Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/


The Following is a short extract from a book written by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot which exposes that Geoffrey of Monmouth was a nom de plume employed by Henry Blois Bishop of Winchester, even though it is  commonly accepted by modern scholars that there is evidence to show Gaufridus Artur signed certain charters at oxford. The two volume work also shows that the links between the first primordial  Grail stories recycled by Robert de Boron and Chretien de Troyes are directly linked through the Grail's propagator Master Blihis. Henry Blois' relation to his nephew's wives at the court of Champagne and the coincidence of such names as Blihos Bliheris, Bledhericus, Blaise, and Master Blihos (the anagram for H.Blois) as propagators of the Grail myth are not by accident.
It is this link which links Perlesvaus to Glastonbury and the Island of Avalon to the abbey at Glastonbury through the composition of HRB where tales of the Chivalric King Arthur are first heard .

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6

This is a short account explaining how it is that the grave of King Arthur was miraculously found at Glastonbury where it had been manufactured by Henry Blois some 30 years before it was unearthed..

Henry II is aware of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury.[1] The King’s involvement with the discovery directly relates to him having been told by Henry Blois how deep the body was. This transpired when the King visited Henry Blois on his death bed the night before he died.
Henry Blois relates in some way that a bard had informed him and King Henry relates to the source of who supplied the information of Arthur’s whereabouts.[2] Henry II had no active involvement in the manufacture of the grave as some scholars have advocated. King Henry was dead when Arthur was disinterred, but it was either Eleanor of Aquitaine or John (the king’s brother) who persuaded Henry de Sully (who was King Richard’s appointment) to ensure that King Arthur was disinterred. The disinterment (if this scenario is the correct one) probably took place in 1191 as I shall elaborate.

The nonchalant mention in chapter 31 in DA[3] of  King Arthur’s resting place, buried with Guinevere between the pyramids, was interpolated into William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitates by Henry Blois. It is because of this and other propaganda (furthering the legend of the chivalric King Arthur which he had instigated by authoring HRB) by Henry Blois that Henry II mentions Arthur in his charter as early as 1184.
From Gerald of Wales we learn of King Henry’s knowledge of the particulars of the grave. The location of the tomb existed in DA prior to  disinterment of the supposed grave of King Arthur (see the chapter on DA) and we are assured that Henry de Sully knows where to find the body (any incidental factors which promoted the disinterment from either Eleanor of Aquitaine or John or Richard I are now secondary) and Henry de Sully can no longer be held responsible for the fraudulent manufacture of the grave and the placing of hair and bones within. (See the chapter on Gerald of Wales).
Let us assume therefore, (so that Gerald’s testimony is not ignored), the location between the pyramids was known at Glastonbury (after Henry Blois' death) to be where King Arthur’s gravesite was situated.

My belief is that Henry Blois passed information to King Henry on his death bed regarding the depth of the grave in the hope that after his death the disinterment would fulfil his entire fabricated edifice concerning chivalric Arthur.[4] King Henry had no need to disinter King Arthur, but he may have related this information to others in his close family and supplied this anecdotal information specified by Gerald.
Gerald relates that the pertinent information regarding the depth of the grave was as part of the reasoning behind digging so deep in locating the grave and not just relying on the cursory reference to the location found in DA.  One conjecture could be that it was either John or Eleanor of Aquitaine who had persuaded Henry de Sully to carry out the disinterment. Hence, Gerald’s comment that it was King Henry II who had supplied the information and the possibility that the dig transpired in 1191 while King Richard I was still imprisoned. 
Henry II died in July 1189 and in September 1189 Richard I, just after his crowning at Westminster, appointed Henry de Sully Abbot of Glastonbury. Financial pressures were brought to bear at the abbey c.1190 due to the reconstruction after the fire[5].King Henry II had contributed generously and is reported to have promised either the total annual revenues of his West Country demense or even the surplus revenue from the realm to complete the new building.
King Richard had other interests and any royal dispensation of funds dried up as he diverted all royal revenue toward the third Crusade (1189–1192). He stayed in England not more than a few months after having been crowned. The builders at Glastonbury were stuck financially and the disinterment of Arthur certainly would have had financial benefits for Glastonbury.
I see no reason to distrust Gerald’s report about the involvement of Henry II either in supplying the information or promoting the project, i.e. granting permission while alive, or even instructing his nephew Henry de Sully to carry out the dig before his death. In all likelihood the dig transpired while Richard was abroad (if the dating is accurate). It was an event which coincided with the readiness of the new church to receive such an illustrious personage as the fabled King Arthur into its newly appointed confines.

