Queen Elizabeth II is Direct Lineage of the Roman Caesars by blood! (Proven Fact)

Trying to defend the Geoffrey of Monmouths pseudohistory is sad .ITS ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY IN THE ACADEMIC FRATERNITY the validity of his claims have about as much plausibility as THE EARTH BEING FLAT.It really is puerile to defend an OP,dear me on top of that to defend it by suggesting it had validty 500 years after the event .MUZZLEFISH YEAH THE EARTH WAS FLAT AND THE SUN ORBITED THE EARTH TILL WE KNEW BETTER .

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by cuchullainuk777

 

Trying to defend the Geoffrey of Monmouths pseudohistory is sad .ITS ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY IN THE ACADEMIC FRATERNITY the validity of his claims have about as much plausibility as THE EARTH BEING FLAT.It really is puerile to defend an OP,dear me on top of that to defend it by suggesting it had validty 500 years after the event .MUZZLEFISH YEAH THE EARTH WAS FLAT AND THE SUN ORBITED THE EARTH TILL WE KNEW BETTER .

Actually,

The round Earth was known to the ancient Egyptians.

Documents exist.

The Library of Alexandria was looted by Julius Caesar and retruned to Rome.

The info for Columbus was provided by the Vatican.

The Knights Templar also had Vatican info.

IMO.

I'm am sure the Vatican has some interesting stuff in its archives. And, in regards to the library of Alexandria, it seems too naive to believe that the Romans would destroy it without realizing the profound loss in knowledge. The books were taken and brought to Rome, just as Egyptian Obelisks were taken and transported to Rome.

Originally posted by thePharaoh
[yes but ceaserian was still alive....he was the first real emperor, well should of been....but his father chose octavious, adopted son....augustus/octavoious line is new

so ceasers and cleopatras lineage was usurped...in the end wasnt it..well cleopatras was i know that

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
another quote from professor Marler :

"Neither Tacitus, Suetonius, nor Dio Cassius, the Roman historians, have anything at all to say about Genuissa. But Griscom, in his lengthy introduction to the Historia, is much concerned to defend Geoffey's credibility. And, if Geoffrey, who relied upon sources to which we may not now have access, can be believed, then grounds may exist for saying that Genuissa was the daughter of Claudius and the spouse of Arviragus. Thorpe agrees with Griscom that, on the whole, Geoffrey is likely to be something better than a fabulist. "

Did you even read your own quote? DO YOU EVER READ MY QUOTES?
Griscom, Thorpe, and Marler are open to the very likely possibility that he is "likely to be something better than a fabulist." But none of your posts reflect this position. You claim it's all fake, which is silly considering you post little reference other than your personal opinions.

Geoffrey of Monmouth

He is best known for his chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae ("History of the Kings of Britain"), which was widely popular in its day and was credited uncritically well into the 16th century,[1] being translated into various other languages from its original Latin.

So for 500 years roughly, everyone who could read (Vatican monks) took this work seriously and as a legitimate historical source of information. Why would they do that?Yeah so what monks thought was right 400 years ago its validation of Geoffrey?

Geoffrey claims in his dedication that the book is a translation of an "ancient book in the British language that told in orderly fashion the deeds of all the kings of Britain", given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford.

But for some reason a few contemporary historians dismiss this claim, why? Because the 'ancient book' is not available, dare I say lost somewhere deep within the Vatican Secret Archives? A FEW HISTORIANS?

There is no generic browsing, and researchers must ask for the precise document they wish to see, identifying it either by consulting the indices and must be granted an expressed written permission authorized by a ranking prelate for perusement. Even then, not many requests are granted entrance as the application process is long and rigorous.

So if you do not know the exact identification of a work, you cannot possibly find it or gain access to it, and alas we don't know the exact identification of one of Geoffrey's sources, so it would be impossible to gain access to it for review *unless you know the exact name of it*. You can't just go browsing through this library.

It is, however, likely that the Archdeacon furnished Geoffrey with some materials in the Welsh language that helped inspire his work, as Geoffrey's position and acquaintance with the Archdeacon would not have afforded him the luxury of fabricating such a claim outright.

You havin a laugh?

The even admit that it was very unlikely that he fabricated the claim that he got sources from this Archdeacon.

Much of it is based on the Historia Britonum, a 9th century Welsh-Latin historical compilation, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and Gildas's sixth-century polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae expanded with material from Bardic oral tradition, genealogical tracts,

Much of the work appears to be derived from Gildas's 6th century polemic The Ruin of Britain, Bede's 8th century Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the 9th century History of the Britons ascribed to Nennius, the 10th century Welsh Annals, medieval Welsh genealogies (such as the Harleian Genealogies) and king-lists, the poems of Taliesin, the Welsh tale Culhwch and Olwen, and some of the medieval Welsh Saint's Lives

I suppose you will claim all of these other sources are fabrications as well. A little pressumptious? Gildas e.g can be validated

Historia Regum Britanniae

He follows this with a dedication to Robert, earl of Gloucester and Waleran, count of Meulan, whom he enjoins to use their knowledge and wisdom to improve his tale.

Matter of Britain

The Matter of Britain is a name given collectively to the body of literature and legendary material associated with Great Britain and its legendary kings, particularly King Arthur. Together with the Matter of France, which concerned the legends of Charlemagne, and the Matter of Rome, which included material derived from or inspired by classical mythology, it was one of the three great literary cycles recalled repeatedly in medieval literature.

[/q

Originally posted by BMorris[/i
How is it a conspiracy?