was in fact the newer
Merlin Caledonius fabricated while Henry was at Clugny in 1155-8.
The ‘Elucidation’ prefaces the account of the Grail Quest by a solemn
statement of the gravity of the subject to be treated as:‘God moveth the High
story of the Graal. And all they that hear it ought to understand it, and to
forget all the wickednesses that they have in their hearts’. These stark
We can see that there is a possibility of three candidates for which Count of Poitier could apply. Henry Blois
entertained his Compte de Poitiers (which was synonymous with Poitou) before Wauchier gives us the name of
Bleheris.In the Middle Ages Poitiers became part of Aquitaine. Louis VII of France (11371152) obtained the
title through marriage to Eleanore and can be discounted as the Compte to whom Wauchier refers. Henry II of
England (1152, 11561189) obtained the title through marriage to Eleanore of Aquitaine. William IX (1153
1156) son of Eleanor and Henry II of England was only two when he held the title. Richard Ist, (son of Eleanor),
also held the title (11691196). Henry II would have most probably been referred to as King of England post
1156, and we know that Henry commenced his Grail literature in the era 1158-70. So, one might assume the
likely candidate for Wauchier’s reference to the Count is the future Richard I, especially with his connection to
Marie of France. Certainly, our Bleheris was not interested in Grail literature while he was at Clugny as there is
not a hint of evidence in VM (which was written at this time). I personally believe Wauchier’s reference to
Richard I where Wauchier refers to him retrospectively as he was known to have had an avid interest in Arthur
and was versed in poetry. He had, while in prison, written Ja nus hons pris or Ja nuls om pres,which is addressed
to his half-sister Marie de Champagne (read Marie of France) and he wrote it in song, in French and Occitan
warnings are said to have come from a certain Master Blihis, concerning
whom we hear no more. Scholarship needs to accept that the phonetic
coincidence of the name Blaise, ‘master’ of Merlin and Master Blihis Maistre
Blihis(given the likeness to a genuine Monsiegneur Blois) and the
coincidence of the similar sounding Bliobleheris, Bliocadran, Blihos-
Bliheris, Bréri, Bledhericus, Bleobleheris, Bliheris is beyond coincidence
that a source originator of various tracts concerning the Grail all have
similar phonetically sounding names
. The name must have stemmed
historically from a real’ Henry Blois as the propagator of Grail literature
who covertly disguises his association to these Histoiresbut at the same time
is having a laugh at our expense.
It seems pointless to rearrange and correct certain a priori standpoints
made by commentators such as Heinzel, Birch-Hirschfeld, Nitze, Bruce, Lot,
Nutt, Potvin, Pauphilet, Loomis etc. who have tackled this subject of the
provenance of Grail literature and who have all conceded to the existence
of an archetype or common theme. Yet not one of them implicates Henry
Blois as author. The same a priori that Carley and Logario use prevented
any of the above researchers finding a solution to the Matter of Britain, yet
none thought to look at the similarity of the name of the propagator and
think ‘well that’s a coincidence’; especially since Avalon is at Glastonbury
and the abbot was called Henry Blois and Blihos is an anagram of his
Now, if we accept there is no mention of Glastonbury in HRB and there
is no mention of Glastonbury in Grail literature yet both genres concern
themselves with Avalon and Arthur; surely we might look at a common
composer of both genres and for a person who wishes to hide his
connection to both. Henry Blois is without doubt intricately connected to
Funnily enough Jessie Weston is up against the same intransigence from haughty but dim minded critics who
accounted themselves as scholars. Jessie was an independent reaserarcher who was up against the same insults I
have already received, but she got nearer to the truth than any of them when she states:With regard to the
attitude taken up by certain critics, that no evidential value can be attached to these references, I would point out
that when Medieval writers quote an authority for their statements they, as a rule, refer to a writer whose name
carries weightand goes on to say: But are these references independent, was there more than one Bleheris? I
think not. The name is a proper, and not a family, name.Jessie Weston trying harder than any scholar to find the
answer got insulted by those who thought she had no right to voice opinion on their hallowed gravy train which
excluded those of having more insight. She says:A critic of my Quest volume remarks that “we have as little
faith in Wauchier’s appeal to a Welshman Bleheris as source for his continuation of Chretien’s ‘Perceval’ as we
have in Layamon’s similar appeal to Bede and St Austin at the beginning of the ‘Brut.’”Quite rightly she
answers them back: The remark seems to me singularly inept, there is no parallel between the cases.F U Lot.
the third genre of Glastonburyana as the dedicatee of DA and the fact he
was abbot shortly before Giraldus recognises Glastonbury as Avalon. This
must be recognised as the era that the material which constitutesthe Matter
of Britain took place i.e. between William of Malmesbury’s death in 1143
and Gerald’s account c.1192-3 just after the disinterment of Arthur.
Considering all that we have covered previously, it does not take
spurious conjecture to implicate Henry Blois. I can only conclude that it is
Henry Blois himself who interpolated the DA. It is after all, the
interpolations in DA which provides the very glue by which the whole
Matière de Bretagne is transformed from fable into the possibility of having
realistic historical provenance. Arthur’s historicity depends upon him being
unearthed. The curiosity and fame surrounding Arthur’s character was
spread abroad by Henry Blois in HRB through the British and continental
monastic system and popularly through his impersonation of Wace and
Arthur’s adept connection to the Grail in romance literature.
The possibility that Henry Blois had initially searched for Joseph at
Glastonbury (given the Melkin prophecy was found there) is augmented by
Henry’s name’s associated with the Montacute fiasco in the form of the De
Inventione; allowing that Henry Blois was Dean of Waltham also and had a
motive to create such a concoction. If Henry Blois wasn’t looking for an
island on which Joseph might exist, then why would Henry appropriate
Looe Island in 1144 if he was not looking for an island in Dumnonia
because he knew Ineswitrin was in Devon or Cornwall.