There may, however, have been an entirely different reason for disinterring Arthur and it was promoted by Eleanor of Aquitaine or John, King Richard’s younger brother. The accusation against Henry de Sully as the instigator of a fraudulent unearthing can be summarily dismissed because he can be discounted as the promoter of Avalon. (Henry Blois as explained already is responsible for the first 34 chapters of DA which equates Glastonbury with Avalon, (the mystical Island posited in HRB where Arthur is last seen). It is obvious from what has been covered so far that Henry Blois is the promoter of Avalon.[6]
King Richard was on crusade and Arthur’s disinterment is said to have taken place by Adam of Domerham in 1190[7] rather than 1191 as stated by Ralph.
King Richard had left the coffers dry throughout the Kingdom and headed abroad. At Glastonbury, Henry de Sully has no funds. At this time with the huge interest in King Arthur both on the continent and in insular Britain the zeitgeist of Arthur’s return was still prevalent and in 1191…. John, King Richard’s youngest brother, who was next in line for the throne, was side-lined for his elder brother Geoffrey’s son (whose name was Arthur) as heir apparent.
It is by this set of circumstances, we might speculate a scenario which was the catalyst to King Arthur’s disinterment in 1191 (if indeed Ralph is correct). King Richard named the four-year-old Arthur of Brittany as the heir to the throne; and John by hereditary right, believing the crown should pass to him, was understandably upset. But, with the return of Arthur paramount as the ‘hope’ of the populace and on everyone’s tongue, the chances of John gaining his natural birth right over his nephew (if King Richard should die on Crusade), seemed poor odds. So,  if John could prove to the British subjects that King Arthur died long ago and the ‘hope of the Britons’ was a myth, then the aspirations of the populace would be dashed…. rather than believing that his Nephew (Arthur) was somehow King Arthur returning.
In other words, if John could show King Arthur’s bones to the world there was no hope of his return and he would be the natural inheritor of the crown not his elder brother’s son. This is only conjecture and a rationalization of how events might have been motivated toward a dig.  John, who was the driving force behind insisting that Henry de Sully dig up Arthur, saying it had been his Father’s wish. This comes a little clearer if we relate the events described above in their historical context.

Richard was officially invested as Duke of Normandy on 20 July 1189 and was crowned king in Westminster Abbey on 3 September 1189. John's elder brothers Henry, William and Geoffrey all died young. By the time Richard became king, John was the potential heir to the throne. But, while Richard was on Crusade, John unsuccessfully attempted a rebellion against Richard's royal administrators. When Henry the Young King died, Henry II had rearranged the succession; Richard was to be made King of England, albeit without any actual power until the death of his father; Geoffrey would retain Brittany; and John would now become the Duke of Aquitaine in place of Richard. 
However, Richard did not relinquish Aquitaine so Henry II ordered John along with his other brother Geoffrey to regain the duchy by force. After this, Geoffrey died leaving a posthumous son, Arthur. The duchy of Brittany was given to Arthur rather than John which is the start of the problem.  The uncertainty about what would happen after Henry II death was always an issue.
Richard before his father was dead was desperate to go on crusade but was aware that if he went King Henry II might appoint John his successor. This was because Richard had discussed with Philip II (the Capetian King of France during 1187), about a potential alliance and Richard paid homage to Philip to strengthen his position against his father.
So, Richard had allied himself with 22-year-old Philip II, the son of Eleanor's ex-husband Louis VII by Adele of Champagne Henry Blois’ sister.  Richard and Philip fought a joint campaign against King Henry II while John remained loyal to his father.  Later, John changed sides when he thought Richard would prevail. By the summer of 1189 the king made peace with Richard promising Richard the succession.

So, understanding the family feud, King Henry II died and John's elder brother Richard became king. King Richard set about raising the huge sums of money required for his expedition through the sale of lands, titles and appointments. There was certainly nothing to be spared for Glastonbury’s rebuild as Adam of Damerham makes clear.
Richard made sure before leaving the country on crusade that he would not face a revolt while away, so he made John, the Count of Mortain (in effect next in line) and married him off to Isabel of Gloucester and bestowed on him lucrative lands with the aim of ensuring his loyalty while he was away. Richard and Philip agreed to go on the third Crusade together since each feared that during his absence the other might usurp his territories. Richard left political authority in England in the hands of Bishop Hugh de Puiset and William Mandeville and the Bishop of Ely became his chancellor. John was not satisfied by this decision and started scheming against William de Mandeville.

