Thank you, Palambron, for bringing forward this important information.
Yes, Morgan is a very important writer from a time before the re-writing of British history was complete. The Hanoverians are not descended from the Trojans and, when they acceded to the throne in 1714, they set about systematically re-writing "British" history to give the "British" a Germanic Anglo-Saxon heritage in order to strengthen the weak legitimacy of their reign; but, even in England, only a small minority of the English were actually Anglo-Saxon. The idea that there were ever any Celts in The British Isles is also Hanoverian propaganda, lies and nonsense.
Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), recorded a British legal convention that required a British monarch to be a descendant of Brutus of Troy. In 1714, there were countless people in Britain with a stronger right of succession than the Hanoverians; but it is parliament that decides who sits on the throne; and, in those days (and still of course today), parliament was/is controlled by the banking interests, who came to Britain in 1688 from Babylon via Judea, Rome, Venice and Amsterdam.
In those days, the "British" people and language were what today we call "Welsh." In those days, the English did not think of themselves as "British." The history recorded by Morgan was still taught in Welsh schools until about a century ago. But no longer.
Another relevant and important book, which draws on Morgan's work, was published earlier this year:
"The Great Migrations to Britain of 1527 B.C. and 485 B.C.," by Marchell Abrahams
"On equally solid grounds of evidence the social state of Britain has been described as, from its first settlement by Hu the Mighty, that of a civilized and polished community. Had no other monument of Kymric antiquity but the Code of British Laws of Molmutius (B.C. 600), which still forms the basis of our common or unwritten law, descended to us, we could not doubt that we were handling the index of civilization of a very high order. In such a code we possess not only the most splendid relic of pre-Roman Europe, but the key to all our British--as contra-distinguished from Continental--institutions. After perusing it, we stand amazed at the blindness which wanders groping for the origin of British rights and liberties in the swamps of the motherland of feudal serfdom--Germany. We need not go so far as to affirm, with a learned author, that "barbarism and slavish institutions first entered Britain with the German Saxon"; but we may safely contend that no part of the Continent could supply Britain with what it never possessed itself. British spirit and freedom are wholly of native British origin, and out of Britain they are imitations or fallacies, not realities. The Continent is an aggregate of nations ruled on the despotic principle. The Anglo-Saxon of America returns, out of Britain, to just what the Anglo-Saxon of Germany and England was: a seller and driver of slaves."
Intresting. It calls to mind what has been said about the people from Aldebaran, known as the Aryan ETs, who made contact with German occultists through Maria Orsic in the 1930s.
I thought that was one of the most compelling passages in the book. In other passages, the author describes the Saxon and the Roman as the same ilk. It's also interesting that when a Saxon retired, he retired to Rome. Usury, slavery, and mind-control are at base the same system. There may be something to the speculation that they all adhere to the old Canaanite religion of Baal and Moloch.
Britain was not infected by that lot until the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which was really a bloodless coup d'etat effected by The Black Nobs' subversion of the British parliament.
The Hanoverians/Saxe-Coburg und Gotha mob did not arrive until 1714.
So, the original Saxons are not Canaanites? I would hope they are not, but I'm not sure. I've been reading from The Saxon Cross: https://thesaxoncross.substack.com/ and I subscribe to John Carter's substack magazine: https://barsoom.substack.com/. So, I'm hearing both sides of the Briton/Saxon conversation. In Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, the Saxons are the bad guys. They remind me of the Scottish Rite, a Presbyterian church that is slightly involved with banking, secrecy, and Masonic stuff. Canada was built with Scottish banking and Presbyterianism. John Carter is a Canadian writer who inherited a rich literary tradition. Many of my favorite writers and critics are Canadians. In the Skin of a Lion by Michael Ondaatje teaches a lot about Canadian society. It might be his worst book, but it's still brilliant. I have many Canadian literary heroes: Irving Layton, Robertson Davies, Northrop Frye, Alden Nolan... There could be worse things than to be Canadian.
When I lived in Canada briefly some 45 years ago, I believed it would be a good place to settle. Now, I'm rather glad I didn't, given the political and civil rights situation there. Vancouver seems to be dominated by trafficking in drugs and humans these days :(
Sorry, I haven't really studied the Saxons; but my understanding is that both the Saxons and the Ancient British were descended from the so-called "Lost" Tribes of Israel. However, they arrived in Europe by different routes. The Saxons would have migrated north through the Caucasus, while the Ancient British went west into Anatolia, where they became known as Trojans. After their defeat in The Trojan War, they split into two halves, one going by sea to Etruria (who went on to found Rome) and the other half going by sea to Britain, led by Brutus of Troy. There is/was a British legal convention described by Chief Justice Edward Coke, who served Elizabeth I and James I, in his "Institutes of the Lawes of England," which requires that a British monarch must be a descendant of Brutus. The Hanoverians could not comply; so they re-wrote history instead.