Henry secretly attached the leaden cross on the underside of Arthur’s
grave slab at Glastonbury in between the two pyramids while probably
inferring to other monks present that they were involved in a simple re-
interment of a saint. He then waited until the monks (and himself) were
dead. On his death and the release of DA amongst all the books donated to
the Abbey by Henry, the interpolated contents just became part of
Glastonbury lore, and became accepted as having been written by the great
historian William of Malmesbury 30 years previously.
Most modern scholarship has centred upon the inter-relationships of the
various early Grail works in an attempt to hone in on Grail literature’s
primordial form by comparing the various works. Comparing Grail
episodes…. looking for a source…. is as futile as Crick’s work on Geoffrey of
Monmouth without discovering who the originator of the HRB was. There
can be no understanding of the construction of HRB or of the relationship
between Primary Historia, First Variant and other variants and Vulgate
versions, unless the events behind the production of each edition are
elucidated. If nothing is known of the author (except what has been left
behind to misdirect his contemporaries and posterity)…. it is likely the
naive researcher will be duped.
What I find truly irritating is that Crick says at the beginning of her
book:It is known that a manuscript was at Le Bec at an early stage, but not
what proportion of continental copies stem from manuscripts introduced in
the twelfth century. The research should be focused upon which copies
closely replicate the differences found between EAW and the variants’ not
what proportion of continental copies stem from manuscripts introduced in
the twelfth century. For example, since the Primary Historia is the earliest
known copy…. is there another copy which closely resembles what
Huntingdon describes in EAW regarding Arthur’s fight with Mordred which
differs greatly from Vulgate? She could then realise that Vulgate through
variants evolved from Primary Historia.
As a generalisation, what makes most scholars inept is how their limited
practical knowledge relates to reality.
It is this use of common sense over
conditioned and unquestioned loyalty to predecessors’ opinions, (all of
them quoting in reverence of each other’s learning), which has hampered
the progression in understanding of the three genres we have discussed.
Some experts still maintain that Chrétien is the inspiration behind the Grail
or worse, that Robert is the inventor of Joseph and the vessel and its
connection to Avalon.
As we saw above Barry Cunliffe’s notion of the ingots being found inshore of the rocks is ridiculous in that a
coastal navigator setting off with a very precious cargo from the Erm estuary and capable of sailing 25 km,
would hit the first obstacle in the mouth of the estuary. This can happen when the crew are drunk like the White
ship incident but doubtful c.350 BC. To understand the practicalities which determined Burgh Island as the Ictis
of old, one has to understand seamanship and what makes Burgh Island the ideal landing spot. Firstly it is an
Emporium which provended tin as the classical writers suggest, central to the largest tin deposit in Belerium for
tin streamers; and secondly a perfect place to land a trading vessel at all states of the tide day or night. And it is
semi hidden from seaward and not apparent as an island. Mount Batten by comparison is not an easy place to
beach and more practically it does not dry out with the tide over land which carts can traverse at low tide as
Diodorus recycles from Pytheas. Any one remotely competent of handling a small vessel would keep well clear
of landing a craft there or at St Michael’s Mount in Cornwall except when tidal conditions are perfect. A
Phoenician trader could land under almost any sea condition and tide at Burgh Island by comparison. Strabo tells
us why the ingots are inshore of the rocks in the Erm entrance close to Ictis yet Barry chooses to ignore this very
relevant episode to Ictis
The denial of the accuracy of the data cached in the Prophecy of Melkin
by Carley is an act of ignorant negligence. By Carley’s own admission, he is
entirely in the dark as to the prophecy’s meaning. The Island’s location is
plainly indicated in the prophecy once it is decrypted. If you can’t accept
that Melkin uses nautical miles as a measurement of the numerical value of
104 stated in the Melkin prophecy, then you will not accept Pytheas’s
accurate calculation of the latitude of Marseille in 350 BC. If one can’t accept
the Beltane line, then how did the St Michael line appear? If Meridianum
Anglum is not there, then how is it that when the line on the landscape is
bifurcated at 13 degrees two other St Michael churches pop up on the line,
one at Montacute, the other on Burgh Island/Ineswitrin; the only two places
in the world connected to Joseph’s burial. The island in the Melkin
prophecy (Ineswitrin) is the same island which was given by the Devonian
King to Glastonbury and on it is the body of Joseph of Arimathea and what
is currently understood as the Grail (i.e. the duo fassula). We even have a
reason for the Island’s donation at the Saxon incursion.
The singular most important event which has confounded Grail questors
and researchers into the truth behind the Matter of Britain is Robert’s
account of Joseph of Arimathea. It is Joseph’s connection to the Grail and
how his association to Glastonbury came into being which has been
accounted a fortuitous convergence of factors by Lagorio. I hope now that
the reader is cognisant of the fact that Melkin’s prophecy is the key to the
Grail. There would have been far less confusion if Henry Blois had not
substituted his own invention of Avalon onto the prophecy in place of
Ineswitrin. But it is HRB’s corroboration of the existence of Avalon which
has tricked scholarship into believing that the island and the prophecy itself
are also a fabrication based on the fact that Geoffrey’s work is a composite
However, rather than the truth being understood, we are left with two
gross fabrications of Henry’s; one being the chivalric King Arthur and the
other Arthur’s fictitious association with Avalon. These became cemented
both in history and in location by the discovery of Arthur’s body. We now
know who planted the body of a bogus King Arthur. This is no way belies
the fact that Joseph was buried in Britain on Burgh Island, but it was Henry
himself as the original source of Robert de Boron’s material who brought
Joseph and the ‘Grailinto connection with the mysterious Avalon, just as it
was he himself who had promoted Avalon as Glastonbury in DA. We should
therefore look specifically at Robert de Boron and how much of his work
can be seen to be more aligned and closer to what may have originally
existed as one strain of Henry’s propaganda.