In September 1190 Richard and Philip arrived in Sicily. A certain Tancred had seized power after the death of King William II of Sicily in 1189. Tancred had imprisoned King William's widow, Queen Joan, who was Richard I’s favourite sister, without giving her the money she had inherited in William's will.
So, King Richard attacked Messina, and after looting and burning the city, Richard established his base there; but this created tensions between Richard and Philip II.  Richard remained there until Tancred finally agreed to sign a treaty on 4th March 1191. The treaty was signed by Richard I, Philip II and Tancred.
The treaty’s main terms were:  Richard’s sister Joan was to receive 20,000 ounces of gold as compensation for her inheritance, but also more importantly (with reference to the disinterment of King Arthur), King Richard officially proclaimed his nephew, Arthur of Brittany (Geoffrey’s son), as his heir to his throne (not John). This happened in 1191. Also in the terms.... Tancred promised to marry one of his own daughters to the young Arthur of Brittany when he came of age, giving a further twenty thousand ounces of gold that would be returned by King Richard if Arthur did not marry Tancred's daughter.

On the news of this John was livid and may have sought to dispel a rumour that was circulating brought about by prophecy i.e. that Arthur may return. Philip II returned from the Crusade before King Richard. Eleanor of Aquitaine most probably did not agree with the new plan for succession[8] either and convinced Richard to allow John into England in his absence. King Richard however could not return because he was captured and imprisoned by the Emperor of Germany as Adam of Damerham relates.
While in Germany King Richard sells Glastonbury for his freedom to Savaric. John revolted with the aid of King Philip thinking Richard was probably dead.  Amongst Philip's conquests in the period of Richard's imprisonment in Germany was Normandy. Richard forgave John when they met again and named him as his heir in place of Arthur of Brittany. But if the unearthing did happen in 1191…. then John may have been the instigator.

This is all conjecture, (but less so than the theory put forward by modern scholars that Henry de Sully is entirely responsible for concocting the fraud), but may be a part catalyst to the events which propelled the unearthing of Arthur while King Richard was away. John was simply trying to undo what the superstitions of the twelfth century dictated.
Richard had tried to protect his crown by electing Arthur of Brittany his successor and when the populace heard this after what Merlin had prophesied, they assumed John’s elder brother Geoffrey (whose son was named after Arthur) was to be the long awaited Arthur who had returned.
King Richard was so steeped in Arthuriana that one could speculate he may well have had this in mind when electing his young Nephew as successor and Geoffrey (Arthur’s father) had even asked permission to name him so. 

My conjecture is that John sought to dampen this expectation by showing that King Arthur had died back in the sixth century and was buried where he was last known to be (in Avalon in HRB) and (because of the interpolations in DA and of course the leaden cross found with the body of Arthur) Glastonbury was now the Island of Avalon (so named in HRB from the town in the region of Blois, just asking Arthur's continental battle was also fought in this same region of Burgundy.
Yet, John's motivation conjoined with Henry de Sully’s prospect of increased alms could both be catalystsfor the disinterment. Henry de Sully actually found the set of bones which Henry Blois had deposited (possibly as much as 30 years ago) in the cemetery at Glastonbury between the Piramides (as stated in DA). Both John and Glastonbury alms gained from the discovery.

---

[1] The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury. Dom Aelred Watkin Volume 1, P 186-8.Carta Henrici Regis Secundi Filii Matildis Imperatricis De Libertatibus Concessis Ecclesie Glaston. The main features of the foundation legend and the building of the church by the disciples of Jesus and its dominical consecration (only in DA) are all referred to in a charter of Henry II attested between 2^nd and the 16^th  of December 1184 (John Goodall). Arthur’s association with Glastonbury as seen here in the charter: Baldredo, Ina, inclito Arthuro, Cuddredo et multis aliis regibus Christianis…. could only be derived from Life of Gildas or DA; one written under the impostured name of Caradoc by Henry Blois and the other interpolated by him and surely after Malmesbury’s death.

[2]There is no contradiction in Henry II having been responsible for telling the monks himself about what he had heard from Henry Blois. He might well have told the monks the information given by Henry Blois while at Glastonbury signing his Charter. That King Henry is conceived as having instigated the find is not what Giraldus actually says: But the clearest evidence came when King Henry II of England explained the whole matter to the monks (as he had heard it from an aged British poet): how the body would be found deep down, namely more than 16 feet into the earth, and not in a stone tomb but in an oak-hollow.  There is no evidence to suggest that what is attributed to have been information supplied by King Henry was said at the time of the unearthing. Giraldus heralds it as part of the hearsay which surrounded the event.

