Chapter 35
My initial aim, as stated in the preface, was to alert anyone interested that
the bones of Joseph of Arimathea were on Burgh Island. Others have come
to the same conclusion. The relics have not been unearthed simply because
our scholars have advised the owner of Burgh Island that the prophecy of
Melkin is a fake and the geometry displayed therein has no substance. It is a
question of competency versus credentials. One does not have to be an
authority to realise that all the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy is exact and
this could not happen by chance. The reason no scholar has counteracted
what Yale and Goldsworthy have pointed out is simply because there is no
way to counteract the truth without seeming in denial, especially in Carley
and Crick’s case.
There are also glaring questions to which we may never find an answer
and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line deriving
from the Beltane line or English Meridian as Melkin calls it. We can
understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical
mile line, but how is it that that line passes through Montacute and
terminates on Burgh Island? It is these types of questions which have made
the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible. All the
icons mentioned are relevant thus the thirteen degrees are relevant to the
sphaerula at Avebury at the bifurcation of the line conveyed by the
prophecy of Melkin.
So, let us recap on how we got here and how the scholastic community
missed what common sense (for the most part) lights upon. If we start with
the prophecies of Merlin and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which
I feel I have exposed in this exposé…. we know Henry Blois must have
written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the prophecies
is the author of the HRB and VM and the JC version.
Once we understand that it is Henry Blois, we can then conclude that an
array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of
Monmouth. We can now also clearly understand the circumstances and
stages under which HRB was composed and that the misinformation
regarding the person of ‘Geoffrey was meant to mislead to mask Henry’s
authorship. We then should ask, what other manuscript material has been
tampered with? Now, someone who links themselves so closely with Cicero
and who accounts authorship greater than any worth is hardly not going to
write anything in his lifetime. So scholars even if they do stick their head
above the parapet will dismiss my findings on the basis that I have cited too
many works composed by Henry Blois. Well, check out Cicero’s output!!!
We find that after Henry’s initial authorial foray with the Psuedo
Historia and Primary historia it is his next endeavour which sets him on a
course; Caradocs life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury.
Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of
Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can
deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention
in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an
engraving of an episode from the book connecting Arthur to Glastonbury
and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several
occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy
mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are
all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also
understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same
mind along with other specific expansions in Roman de Brut which parallel
the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same
So, if we follow the Glastonbury connection, because Henry was Abbot
there…. we find Malmesbury’s book (DA) convinces us that Avalon is
Glastonbury. The book was not only dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name
Avalon was indeed invented by Henry Blois…. the author of HRB. Then, we
must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to
within yards, has the name Avalon on it and yet we now know Henry has
transposed that name from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB
and replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin Prophecy.
Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the
island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island
name did the prophecy originally have on it? Then we find that an Island
mentioned by William of Malmesbury is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD
and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its
If the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the prophecy),
locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the
chances are that it could be Ineswitrin. When we then look at the etymology
of Ineswitrin, we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. We should
also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be,
and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is
synonymous with Glastonbury?
We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and the book of DA which was
dedicated to Henry Blois. We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130 so the
author of HRB’s famous colophon is misdirecting us. We find also that an
episode from Caradoc’s book is found on the Modena archivolt before 1140;
just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia at Bec. So, if we look to
the author of HRB and life of Gildas we find he is a bishop making regular
trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough clout to have
commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap episode at
Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we find that Diodorus
describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west peninsula and his
description of an Island matches Burgh Island. We have confirmation that
Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas referred, because tin
Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with an account from
Strabo which explains how the tin ingots came to be found at the head of
the Erm estuary.
The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a
Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’; and
this island which sold tin to the ancient world had the biggest deposit of tin
just 12 miles away and ample rivers behind the island for tin streaming.
Once Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon, we remember that
Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant.
Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection
through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us
to the same Island purporting to contain Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre….
with an amazing display of geometric precision. Once we establish why this
Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin
trade and Melkin Prophecy; we find that the only two places to which
Joseph is assigned a burial place in literature i.e. Montacute and
Ineswitrin….. are these two places existing on a line that Melkin, through an
encrypted document, has asked us to construct such a line, providing angle,
length, and both start and termination points…..which terminates on an
Island in Devon called Ineswitrin.
We then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked and we find
that the author of the book HRB who first mentions Avalon is the abbot of
Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy is found which links Avalon
to Joseph. Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus
and Robert de Boron’s allusion to vaus Avaron. If we follow this trail, we
can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph
(except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should
then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?