The most poignant point to be made about Robert de Boron’s Joseph d
Arimathie is that it is a compilation of known history from the Gospels and
embellished Apocrypha…. interwoven with a rationalisation of the truths
which exist in the enticing description of the duo fassula. The tantalising
suggestion that Joseph’s remains as indicated in Melkin’s prophecy are
somewhere extant in Britain on Avalon can only be connected to Robert’s
mention of the Vaus d’Avaron. Few commentators have tried to understand
how it is that Joseph is even posited as being buried in England and have
summarily dismissed the possibility because of scholarships erroneous
assumptions concerning the Melkin prophecy. Henry Blois understood that
Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain and died here and was buried on an
The piffle which the scholastic community has written about Robert’s
part in the Christianisation of the Grail (in whatever form and by whoever)
is redundant. The Grail of Henry Blois’ muses, was always associated with
Jesus. Henry has done his best to make an association with previous Welsh
literature in conflating the Grail with the cauldron. The Grail is in fact Jesus
body which was brought by Joseph of Arimathea to Burgh Island/Ictis to be
buried in a secret vault that Joseph had knowledge of through his tin
merchant connections with the community which protected and operated
Henry Blois did not understand fully Melkin’s prophecy but he did make
the connection that if the blood and sweat of Jesus existed somewhere, it
must be in a vessel. One would expect his deduction; because of the
wording of the Melkin prophecy that the blood and sweat was in two
separate vessels. The only way one could imagine two vessels containing
the fluids of Jesus is through some macabre recuperation by a disciple. The
supposed disciple would have been collecting droplets of sweat from a
suffering suspended Jesus. So, more than likely, Henry Blois just refers to
the one vessel of blood which he imagines was collected after Jesus was
speared. The grim connotation in collecting sweat is therefore eliminated
along with the spurious vessel that supposedly contained it.
Henry Blois splices together two of his inventions. He introduces the
round table firstly through Wace’s Roman de Brut and then an extension
where the table of the last supper comes into conjunction with a singular
vessel to be that used by Christ at the last supper. Un grail entre ses deus
mains une damoisele tenoit.
The fact that the Modena manuscript E.39 of the Biblioteca Estense in
Modena contains the entire trilogy of Joseph, Merlin and Perceval may be
purely coincidental given Henry’s past association with Modena; but more
likely it is just another way for Henry to propagate disparate material
which would eventually collide far away from its source yet have
corroborative detail on the arch outside of Arthur’s existence at
Glastonbury. This to my mind might implicate Henry having a closer tie to
Robert than is commonly understood.
To my mind there is something highly suspicious about Robert de
Boron’s telling of these three tales which seems to correlate very closely
with Henry’s known output in HRB and Henry’s obvious association to
Avalon Joseph and Melkin. Blaise, the recorder of events which we are led
to believe are in ‘the Grail book’, provides the whole trilogy with a
provenance to the 12th century listener. ‘Geoffrey had used the same
gambit of a source book from Walter in HRB. The Grail book provides the
reasoning behind how it is that the various tales have been recorded and
have been passed through time to be heard by listeners in the twelfth
However, the whole histoire of Joseph is partially corroborated in the
acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Nicodemus and the rest of the story can be
accounted by Merlin who exists at different points in time and has related
the account to the recorder Blaise.
The ambiguity that the redactor of the
Modena manuscript has left us reflects a previous rationalisation of Henry
Blois which has been foisted on Robert: My lord Robert de Boron, who tells
this story, says, like Merlin, that it is in two parts, for he could not know the
Meanwhile Merlin went to Northumberland to tell Blaise of these events, and Blaise wrote them down- and it is
by his writings that we have knowledge of them still. In Robert de Boron’s prose Merlin this sentence is repeated
twice so that all understand the provenance and transmission of the Grail stories…. much as Henry had used the
authority of Walter’s book in the supposed translation which constitutes HRB. In effect, what we are supposed to
believe is that, a time traveller (Merlin) relates to Blaise in the sixth century what had transpired after the
crucifixion. By this clever concoction we now can believe in the events being recorded as we understand how the
tale was transmitted.
story of the Grail’. I believe the implication is that Henry has let us know
that the story concerning Joseph and the Grail has been related by Merlin;
and then Blaise and Merlin have recorded their own contemporaneous
events in the sixth century and hence the provenance of the record. All so
neat…. and one must ask, why is Robert explaining what is so obviously an
invention of Henry Blois?
Robert refers to the ‘High book’ just as Chrétien speaks of the book given
him by Count Philip of Flanders which does suggest a written source
created by Henry. However the references are ‘to hear or to ‘hearing the
book’ and supposedly Merlin instructs Blaise to set it down in a book for
many people who hear my words will benefit from them’ and ‘the book of the
Grail will be heard most gladly’. Henry’s greatest asset in the proliferation of
his edifice is summed up by Merlin saying ’all who would willingly hear this
book and have it copied’
Alas, unlike the HRB, it was not copied as the Vulgate HRB had been in
the monastic system for obvious reasons…. and with Henry’s failing health
and the onset of blindness in his last year, much of the Grail episodes in
their original form were transferred orally while Henry was alive and some
corroborative works were burnt in the fire in 1184. If I was to posit what
happened given the definite agendas which are dealt with in Robert’s
trilogy; I would say that Robert is putting into prose what Henry Blois had
originally created in verse.