[3]….but I omit it from fear of being tedious. I pass over Arthur, famous King of the Britons, buried with his wife in the monks Cemetery between two pyramids, and many other leaders of the Britons.

[4] Not only would the discovery of the leaden cross ensure Glastonbury was linked with Avalon ad infinitum, but also it would confirm the Grail’s association with Glastonbury also.

[5] Adam of Damerham says: Unfortunately the new King thought of nothing but the crusades and took no interest in the building of the great church, then lately begun. So work was ceased, since there was no-one to pay the men’s wages.

[6] 1) Having changed the name of the island on Melkin’s prophecy. 2) Having invented the name from the town in Burgundy. 3) Having been witnessed to promote this island (first put forward in HRB) as commensurate with Insular Pomorum at Glastonbury. 4) Having been the composer of St Patrick’s charter which unequivocally states in Henry’s epilogue to it in DA Chap 9 that St Patrick was first Abbot of Avalon. Lastly, by having planted the bones with the cross to be found at a later date.... confirming Glastonbury as Avalon and by letting everyone know where this conclusive evidence is hidden by providing the location of Arthur’s grave in DA.
   It should not be forgotten also the inspiration for the Leaden cross (the ultimate proof that Glastonbury was once called Avalon), the very idea having been derived from Eadmer’s testimony of Dunstan....  also having a Leaden Tablet in his grave which provided a proof positive for his argument. (see chapter on Eadmer's letter)

[7] Adam states that Arthur had been in the cemetery for 648 years because Geoffrey of Monmouth has written in HRB XI, ii Even the renowned King Arthur himself was wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto his kinsman Constantine, son of Cador, Duke of Cornwall, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord five hundred and forty-two.

Adam says the bones had lain near the old church between two stone monuments, formerly of noble workmanship, for 648 years. Simple math 542+ 648 puts Adam’s date at 1190 for the disinterment, but we should not forget Adam is writing after 1277. Even Adam states that prior to the dig: Abbot Henry had often been urged to have King Arthur’s bones more decently housed.

[8] Eleanor was obviously not pleased either with King Richard’s attempts to marry his newly widowed sister Joan to Philip II of France, Eleanor’s ex- husband’s son by Adele

The account of King Arthur's death found in the First Variant version of Geofffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kingsof Britain

The following is an extract from a book called 'The Island of Avalon' by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot in which he discusses Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in connection to The Matter of Britain.




Please go to the new 2018 updated website of the whole book at http://www.islandofavalon.com/








http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6

Vera Historia de morte Arthuri

The authority on the Vera Historia is Michael Lapidge who dates the VH by what he thinks is a connection to the Welsh Princes claim for metropolitan; specifically Llywelyn the Great 1194-1240.  As I covered earlier, we saw Henry Blois (as the composer of HRB and the Merlin Prophecies) had tried to assist his friend Bishop Bernard in his campaign for metropolitan status by including the reinstatement of the Archbishopric of St David’s as a prophecy of Merlin.
        Lapidge, not knowing of any relationship between the writer of the VH and Bernard, dates the VH to an era post 1199-1203 when pope Innocent III rejected the letter from the Welsh princes: …bishop Bernard is probably too early to be relevant to the Vera Historia, given that the text draws on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britannie, which was only completed in 1136/7. (As I have shown in the earlier chapters, The Vulgate HRB evolved from the First Variant version which evolved from the version found at Bec in 1139 which constitutes  Huntingdon's precis form found in EAW)

If we look at the VH in its original form we can see that it can be most probably dated to c1144-50. Bishop Bernard died in 1148.  I am in no way implying that Bernard was conscious in any way of what Henry Blois had tried to do for him. Henry  Blois informed nobody of his secretive authorship of HRB or the Merlin Prophecies. Henry and Bernard were friends and both were after Metropolitan status for their respective bishoprics. That is as far as it goes, but the advantage for Henry Blois in helping Bernard in his pursuit of metropolitan (as seen in the Merlin prophecies) is that, if metropolitan status were granted to Bernard at St David’s, it would all the more be granted to Winchester or London.