And then we have the account of Julius Ceasar, who could not doubt that he was seeing the old Trojan style warfare 1000 years later in Briton. With chariots, cavalry, and infantry all supporting one another. Gives me chills.
The Ancient British trounced Julius Caesar's first attempt to invade Britain. He tried to portray it as some sort of victory; but the Roman poets were not fooled and kinda mocked him for it - the satirical poet, Juvenal, especially.
Another good one is the speech given by the British King Caradog/Caractacus, who, with his immediate family, was captured by the Emperor Claudius and taken in triumph to Rome. A century or more ago, it was still common for British schoolchildren to be required to memorise this speech.
The Romans and the Ancient British openly acknowledged their Trojan kinship. Caradog and his family were held under palace arrest for seven years (AD 51-58) in Rome, where they introduced British apostolic Christianity, more than a decade before Peter allegedly reached Rome. Caradog's son, Linus, became the first Bishop of Rome. Caradog's sister, Claudia, married Aulus Plautius. His daughter, Eurgain, married Rufus Pudens. Anna, daughter of Emperor Claudius I, married into Caradog's family.
Thank you, Palambron, for bringing forward this important information.
Yes, Morgan is a very important writer from a time before the re-writing of British history was complete. The Hanoverians are not descended from the Trojans and, when they acceded to the throne in 1714, they set about systematically re-writing "British" history to give the "British" a Germanic Anglo-Saxon heritage in order to strengthen the weak legitimacy of their reign; but, even in England, only a small minority of the English were actually Anglo-Saxon. The idea that there were ever any Celts in The British Isles is also Hanoverian propaganda, lies and nonsense.
Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), recorded a British legal convention that required a British monarch to be a descendant of Brutus of Troy. In 1714, there were countless people in Britain with a stronger right of succession than the Hanoverians; but it is parliament that decides who sits on the throne; and, in those days (and still of course today), parliament was/is controlled by the banking interests, who came to Britain in 1688 from Babylon via Judea, Rome, Venice and Amsterdam.
In those days, the "British" people and language were what today we call "Welsh." In those days, the English did not think of themselves as "British." The history recorded by Morgan was still taught in Welsh schools until about a century ago. But no longer.
Another relevant and important book, which draws on Morgan's work, was published earlier this year:
"The Great Migrations to Britain of 1527 B.C. and 485 B.C.," by Marchell Abrahams
https://williamcongreve.co.uk/books/p3qeyjknbrkd6bmk/the-great-migrations-to-britain-of-1527-bc-and-485-bc/
There is much more on this subject here:
https://www.thenationalcv.org.uk/more.html
https://www.cymroglyphics.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@BritainsHiddenHistoryRoss
Thank you.
"On equally solid grounds of evidence the social state of Britain has been described as, from its first settlement by Hu the Mighty, that of a civilized and polished community. Had no other monument of Kymric antiquity but the Code of British Laws of Molmutius (B.C. 600), which still forms the basis of our common or unwritten law, descended to us, we could not doubt that we were handling the index of civilization of a very high order. In such a code we possess not only the most splendid relic of pre-Roman Europe, but the key to all our British--as contra-distinguished from Continental--institutions. After perusing it, we stand amazed at the blindness which wanders groping for the origin of British rights and liberties in the swamps of the motherland of feudal serfdom--Germany. We need not go so far as to affirm, with a learned author, that "barbarism and slavish institutions first entered Britain with the German Saxon"; but we may safely contend that no part of the Continent could supply Britain with what it never possessed itself. British spirit and freedom are wholly of native British origin, and out of Britain they are imitations or fallacies, not realities. The Continent is an aggregate of nations ruled on the despotic principle. The Anglo-Saxon of America returns, out of Britain, to just what the Anglo-Saxon of Germany and England was: a seller and driver of slaves."
Intresting. It calls to mind what has been said about the people from Aldebaran, known as the Aryan ETs, who made contact with German occultists through Maria Orsic in the 1930s.
I thought that was one of the most compelling passages in the book. In other passages, the author describes the Saxon and the Roman as the same ilk. It's also interesting that when a Saxon retired, he retired to Rome. Usury, slavery, and mind-control are at base the same system. There may be something to the speculation that they all adhere to the old Canaanite religion of Baal and Moloch.
Black nobility, Khazars, Charlemagne, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the Windsors, the 13 colonies, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove.