It is not Robert’s place to think out how the tale arrived logistically but
just to tell the tale. It would be Henry’s task to do this in making it seem as if
there could be some truth in the tale. The only person in that era who knew
of the possibility that Joseph is connected to Britain and may be buried on
an island is Henry because he had the Melkin prophecy. So it is more likely
he is trying to rationalise to the listener how this tale could possibly be told
and hold true unless he explains the chronology of events and how ‘Blaise’
got his information. One very solid reason, apart from the huge
consolidation attained in the trilogy to link this with Henry’s mind is the
fact that Blaise is written into the text as part of the explanation of how the
story reached the twelfth century. In all the other accounts where Master
Blihis and Bliho-Bleheris etc are involved, they are just referenced as the
source but not an integral part of the rationalisation in the text. Anyway, we
should not be dwelling on how Robert got his work because it is stated it
was from Blaise and we know who Blaise is.
Henry Blois could not link back Joseph to the Vaus d’Avaron without the
Melkin prophecy as this was his…. and only his template. So obviously if a
real Robert did write the prose versions, it would seem Henry would have
written the verse versions first. I am on the fence with either outcome. But
one should consider the glaring coincidence. Robert’s prose trilogy found
inParis, BnF,fr 7489(c) and Modena(e) with the coincidence of Joseph going
to Avalon with the Grail in the text, with an engraving just outside on the
archivolt of an event which had taken place at Glastonbury, just seems too
coincidental that there is not some underlying close connection to Robert.
Even though these texts date from c.1230 and are heavily revised it does not
mean a previous copy did not exist there. Why there?
So little is known about Robert de Boron and most assume that he wrote
between 1202 and 1212 mostly due to the connection of the Lagorio and
thesis. But Robert says: At the time I related the history of the Grail
with my Lord Gautier in peace who was of Mont Belyal, it had never been
related And (en cui service je suis). Many have taken this to be that Boron, a
village situated eleven miles from Montbéliard must be the Mont Belyal. A
certain Gautier de Montbéliard set out for Italy in 1202 and took part in the
fourth Crusade and died in the Holy land in 1212.
If I was to come off the fence I would ask why the author has put Mont
Belyal instead of Montbéliard, a typical Henry Blois ploy and the fact that
Montbéliard is near Autun and Clugny (see note 4). Henry surely knew it
was called Montbéliard. He knows this area in the Blois region and would
have passed through Boron/Montbéliard. He might have known a lord
Gautier or son and even stayed with him before going into the Aravis range
nearby on one of his several trips to Rome. Because of the content of Joseph
d'Arimathe and Merlin we know Henry has to be the source, Joseph is
derived from Melkin’s prophecy and Merlin from HRB and VM. But what
dates this is the fact that Henry has Chretien and ‘Robert’ writing about
Perceval and the story of the Grail. So my guess would be that Henry
versified all Robert’s Trilogy if we hold to the adage ‘Verse is first’ and had a
William Nitze.Robert de Boron, Enquiry and summary.It was Robert who connected the Grail story with
Biblical history and thus gave the impulse to its complete Chritianization.
jongleur read it at the court of Champagne. It really makes no difference if
Robert existed as a person and he put the trilogy into prose or from where
Chrétien or Philip got his book; the main point is all the seedling of the Grail
come from Henry. There is no alternative!!!!! Because he had Melkin’s
prophecy in his possesion!!!
This Prophecy originally was the only other document with Ineswitrin
named on it …. the other was the 601 charter which was 100% genuine… so
that makes the prophecy genuine. We know it is a real encoded document
because of what Island it indicates by geometry in Devon. So the Melkin
prophecy with Avalon on it could only come from Henry because Robert
puts Joseph in connection with Avalon (vaus d’Avaron). It will take years for
a scholar to get this because the Melkin prophecy has been decreed a
For all those sceptics who have doubted Giraldus’ assertion concerning
Glastonbury’s already established synonymy with Avalon in 1189-91, we
surely have corroboration here as Robert’s Vaus d’Avaron can hardly be
construed as anything else but the marshlands surrounding Glastonbury….
and it is hardly likely that Robert ever visited Glastonbury. So at what date
did Robert hear or read Henry’s versified editions or is there a Robert in
To me, there is so much in Robert’s trilogy that ties closely with Henry
Bloisagenda, I would assume that through ‘Robert’s’ clearer presentation
of Henry’s propaganda (tying up loose ends and consolidating)
and taking
into account Henry’s attempts to conflate and align his earlier HRB with his
secondary agenda concerning Avalon, Joseph and the Grail; it would almost
seem as if Robert’s rendition of events is remarkably close to how we might
imagine Henry’s own consolidation would be. It could be that somehow
Robert’s histoires are a direct reflection of Henry’s post 1158 developments
of the Grail saga. You would have to be a scholar to think the Glastonbury
monks could draw such a neat circle.
All is conjecture, because in the thirty years or so from Henry’s death to
c.1200, what seems to be three early sources are known to stem from
Master Blehis or Monsigneur Blois (or some phonetic residue of his name)
For Instance: It was then that Merlin began to make mystical pronouncements of which the book of his
prophecies was composed.
i.e. he was still known as the original propagator of the Grail by the various
continuators and repetiteurs and re-workers. How is it that continuators of
Chrétien are using a common source and still referencing an oral tradition
of Master Blehis? Yet, it seems also that Henry must have committed at
least two strains of Grail literature to writing. Certainly a case may be put
forward for Chrétien, Robert and the writer of the High History all acting as
repetiteurs of a previous account, but what strikes me most about Robert’s
work is the similarity of how he presents events and consolidates technical
positions i.e. the logistics of how the account survived through time, with
how Henry Blois would similarly have consolidated these conundrums.