There are several factors which would indicate that the VH was written by Henry Blois. The first is that it must have been written before 1189 as in its original form it is still unaware of where Arthur’s body is. The second is that we can understand that it must be written by Henry Blois the instigator of Insula Avallonis, who is surely the only person who (at one stage when trying to deflect all traces of authorship of HRB to himself) would have wished to imply Avalon was in Wales. The point in doing this is that after the presentation of the First Variant at Rome (as I have covered), people were starting to get suspicious. Hence, in a time between 1144 and 1155 the First Variant evolved into the Vulgate HRB and the persona of Geoffrey of Monmouth was invented to replace the author Galfridus Arthur (supposedly author of that copy found at Bec). Hence (as seen in the previous chapters) the evident inclusion of the dedicatees in the Vulgate Version (and the Caradoc colophon) which in effect backdates the Vulgate version from 1155 to c.1139.
The reference to Gwynedd would in effect negate any suspicion falling upon Henry Blois; if, like Alfred of Beverley believed, the author of HRB was Welsh.

What I am proposing here is that the VH was in fact written after the First Variant in which Avalon is initially introduced into HRB (not in the EAW version) and before composition of VM c.1156-7 in which it is entirely clear that Henry Blois has the intention of situating Avalon at Glastonbury (by the fact he equates Insula Pomorum which can only be construed as Glastonbury in connection to Arthur). As we covered earlier, if Huntingdon had heard the name Avalon in  the Primary Historia ( that edition found at Bec from which EAW is derived)), he surely would have divulged the name in association with his last comments that he makes in EAW regarding the ‘hope of the Bretons/Britons’.
Therefore, we have witnessed an evolution from no mention of Avalon, to its inclusion in First Variant. As we covered also, when Alfred describes the passage found in the proto Vulgate version, where the mortally wounded Arthur is being taken to the island of Avalon to have his wounds tended, Alfred recycles this passage and here mentions Avalon, but significantly, omits the ambiguous word letaliter ‘mortally wounded’ which indicates that, like Huntingdon’s account, Arthur’s certain death is left open to accommodate the ‘hope of the Britons’.
However, what the VH achieves by locating Avalon in Gwynedd, is an apparent confirmation that HRB was written by a Welsh man (which is Henry Blois' intent wishing to disguise his own authorship).
We are set forth an account of the circumstances by which it is explained how the ‘hope of the Britons’ came about. The added gambit for Henry Blois is attaching a genuine zeitgeist concerning 'Arthur the warlord' ( mentioned in some accounts of saints lives) directly to Henry’s chivalric Arthur. (It should be remembered that the Life of Gildas which as I have showed already was authored by Henry Blois; was modelled on the Life of St Cadoc which mentions Arthur the warlord).
The 'hope of the Briton’s' (or Bretons) had never been entirely connected to Henry Blois’ chivalric Arthur except by Huntingdon. VH in effect connects the genuine traditional messianic hope of the populace by explanation of how it transpired, interweaving a narrative of its appearance in the public consciousness with Henry’s fictional chivalric Arthur. 

  Henry Blois, is  intent on secreting his authorship (and we have witnessed to what extent he is willing to go).... has now convinced the reader through his insinuation that Avalon is in Gwynedd by distancing himself from the connection to Glastonbury (as found in his interpolations in DA).  Thus, should there be any discrepancy as to the author’s nationality; the person who no-one ever met, must be Welsh (thus confirming a Welsh Geoffrey of Monmouth authorship).
One must not forget that the only place where people had heard the name Avallon before was in connection to a town in the Blois region of Burgundy (right where 'Geoffrey', with very accurate topographical knowledge, places King Arthur's continental battle scene at Autun and Langres).

Whereas, Lapidge assumes, like the rest of the Arthurian scholars, that the name Avalon was included in the Bec copy of HRB (and the assumption is that it was a completed Vulgate version at that date), I see a progression and evolving story line for Henry’s invention of the chivalric Arthur toward where Arthur was eventually to be buried in the manufactured grave at Glastonbury in Henry Blois' lifetime..
Lapidge is unaware of Henry Blois’ authorship of HRB, but says that: The author of the VH was a well trained Latin scholar who had considerable stylistic pretensions (just like the author of GS). His prose makes use of Latin vocabulary that is characteristic of verse, and abounds in reminiscences of Vergil and other Latin poets. Does this not sound just like our ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’.
My proposition is that the introduction of VH was the product of a stage of Henry Blois’ evolving of the story surrounding Arthur’s final whereabouts. It is part of his agenda at a certain time after having introduced the name Avallon and is a reflection of a development before VM was composed 1155-7.
Richard Barber says regarding VH: The most interesting discovery is the insertion of the text into a copy of the First Variant version of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s HRB in the previously unrecorded manuscript, Paris Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS982, noticed by Julia Crick and examined by Neil Wright, who found that it included the VH. As I commented earlier, the text seems to be distinctly designed to continue Geoffrey’s account of Arthur’s reign, replacing the last paragraph which sums up the results of the battle, Arthur’s fate and the handing over of the Kingdom of Cador. In this manuscript, the piece is simply inserted as a supplement between 178 and 179 of the original text.