We see it in DA as both King Arthur and Joseph are connected to
Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which
anachronistically joins Arthur to Joseph emanates from the Blois region and
its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of
Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patrons of Chrétien and
Walter Map.
This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the
Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental
literature (supplied by the like of Bihos-Bleheris); but also in a tract called
the Perlesvaus. The Perlesvaus tract relates to the Old church at
Glastonbury and its lead roof. It mentions in the colophon to Perlesvaus
that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury…. but more
importantly, it speaks of the vessel which is also related to the mysterious
‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin at Glastonbury.
We then find that features of the prophecy relate to the composition of
the HRB in that the Island of Avalon which has been substituted by name in
the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin is named as the
mysterious island where Arthur is last seen. This island, as we all know,
turns out to be Glastonbury, established for the naïve by the existence of a
bogus ‘leaden cross’. The cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming)
where it is, obviating where it is found is in Avalon; not forgetting, Avalon is
Henry’s own invention in HRB from a town in his family’s region.
Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the finding of Joseph’s relics
in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being named as the last place
Arthur is seen), that King Arthur (if we are naïve) was also buried and
found in Avalon. We see that the Grail object is modelled on the duo fassula
(if we have our eyes open).
Also the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy
of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating
of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself. We find that two
pieces of evidence i.e. the purchase of Looe island and the search at
Montacute indicate Henry Blois is looking for Ineswitrin. Both the
enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the
same object in la quête du Graal or Chrétien de Troyes Perceval or le Conte
du Graal. Here it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object that
is said by the prophecy to be in the tomb along with Joseph’s relics.
Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy as an inspirational
template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning
(mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which the gullible search for
meaning in the Grail procession.
This vast array of linked material, which,
by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by
repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective
throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked:
Glastonbury and Henry Blois.
The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the
book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate
associations and we know this book was dedicated to and interpolated by
Henry Blois. We know it could only be him who transformed his own
The Grail procession is a fatuous invention with seemingly mystical relevance, which in fact uses two other
icons, the Menorah and the lance mentioned in the Gospel of John 19:34, One of the soldiers, however, made a
thrust at His (Jesus) side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out. Henry recognises the duo
fassula as a religious object but has no idea what it is except from the allusion to two vessels in the prophecy.
However, at the battle of Ascalon where Henry’s father was killed, Raymond of Aguilers carried the relic of the
Holy Lance which had incredibly been discovered recently at Antioch.
invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical
Glastonbury because Gerald says the location of Arthur’s body was
previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.
If we ignore the ignorant decrees of the experts…. it could only be Henry
Blois (who has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location,
because whoever planted the body knew where he had located it between
the pyramids. It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be
buried in Avalon, in Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of
Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was
situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely
accepted) between his death and Arthur’s disinterment. It could only be
Henry Blois for he is the first to state Insula pomorum is at Glastonbury
Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed
(which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and
who pointed out where to find the grave. It does not take a huge amount of
imagination to understand that his inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s
grave to be found in the future is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in
the future…. spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this
prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we
know exists in Devon because of the 601 charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are
said to exist there (and the reason for them being there is because Joseph
was a tin merchant). Therefore, to those who use common sense, the
prophecy of Melkin is not a fake, but was extant in the era of Henry Blois.
What has prevented these events coming to light is simply the arrogance
of the scholars. They have made some money on the gravy train
regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation postulating
untenable positions employing a method peculiar to the modern
medievalist scholars much like a pick and mix. Some scholars have
positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute
papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. I do
not pretend accuracy in every statement, far from it; but I have put forward
an explanation because I have understood that no scholar wants the gravy
train to stop. Joining the dots goes against the very nature of Medieval
scholarship in that focus on one area of expertise has its just rewards.
Without an overall explanation provided to the scholars, common sense
cannot prevail hence the trail of erroneous theories concerning our three
genres of study. Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall
of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are
supposedly the experts.
There are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s
erroneous edifice is built and when these a prioris are not accepted
(founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture emerges.
But before anything can begin to unfold the start of comprehending the
Matter of Britain begins with the acceptance that Henry Blois is ‘Geoffrey’.
The only way to that conclusion is through the prophecies of Merlin.
Firstly, if one does not insist that a mention of Arthur could only
transpire by interpolation after the exhumation of Arthur’s bones, the
answer to several questions become more discernible because several
solutions become tenable…. which, by erroneous chronology had been
previously denied. Avalon had existed at Glastonbury since Henry’s death
and the place of Arthur’s burial was pointed out in DA.