Basically whatever took place…Robert did not think up the trilogy as Nitze
Henry Blois maybe has an idea that the body of Jesus was brought to
Britain, but understands from the Melkin prophecy that one or two vessels
connected to Jesus exist in Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre. Henry
understands how a vessel needs to be tied back into the crucifixion episode
(because the vessel contains the blood of Jesus according to the prophecy in
his possession); and he links this to the vessel he associates with Jesus at the
last supper. He then has Pilate say to Joseph: ‘I have a vessel of his given to
me by one of the Jews who were present at his capture’. This motif, I believe,
may have derived from Henry himself as a rationalisation of the word
‘vessel’ found in the prophecy and its connection to Joseph. Also another
telling factor that the Melkin Prophecy pre-empts Robert de Boron is that; in
the vessel is the blood of Jesus, just as is stated in Melkin’s prophecy. And
our lord replied: Joseph, you must be its keeper…Joseph was on his knees and
our Lord handed him the vessel and he took it, and our Lord said: Joseph, You
are holding the blood which contains three powers…
Of course modern scholars assessment is that the Melkin prophecy is
composed on Chretien and Robert’s Grail stories simply because Adam of
Damerham does not mention the Melkin prophecy in his writings. He does
not mention it because he does not understand it!!! Just like Malmesbury. It
was not in DA because the obvious connections to the Grail being
synonymous with its source material i.e. the duo fassula would leave a trail
back to Henry Blois…. and his other interpolations in DA would then be
clearly exposed.
Now, one other vital part about the Melkin prophecy’s duo fassula is that
one vessel contains sweat, the other blood; or at least that was the literal
translation as understood by Henry Blois. So, it is hardly surprising to find a
reference to the sweat of Jesus, knowing Henry’s technique of
encompassing as many ways of joining disparate information so that
conflation occurs. Robert de Boron has Veronica meet the lord when: the
people who were leading the prophet through the streets, his hands tied,
followed by the Jews. And he asked me to wipe away the sweat that was
running down his face. It is hardly likely that Glastonbury monks in the
fourteenth century are going to invent the duo fassula (two vessels) to
incorporate some version of Robert’s Grail story so they can possess both
blood and sweat in two ‘cruets’.
Strangely enough, considering the duo fassula is in fact Melkin’s
reference to a ‘doubled fasciola (i.e. the Turin Shroud); it is a huge
coincidence that the cloth with which Veronica wiped the lord’s face is the
‘Veronica cloth’ when she says: when I got home and looked at the cloth, I
found this image of his face. This anecdotal episode was obviously invented
also to coincide with the ‘Veil of Veronica’.
The Veronica Sudarium was in place by 1011 when a scribe was
identified as keeper of the cloth. Giraldus, after a visit to Rome made direct
reference to the existence of the ‘Veronica’. Henry was never aware of the
cloth with the Lord’s image doubled on it, (i.e. the Turin shroud)…. but it
was found by Templars after he had died; and is the very reason the Roman
Church had the Templars wiped out on Friday 13
October 1307 by means
of the forces of the French King. Since the Templars entered the tomb of
Joseph and removed the shroud, one can only imagine they had deciphered
the prophecy.
Since De Charney’s granddaughter produced the shroud, it must have
been found by De Charney before John of Glastonbury recounted the
Avalon rendition of the Melkin prophecy. So again is the proof that the
prophecy was not fabricated by JG or monks in the era. (depending upon
whether you think the Shroud of Turin did come from Joseph’s tomb). But
some organisation has aligned those churches; especially the two St Michael
churches (no longer extant) on the 104 mile line to be the only two
possibilities as locations mentioned in historical documents where Joseph is
said to be buried i.e. Montacute or Ineswitrin. This in itself is a remarkable
coincidence, as this very line decrypted in the Melkin Prophecy terminates
on an island 104 miles from the bifurcation point and yet the churches were
aligned at an angle of 13 degrees to the St Michael line.
We know the only person who would have reason to substitute the
name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin prophecy would be Henry Blois as he had
planted the grave of Arthur and had the leaden cross fabricated to indicate
and corroborate that Glastonbury was Avalon (where King Arthur was to be
unearthed at some future date).
One other indicator that the Joseph d Arimathie story might have come
from Henry Blois in a direct form (i.e. an original verse to Robert’s prose) is
that there is no need for the coyness of Robert in not divulging what is
written in the ‘book’ about the Grail. The simple point is that not even the
original propagator of the Grail stories (i.e. Henry) knew of what the Grail
consisted; and so all future continuators concocted a mystification of the
object and its powers: Then Jesus spoke other words to Joseph which I dare
not tell you- nor could I, even if I wanted to, if I did not have the High Book in
which they are written: and that is the creed of the great mystery of the Grail.
And I beg all those who hear this tale to ask me no more about it at this
Henry is uncertain of the duo fassula’s function or what the duo fassula
exactly is; except by his misunderstanding of what he conceives to be the
description given in the prophecy. So, he weaves his impression of it into
the story by asking the very question he has asked himself. ‘What purpose
does it serve’? In the end he has Percival ask the Fisher King: Sire by faith
you owe me and all men, tell me the purpose of these things I see.