 VH is simply a later insertion into a particular copy of First Variant. In one manuscript where the VH is found, Barber also says it is quoted as if it were by Geoffrey himself. As we have discussed already 'Geoffrey is Henry Blois and the First Variant preceeds the Vulgate version written by him. Therefore, there is a strong chance VH is an addition made by Henry Blois himself. First Variants were rare before the full copying and production of Vulgate HRB commenced once ‘Geoffrey’ had been consigned to death. Could VH be a part of Henry Blois’ own evolution of what to do with Arthur? It is possible that only later it dawns on him, (post 1158) that he is going to inter a set of bones at Glastonbury in a manufactured grave (with Leaden cross) to be found in future.
The manufacture of the grave in the cemetery certainly follows the translocation of Avalon made in VM (as Insula Pomorum). As I have covered VM waswritten in the period betwwe 1155-1158 when Henry Blois returned from self imposed exile from Clugny. What must be made understood is that VH definitively has Arthur die in Avalon and not by coincidence on Avalon there is a small chapel dedicated to St Mary: they take the corpse of the dead king to a certain small chapel dedicated to the honour of the holy mother of God, the perpetual Virgin Mary.

 I will use Lapidge’s translation:

The True History of the death of Arthur.

Accordingly, when the onslaught of the battle (which was being waged between Arthur King of the Britons and Mordred….I dare not say his nephew but rather his betrayer) had ended, and Mordred had been killed, and here and there numerous warriors had been laid low and many of the enemy had been left for dead, the king…. even though he had gained the victory….. did not nevertheless withdraw without some bodily injury. For he had sustained a wound which, although it was not bringing an immediate death, nevertheless boded ill for the near future. At length he gave thanks to the Creator of all things and to his mother the blessed Virgin Mary; he offset the bitterness of the remorse he had suffered for the loss of his men with his triumphal joy. When these things had been done, and, suffering from exhaustion, he was leaning on his shield, he sat down on the ground for the sake of recuperating; and while sitting there he summoned four of the leaders of his people; and when they had been summoned he ordered them to disarm him carefully, lest perchance in proceeding carelessly they might increase the anguish of the pain of his wounds. When the king had been disarmed, suddenly a certain youth, handsome in appearance, tall in stature, evoking by the shape of his limbs a strength of immense power…. took to the road, sitting on the back of a mare, with his right hand armed by a shaft of Elm. This shaft was stiff, not twisted or knotted but straight, and sharpened to a point in the manner of a lance (yet sharper for inflicting injury than any lance), since indeed in times gone by it had been fired to make it hard (and its hardness had been tempered with equal care by plunging it in water), and it had been daubed with adders’ venom so that, what it might perhaps harm less when cast as a result of a deficiency in strength in the person casting it, the poison would make up for. This audacious youth, proceeding straight at the King, but staying his course immediately in front of him, hurled the aforementioned missile into the King and so added a more serious wound to his already serious wounds. Having done this he flees quickly: but does not escape for long, inasmuch as the King, brooking no delay, like an active soldier fixes the quivering spear in the back of the fleeing youth and pierces his innermost heart. Thus transfixed the youth immediately breathed out his last breath. Accordingly, when the author of the King’s death had himself received the death sentence, a pallor immediately crept over the King’s visage, and he explained to those people carefully attending him that he was not to enjoy the breath of life for much longer. When this was disclosed, a wash of tears flowed down the faces of those who loved him dearly and lamentation disheartened everyone, because they despaired that anyone could safeguard Britain’s liberty like him- since, in fact, if according to the common proverb, ‘a better man rarely succeeds a good man’, much more rarely does an even better man succeed the one who is best.