Britain was not infected by that lot until the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which was really a bloodless coup d'etat effected by The Black Nobs' subversion of the British parliament.
The Hanoverians/Saxe-Coburg und Gotha mob did not arrive until 1714.
So, the original Saxons are not Canaanites? I would hope they are not, but I'm not sure. I've been reading from The Saxon Cross: https://thesaxoncross.substack.com/ and I subscribe to John Carter's substack magazine: https://barsoom.substack.com/. So, I'm hearing both sides of the Briton/Saxon conversation. In Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, the Saxons are the bad guys. They remind me of the Scottish Rite, a Presbyterian church that is slightly involved with banking, secrecy, and Masonic stuff. Canada was built with Scottish banking and Presbyterianism. John Carter is a Canadian writer who inherited a rich literary tradition. Many of my favorite writers and critics are Canadians. In the Skin of a Lion by Michael Ondaatje teaches a lot about Canadian society. It might be his worst book, but it's still brilliant. I have many Canadian literary heroes: Irving Layton, Robertson Davies, Northrop Frye, Alden Nolan... There could be worse things than to be Canadian.
When I lived in Canada briefly some 45 years ago, I believed it would be a good place to settle. Now, I'm rather glad I didn't, given the political and civil rights situation there. Vancouver seems to be dominated by trafficking in drugs and humans these days :(
Sorry, I haven't really studied the Saxons; but my understanding is that both the Saxons and the Ancient British were descended from the so-called "Lost" Tribes of Israel. However, they arrived in Europe by different routes. The Saxons would have migrated north through the Caucasus, while the Ancient British went west into Anatolia, where they became known as Trojans. After their defeat in The Trojan War, they split into two halves, one going by sea to Etruria (who went on to found Rome) and the other half going by sea to Britain, led by Brutus of Troy. There is/was a British legal convention described by Chief Justice Edward Coke, who served Elizabeth I and James I, in his "Institutes of the Lawes of England," which requires that a British monarch must be a descendant of Brutus. The Hanoverians could not comply; so they re-wrote history instead.
Wow. Neat stuff. Was Arthur a descendant of Brutus?
Another outstanding book on the origins of the British, the Saxons, the Romans and other related peoples is:
"The Trojan War of 650 BC," by Wilson and Blackett
https://www.cymroglyphics.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=65
This was a highlight for me: Caswallon, Pendragon of Britain, to Caius Julius Cesar, Consul.
“We have received your letters demanding tribute and submission on the part of this Island of
Britain, to the Senate of Rome. The ambition of the Roman people we know to be insatiable;
Europe it too little for them—they covet the riches of the nation whom the ocean itself divides
from the rest of the world. But our possessions alone will not content them—we must cease to
be free, we must become their slaves. The Britons and Romans derive their descent from the
same Trojan origin—such consanguinity should be the firmest guarantee of peace and
equality between them. Our alliance we freely tend Rome; but as for subjection, we have
never hitherto known the thing, even by name. If the Gods themselves invaded our liberties,
we would to the utmost of our power defend them—much more are we prepared to do so
against the Romans, who are like ourselves but men."
And then we have the account of Julius Ceasar, who could not doubt that he was seeing the old Trojan style warfare 1000 years later in Briton. With chariots, cavalry, and infantry all supporting one another. Gives me chills.
🙌🏻
The Ancient British trounced Julius Caesar's first attempt to invade Britain. He tried to portray it as some sort of victory; but the Roman poets were not fooled and kinda mocked him for it - the satirical poet, Juvenal, especially.
https://www.thenationalcv.org.uk/More%209%20Julius%20Caesar%27s%20invasions%20-%20R%20W%20Morgan%20(1861).pdf
Another good one is the speech given by the British King Caradog/Caractacus, who, with his immediate family, was captured by the Emperor Claudius and taken in triumph to Rome. A century or more ago, it was still common for British schoolchildren to be required to memorise this speech.
The Romans and the Ancient British openly acknowledged their Trojan kinship. Caradog and his family were held under palace arrest for seven years (AD 51-58) in Rome, where they introduced British apostolic Christianity, more than a decade before Peter allegedly reached Rome. Caradog's son, Linus, became the first Bishop of Rome. Caradog's sister, Claudia, married Aulus Plautius. His daughter, Eurgain, married Rufus Pudens. Anna, daughter of Emperor Claudius I, married into Caradog's family.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=caractacus+speech+to+roman+senate&source=web&summary=1&summary_og=9f6b96c67a285084ddc21b
Thank you for your comments.
I hope I'm not being a bore; but this is one of my pet subjects ;)