In Joseph d’ Arimathie it is made clear that the object was a vessel first
and then received the name of a Graal’: And what can we say about the
vessel we have seen…what shall we call it? Those who wish to name it rightly
will call it the Graal….and hearing this they said, ’this vessel should indeed be
called the Graal’. Why, would the Glastonbury monks, (who Carley
proposed fabricated the prophecy of Melkin), go from an established ‘Un’
Graal to ‘Duo’ vessel like jugs or cruore in the fourteenth century? The
mystery of the vessel (from which Henry has understood as Vassula) in the
prophecy, precedes the naming of the Graal ….coming from Sang Rèal
through San Graal (in oral recounting) and thus Holy Grail.
The other odd thing about ‘Robert’s’ account of Joseph is the introduction
of Petrus and his letter. I am fairly sure the point of the letter existing is to
explain the existence of the prophecy of Melkin which Henry knew would
appear in Avalon. Petrus is miraculously inspired to take the letter to the
west, to the ‘vales of Avalon’. Petrus says: You never saw a message more
entrusted than this. I shall go to the Vales of Avalon. Now if the message or
letter is mentioned to rationalise the existence and contents of the prophecy
of Melkin by Henry Blois originally, it would not be difficult to accept that
the person who changed the location on the prophecy is the same as the
person constructing an episode of how it arrived in Avalon.
(We should not
forget Avalon is a construct by Henry Blois as composer of HRB based on
the name of the Burgundian town).
Henry must have been aware of the tin trading connection of Joseph in
Cornwall because as we have already discussed Henry acquired Looe Island
thinking it might be the Ineswitrin mentioned in connection with Joseph’s
sepulchre and so he would have had no difficulty in working out why
Joseph was in Britain in the first place. Petrus was told to deliver the vessel
to Britain by the Lord’s will and obviously Bron was to be the next guardian
because Henry was conflating the Welsh Bran with his invented Bron (just
as he had made it appear in VM as if Merlin really did have a Welsh or
northern Briton provenance, paralleling Welsh bardic material). It also
seems fairly plain that Robert is trying to rationalize or give meaning to an
anecdotal part of a previous rendition of a story that once existed
concerning the Roi Pescheor (the king of the sinners) i.e. Jesus. Somehow it
would seem in oral transition the name became the Roi pecheur and
ultimately ended up as the ‘Rich Fisher King’ with another account where
Bron is the Grail keeper.
Robert de Boron, who is supposedly unaware of the association of
Joseph’s burial in Britain (spelled out by the Melkin prophecy) has Joseph
end his days in the land and country of his birth which is never specifically
stated…. but Henry knew he was buried on Ineswitrin not Arimathea. No-
one has ever determined where Arimathea was. The opaqueness of the
The real reason for the prophecy’s arrival at Glastonbury is of course its link to the 601 charter and because the
Island was donated to Glastonbury. The link of Ineswitrin has for evermore been obscured by Henry having
changed the name of the island to Avalon about which the prophecy is written on the Melkin prophecy divulged
by John of Glastonbury.
reference diverts attention away from a certain burial at Glastonbury as
that would be just too much considering what Henry had left to posterity in
DA. Now we in posterity are left with only one choice according to Henry’s
muses. When we find Joseph to deduct he was born in Britain. Why if Henry
does not stipulate where Joseph’s burial location is I wonder why he even
brings it up. Freudian or what!!!! Or did he think future monk craft would
reveal his bones in Avalon.
Another odd coincidence that implies the originator of the Joseph
histoire is more informed of a connection to the Melkin prophecy than
a‘Robert de Boron’ is evident in the Merlin histoire. Blaise is told to write
the Book of the Grail by Merlin and: when you have done this great work for
Joseph and his ancestors and descendants, and have earned the right to be in
their company, I will tell you where to find them and you will see the
glorious rewards that Joseph enjoys because he was given the body of Christ.
There is only one document which purports to show where one can ‘find
Joseph (when deciphered), so how is Robert on the same track unless it
came from Henry Blois and his knowledge of the Melkin prophecy. This is
again, another indicator of the prophecys existence before the fourteenth
century. Another achievement of the Merlin histoire is that it makes out that
Blaise originally wrote down the story concerning the Grail, but very
cleverly infers that there is another book which could be construed as the
book ex Britannia (from where Uther and Pendragon have come from),
which coincides with what is ambiguously implied in HRB. In Robert’s
Merlin we hear: Merlin had commanding influence over Pendragon and his
brother Uther. When he (Merlin) heard that his predictions were to be written
down he told Blaise and Blaise asked him, ‘Merlin will their books be similar
to the one I am writing?’ ‘Not at all’ replied Merlin they will only record what
has happened’. Merlin returned to the court… It was then that Merlin
began to make mystical pronouncements of which the book of his
prophecies was composed.
Basically, this just adds credence to Henry’s works on the prophetia
assuring us and the contemporary audience Merlin saw into the future. ‘Not
at alllike now because Blaise is recording the past. It really does not take
the sharpest knife to cut through Henry’s corroborative synthesis. So just
like HRB’s historicity and credence is bolstered by Merlin corroboratively
confirming ‘Geoffrey’s’ historicity in HRB by recounting past events
forwards we now hear of Blaise corroborating what Merlin has given
witness of how events transpired in the past. Merlin the great ‘corroborator’
is not being used by Robert but the inventor of Merlin and the Prophecies
which seem to revolve to an alarming degree about Henry Blois. So why
ever would any scholar in the past, not even have suspected that Robert’s,
source was Henry Blois; because of Logario’s reversed theory about Joseph
material filtering back to Glastonbury!!!
Since the prophecies of Merlin were constructed by Henry Blois, this to
my mind adds to the supposition that Robert’s account is closely related to a
propagandist consolidatory account in ‘Robert’s’ trilogy composed by Henry
Blois which helps to square many ambiguities and contradictions, but in
actual fact tosses the salad more in the whole web of lies he has created.