2) At length the King, slightly restored by an improvement in his condition, gives orders to be taken to Gwynedd, since he had decided to sojourn in the delightful Isle of Avallon because of the beauty of the place (both for the sake of peace as well as for easing the pain of his wounds). When he had arrived there, the physicians concerned themselves with the King’s wounds with all the diligence of their art; but the King experienced no restorative remedy from their efforts. Because of this he despaired of any cure in this life, and he commanded the Archbishop of London to come to him. The Archbishop, with the additional company of two bishops- namely Urien of Bangor and Urbregen of Glamorgan- presented the fulfilment of the mandate to him who had directed it. (St David, the Archbishop of Menevia (St David’s) would also have been present if he had not been prevented by a serious bodily affliction). With these prelates present therefore, the King confessed his deviations from the Christian faith, and rendered himself answerable to his Creator’s complaisance. Then with the generosity of Royal munificence, he rewarded his followers for their service; and he settled the rule of Britain on Constantine, son of Duke Cador. When these things had been done, in the manner of the church (following the Divine sacraments) he bid his last farewell to this wicked world. And (as the story relates), extended full-length on his hair shirt in the manner of those doing real penance, with his hands stretched towards heaven he commended his spirit into the hands of his Redeemer. Oh how sad was this day, how worthy of mourning, how charged with lamentation, nor ever to be remembered by inhabitants of Britain without cries of distress! Not undeservedly: for on this day the rigour of justice grew slack, all servants of the laws became a rarity, the calmness of peace was shattered, the excellency of liberty was taken captive; because, when glorious Arthur was taken from her midst, Britain was deprived of its unique claim to victory- in so far as she who held dominion is now totally enslaved. But lest I seem to wonder too far from the sequence of my narrative, my pen ought to be turned back to the funeral rites of the deceased king.

3) Therefore, the three aforementioned bishops commended the soul returning to him who bestowed it with deepest prayer through the sweetness of orisons and devotions; the others lay out the royal corpse in a royal manner: they embalm it with balsam and myrrh and prepare it to be committed to burial. On the following day they take the corpse of the dead king to a certain small chapel dedicated to the honour of the holy mother of God, the perpetual Virgin Mary- just as the King himself had appointed (so that no other earth would receive his earthly remains). For in that place wished to be enclosed in the earth; there he wished his flesh to return to its origin, there he commended his dead self to the vigilance of her whom he venerated with the deepest devotion while living. But after the cortege arrived at the door of the aforementioned chapel, the small and narrow opening prevented the entry of the corpse’s bulk; for that reason it was fated to a resting place outside adjacent to the wall, placed on its bier-the force of necessity deciding this: for the entrance of the oft mentioned chapel was so small and narrow that no one could enter it unless, having wedged one shoulder in, he drew in the other with a great effort of strength and ingenuity.

4) The inhabitant of this chapel was a certain hermit who, the more he had been remote from the squalor of sins, the more did he taste how sweet is the Lord. Why do I delay? The bishops enter; the holy services are performed for the soul of the King; and outside, so it is said the dead man’s body remained. Meanwhile, while the bishops are performing the last rites, the air thunders, the earthquakes, storms pour down relentlessly from on high, lightning flashes, and the various winds blow in terms from their several quarters. Thereupon, after a short interval of the briefest space of time, a mist followed which absorbed the brightness of the lightning, and obscured the attendance of the royal corpse with such blindness that they saw nothing, though their eyes were wide open. The mist continued uninterrupted from nine in the morning until three in the afternoon. And at no point did the atmosphere, with the frequent passage of the hours, grow quiet from the crash of thunder. And finally, when the mist is dispersed and clear air is restored, they find no trace of the royal corpse; for the King had been transported to an abode especially prepared for him; and they look on the bier deprived of that which had been committed to it. They are seized by annoyance as a result of the Kings removal, to such an extent that great doubt concerning the truth arises among them:’ whence will this mighty power have come? Through whose violence was he carried off?-And even up to the present time they have detained under shadows of ignorance, as to where King Arthur was destined to find his place of rest. Wherefore certain people say that he is still alive; both sound and well, since he was carried off without their knowledge. Others contradict their audacious conjecture, affirming without the slightest scruple of doubt that he paid the deaths of death, relying on argument of this sort, that, when the aforementioned mist had been dispersed and visibility had returned, the sealed tomb appeared to the gaze of those present to be both solidly closed and of one piece, such that it rather seen to be one single stone, whole and solid as if fashioned with the mortar and craft of a builder, one after the other. They think that the king is enclosed in its recesses, since they had discovered it already sealed and closed. And since this discovery has been made there is no small disagreement among them.

5) He governed the realm of Britain for 39 years in the power of his strength, the wisdom of his mind, the acuteness of his judgement, and through his renown in battle. In the 40^th year of his reign, he was destined to the end of the human lot. Therefore with Arthur dead Constantine, the son of Duke Cador, acceded to the British realm; and so on.