We do not have to ask why Gerald is saying there is previous
knowledge of the location; why dig in that spot etc. The only previous
solution before was to ignore his testimony!!! Who cares when it happened
it is how and why it happened.
If we accept that the location was pointed out in which Arthur was
buried with his wife, in between the pyramids in DA; we have to accept it is
highly probable it was Henry Blois (once we have allowed this possibility).
There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the
location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before Arthur’s
disinterment. The reason we should allow this possibility is there is no
other information surrounding the dig given in DA. If the mention of
Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation (after the disinterment)
some circumstances would have been related and certainly the cross would
have been mentioned.
Henry Blois provided the only information he could before the event
(while remaining incognito). The entire account of Arthur’s disinterment
would not have been left in the hands of Gerald to relate. Once this position
is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only
chronology of the events but also who did what and who wrote what when.
Secondly, if there is no intransigence and insistence that Avalon was not
previously known as Glastonbury before the leaden cross was discovered,
this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois death and the
disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury at least was
known at the abbey because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible
to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin
and written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guineveres burial at
Glastonbury, could have existed prior to the disinterment.
Therefore, it enables us also to implicate Henry Blois as the original
inventor of Grail material which ties the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph
all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald
to have lived ‘shortly before our time’
. He has now become a chronological
possibility as a promulgator of early Grail material as the similarity of his
name is found always connected as the originator of Grail literature.
But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and
allows that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation; and
of course to be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171 at Henry
Blois’s death.
Lastly, the most despicable act of negligence and intransigence by
modern scholarship is the insistence that Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On
this subject in particular there are only haughty pronouncements of hot air.
The denial of the geometry found in the prophecy of Melkin could only be
maintained by someone with a good reason to reject it; and it is not the
geometry which lacks veracity.
It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after ones name,
and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be
cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury.
The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any
investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at
Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana
to the continent.
The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many
different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA; and
The passage in which Gerald of Wales refers to Bledhericus, famosus ille fabulator who tempora nostra paulo
praevenit, was written c. 1194. So, Gerald has no idea the man who he refers to who had died 20 years
previously, was in fact his patron in his youth.
then miraculously Joseph lore at Glastonbury just evolved by a fortuitous
convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous; especially in
terms of storyline where much of this consolidation is carried out by Robert
de Boron.
If we don’t recognise Henry Blois as supplier of all material to Robert,
then Robert is a very clever chap since he never was in possession of the
prophecy of Melkin to associate the Grail with Joseph. Nor would he take it
upon himself to tie together Merlin from the Vita Merlini with Ambrosius
Merlin from HRB; wrapping up so many inconsistencies to make a
consolidated Merlin. So to think that Robert’s/Henry/s story of Percival is
not heard at the court of champagne while Henry is alive is untenable as an
opinion or Theory. This invention is the start of the edifice of the Grail that
all continuators including Chretien get their inspiration from. It is the
architect who managed affairs at Glastonbury who ties Joseph and the Grail
to Glastonbury but it is Henry’s Percival that gives the Grail its mystical
origins in the trappings of a tale.
This exposé may have seemed like a rant against scholarship and
expertise and it is plain to see I excel in neither in my turgid and
wearisome report. My attribute is that I am not a scholar and as I said at the
beginning of this exposé. what I have said is verifiable.
Now, the reader may enquire how it is that I know Joseph’s relics exist
on Burgh Island. There are two ways of answering this and only one would
you find credible and that is the explanation found in these pages. My
credibility lies in the fact that hopefully the reader has been able to follow
my erratic (and apparently mad) explanation of how the Matter of Britain
transpired. The proof is in the pie. But unless one presents the facts so that
scholars can have it explained to them; Joseph and Jesus’ relics will never
see the light of day and the Roman religion will continue to perpetuate the
F. U. Lot.
Image 4
Tunnel entrance, which then follows the line of the cliff path for about 100
yards to the old tin vault. The cratibus praeparatis…. A cavern or crater
already prepared, becomes a tomb.
Image 5
Approximately fifty feet under the cross is where the tomb is located. Radar
imaging equipment will confirm this. The tunnel entrance leads to a bricked
up wall. This was resealed after the Templars had discovered the grave. The
sad fact is that none of them lived to tell the tale. But, the Grand master’s
granddaughter produced the burial shroud of Jesus shortly after.
The End.