Also, as I have maintained, the ‘round table’ first mentioned by Wace is
in fact a device of Henry’s, (given the fact that it miraculously appears at
Winchester), we also see in Robert’s Merlin that: our lord bade him (Joseph)
make a table in memory of the last supper…. and then there is a third table.
Know then, that our Lord made the first table, and Joseph the second and I
(Merlin) in the time of Untherpendragon ordered the making of the third. One
would think that the man who had the table made for Winchester is the
man who started the whole façade about the various tables and
Utherpendragon decides to ‘have it made at Carduel in Wales’. A veritable
quagmire and this is early Grail literature!!!
There is only one prophecy as such which speaks of the spiritual
restoration of the land of Britain (as long as one does not think it applies to
a climatic condition), and also refers to the blood of Jesus. This of course is
the prophecy of Melkin. The Melkin prophecy, as we know, refers to
spiritual blessings once the tomb of Joseph has been opened to the whole
world (the healing of the Wasteland). There is more to this than meets the
eye when tale becomes reality!!
It is not by coincidence then that Robert (who has his source as Henry
Blois) informs us…. that once the question concerning the Grail has been
asked the Fisher King will at once be healed. Then he will tell him the secret
words of our Lord before passing from life to death. And that knight will have
the blood of Jesus in his keeping. With that the enchantments of the land
of Britain will vanish, and the Prophecy will be fulfilled.
Given the Fisher King’s inter-changeability with Joseph of Arimathea in
later Romance…. Robert has three major pieces of Melkin’s prophecy in one
sentence. To what other prophecy might this passage refer except the
Melkin prophecy?
Given also, Henry’s love of Castles…. is it not odd that Chrétien’s Percival
also mentions the Fisher King who directs Percival to the Grail Castle? Both
Robert and Chretien have heard from a common source.
It is during the feast in the castle at every course where the procession
containing a candelabra, a bleeding lance, and the Grail are all brought
through. No-one, not even Henry knows what the duo fassula refers to….
but Henry knows it is connected to Jesus, hence the lance, and so to spice
the salad further…. the missing Menorah also. Most interestingly of all in
Robert’s Perceval is the processional of the Grail:
And as they were sitting there and the first course was being served, they
saw a damsel, most richly dressed come out of the chamber; she had a cloth
about her neck, and in her hands she carried two small silver platters.
After her came a boy carrying a lance, which shed from its head three drops
of blood. They passed before Perceval and into another chamber. After this
came a boy bearing the vessel that our lord had given Joseph in prison; he
carried it in his hands with great reverence.
It seems again a remarkable coincidence that in Melkin’s prophecy the
common understanding which we are led to interpret (without deciphering)
is that there are two vessels one of them silver: Joseph has with him in his
sarcophagus two vessels, white and silver, filled with the blood and sweat of
the prophet Jesus.
Even though the vessels are differentiated from the vessel that our lord
had given Joseph in prison which is the Grail; in Robert’s Percival we can
witness a closer relationship to the origins of the Grail having been
established from Melkin’s prophecy.
It is quite ridiculous that if Robert and Chretien wrote c.1165-80 and
Arthur’s Avalon was already commensurate with Insula Pomorum c.1155-7
in VM (which inferred Glastonbury in Somerset)…. that it took until 1345
until John of Glastonbury composed a supposedcomposite prophecy’ about
Joseph’s sepulchre on an island; especially when Robert de Boron infers the
‘message’ which pertains to Melkin’s prophecy (as we have just covered)
was sent to ‘the Vaus Avaron in the West’ by Joseph over a hundred and
eighty years previously in ‘Robert’s’ account.
But, we should not forget that the experts have informed us that the
Melkin prophecy which concerns Joseph and Avalon has little to do with an
Island in Britain but a certain al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-
Bunduqdari, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who had captured the fortress of
Safed or one of the alternative Mediterranean, Oriental or Antipodean
locations of an Avalon. You would need a PhD just to make this stuff up!!!
Again, in Perceval, a beautiful woman says to Percival: You were at the
house of your Grandfather the rich fisher King and saw pass before you the
vessel that contains the lord’s blood which is called the Grail. Given the
preceding evidences, the prophecy of Melkin and its mention of Jesus’ blood
surely precedes the Grail and its connection to Joseph and is the model
upon which the sang real became the Grail… by way of verbalisation to San
If one assumes the Melkin prophecy is the product of an assimilation of
French Grail material…. a composite; the real purpose of which supposedly
relates material about Baybars and a fortress in Syria and yet at the same
time is supposed to have been composed to locate Joseph’s sepulchre at
Glastonbury through its composite propaganda about a line from the old
church; the question is therefore: should we defer to the experts and deny
there is any relevant geometry in the Melkin prophecy which points to
Burgh Island?
Why did the supposed fourteenth century monk’s make it so complicated
that even our brightest peers today look to the East to the Mediterranean
Orient or Antipodean locations of an Avalon,when Robert says Avalon is in
the West. One would think the monks who intended us to comprehend that
Joseph’s sepulchre was at Glastonbury could at least use relevant
vocabulary to aid their propaganda.
The two silver platters are become part of the relics which make up the
Grail: And did you not see the Grail and the other relics pass before you.
Know then that if you had asked what the Grail was for, your Grandfather the
King would have been healed of his infirmity and restored to health and the
prophecy that our lord made (about) Joseph would have been fulfilled.
Is it not by coincidence that there is mention of a prophecy and Joseph?