That the VH may have been inserted into the First Variant in a manuscript not copied profusely, may indicate a transitional stage of Henry’s development of the outcome of Arthur’s remains. We can see that the VM’s Morgan has not been developed as yet and when King Arthur had arrived at Avalon, ‘the physicians’ concerned themselves with the King’s wounds. The author of VH is fully aware of the state of affairs in HRB and we can see Henry’s purposeful artifice in making slight inaccuracies in that David is ill not dead and the bishop’s names are changed. But since we know that the bishops attending Arthur and the island of Avalon itself are concocted fictions; we can say the author of VH is Henry Blois.

 Henry brings the VH account into line to coincide with making both of ‘Geoffrey’s’ accounts seem to corroborate each other, but not too obviously as we see here in the section in Vulgate: Even the renowned King Arthur himself was wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto his kinsman Constantine, son of Cador, Duke of Cornwall, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord five hundred and forty-two. When Constantine was crowned King, the Saxons and the two sons of Mordred raised an insurrection against him; but could nought prevail, and after fighting many battles, the one fled to London and the other to Winchester, and did enter and take possession of those cities. At that time died the holy Daniel, that most devout prelate of the church of Bangor, and Thomas, Bishop of Gloucester, was elected unto the archbishopric of London. At that time also died David, that most holy Archbishop of Caerleon, in the city of Menevia, within his own abbey, which he loved above all the other monasteries of his diocese, for that it was founded by the blessed Patrick who had foretold his nativity. The author of VH like ‘Geoffrey’ assumes a total dominance of an empire in Arthur’s era, which, corroborates HRB, but in reality is absolute fiction. Arthur was taken from her midst, Britain was deprived of its unique claim to victory- in so far as she who held dominion is now totally enslaved.

Henry Blois is one of the main proponents of furthering the cult of the Virgin Mary at Glastonbury and Glastonbury's association with Arthur. Henry’s craft is that already King Arthur is associated to Glastonbury by Caradoc’s Life of Gildas which we know Henry wrote. Regardless of the fact that Gwynedd is mentioned as Avalon’s geographical location, (to deflect suspicion of the name having been picked from the same region where Arthur fought his continental battle in the region of Blois), we are still led to believe this might be a mistake because the small chapel of the Virgin Mary is at Glastonbury: they take the corpse of the dead king to a certain small chapel dedicated to the honour of the holy mother of God, the perpetual Virgin Mary- just as the King himself had appointed (so that no other earth would receive his earthly remains). Strangely enough…. no other earth except Glastonbury was where Arthur ended up.

The VH is leading toward providing the explanation of how the rumours started regarding Arthur’s death, non-death or how his return became the 'hope of the Britons'. Conveniently therefore, there is the rationalisation of the zeitgeist in the VH’s insert into First Variant: and outside, so it is said the dead man’s body remained. This sentence is vital in that it is the starting point of how such a rumour of the 'hope of the Britons' prevailed amongst the populace: they find no trace of the royal corpse; for the King had been transported to an abode especially prepared for him; and they look on the bier deprived of that which had been committed to it. They are seized by annoyance as a result of the Kings removal, to such an extent that great doubt concerning the truth arises among them:’ whence will this mighty power have come? Through whose violence was he carried off?-And even up to the present time they have detained under shadows of ignorance, as to where King Arthur was destined to find his place of rest.

 In my opinion, the author is our our Henry Blois, as even to the time of writing of VH, Arthur has not been discovered. All the ridiculous detail of the storm and that it went on from 9 to 3 is supposed to make us believe that all these eyewitness details came from people at the event and.... over time discrepancies have crept into their accounts.
Firstly, the body is gone and then the tomb is sealed; and none are sure if the body is inside etc. So, Henry Blois imitates the confusion of the tattle by inventing his own confusion: Wherefore certain people say that he is still alive; both sound and well, since he was carried off without their knowledge. Others contradict their audacious conjecture, affirming without the slightest scruple of doubt that he paid the deaths of death, relying on argument of this sort, that, when the aforementioned mist had been dispersed and visibility had returned, the sealed tomb appeared to the gaze of those present to be both solidly closed and of one piece, such that it rather seen to be one single stone, whole and solid as if fashioned with the mortar and craft of a builder, one after the other. They think that the king is enclosed in its recesses, since they had found it already sealed and closed. And since then discovery of the facts are uncertain and there is no small disagreement among them.

The last sentence highlighted has been changed in one version of VH to: cuius sepulchrum apud Glastoniam ubi (ut dictum est) sepeliebatur tempore regis Ricardi cruce plumbea super pectus, nomen eius inscriptum declarante repertum est…. which has obviously been inserted after the discovery in 1189-91.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-Volume-2/dp/132630979X