I can understand how our modern scholars believe that the Melkin
prophecy with the duo fassula full of the blood of Jesus…. along with its
having a connection to Joseph, could have been formed from the
descriptions of the various pertinent parts in Robert’s work. How is it
accounted as unimportant that mention of the number thirteen randomly
associated with the figure of 104 in the Melkin prophecy, along with the
random inclusion of a non-translatable word like sperula is just all
coincidence? One digit added to these numbers and the geometry in
Melkin’s prophecy which locates Burgh Island would be unsolvable.
Do these vague numbers for which scholars have no explanation for
their inclusion into a bogus prophecy exist for any other reason than
measurements? These vagaries of Geometry just happen to construct a line
which falls on an island in Devon and moreover passes through Montacute.
Are we silly enough to believe that they coincidentally (completely
randomly) form a line on a map104 nautical miles long which just so
happens to bifurcate an English Meridian within a sperula. Especially when
the end of the constructed line (of stated length and angle), created by
following the instructions, indicates precisely Burgh Island which I have
identified has a connection to Glastonbury’s Ineswitrin. We are informed
that Joseph’s relics are to be found there.
Robert’s version of events in the trilogy we have covered reflects closely
Henry Bloisown propaganda. ‘Blaise’ is the authority by which the account
of the Grail reaches us: But Chrétien de Troyes says nothing of this- nor do
the other trouvères who have turned these stories into jolly rhymes. But we
will tell only what matters to the story: the things that Merlin dictated to his
master Blaise who lived in Northumberland…and he had Blaise record these
adventures for the worthy people who would be eager to hear them told. And
we find in Blaise’ writings dictated with authority by Merlin…
What confirms for me that Henry Blois is the instigator of the main
content of Robert’s work is the fact that Robert has no motive for
consolidating corroboratively the persona of Merlin found in ‘Geoffrey’s’
HRB and in VM. Yet Robert goes well beyond a story-teller’s expansion of
events found in HRB in confirming parts which were blatantly invented by
‘Geoffrey’ concerning Brennius and Belinus.
So Merlin the time traveller dictates to Blaise and we get the meistre in
the service of lord Gautier belittling Chrétien and other trouvères for their
lack of knowledge the Joseph and Grail story.
It is Henry Blois who has supplied the original main content of Robert’s
work as he is seen to be adding credence to Henry’s own pseudo-history.
Then the city was surrendered and Brenes was crowned emperor and the
Romans paid him tribute. That is why it seems to me that you should have
lordship over the Romans; you should be emperor of Rome. But one thing
more sire; remember how Merlin came to your court the very day you became
King. He said there had been two Kings of Britain who had been King of
France and Emperor of Rome…
Robert de Boron has no motive whatsoever to complement and add
credibility to Henry Blois’ pseudo history found in HRB. There is a whole
historical section inserted in Perceval to corroborate and give flesh to that
which had been questioned concerning the historicity of HRB and even
Arthur himself…. and the question of whether he died or not:
Mordred was killed there and so was the Saxon King who had harboured
him. And King Arthur was mortally wounded, struck through the chest with a
They gathered about Arthur, grieving bitterly but he said to them,
‘stop this grieving for I shall not die. I shall be carried to Avalon where my
wounds will be tended by my sister Morgan’. So Arthur was borne to Avalon,
telling his people to wait for him, for he would return.
One thing is a certainty; there is only one person who knew before the
unearthing of Arthur’s body in 1189-91 where the body was going to be
found. He was the person who had inserted in DA where Arthur’s and
Guinevere’s tomb was located. There is only one person who would have
added the Vera Historia to the First Variant and would know that Arthur
had been hit by a lance.
There is only one person who could have known
that Arthur and Guinevere were laid in Avalon as specified in the colophon
to Perlesvaus.
Scholars could accept that Perlesvaus was written before or
contemporaneously with Robert or Chretien’s work because of certain
storyline commonalities; but it is still denied by most. This has had to be
denied, because the construct of present day scholar’s theory of chronology
This is also found in the Vera Historia de morte Arthuri in a copy of First Variant HRB.
See Chapter 32 Vera Historia de Morte Arthuri
'The author of the High Book of the Grail even claims that his text is copied from a Latin manuscript which was
found in the Isle of Avalon in a house of holy religion which sits atop tidal waters reaching to it where King
Arthur and Queen Guenievre lie'.
concerning the Grail texts would be seen as unfounded if Perlesvaus existed
before Arthur’s disinterment.
Concerning Perceval and his quest for the Grail; the nature of the quest
should be understood to be modelled upon Henry’s own quest to locate the
tomb of Joseph. The quest for the Holy Grail is based on Henry’s potential
find of the island just as it is portrayed in Melkin’s prophecy as a quest (in
deciphering the code). The secondary subject of the Grail in the Melkin
prophecy (i.e. the duo fassula not Joseph’s sepulchre) is entwined by
location in the same quest. Find Joseph’s relics and you find out what he
brought with him from the Holy Land. What the Melkin prophecy portends
most clearly is that it is formatted as a quest to first find an island and then
a tomb and then uncover some mystical object. What one has to do is
unlock the riddle by asking the right questions and one will undoubtedly
find both the remains of Joseph and the truth about the Grail on Burgh
Island which directly relates to events after the crucifixion.
The outcome of the discovery of Jesus’ body will be that all the three major
world religions will have to reassess their understanding of the prophets of
Israel. The experts will still insist that the Prophecy of Melkin is a fake to
save face. They will say the instructions in the prophecy are groundless.
They will insist there is no tomb on Burgh Island. They will even prevent a
search taking place. Let him who denies the tomb exists before he pillories
or this rambling exposé, be certain that Joseph’s tomb is not there….
for it will be opened at the appointed time.
Cicero. ……nor should I fear the imputation of arrogance while speaking the truth.