Chapter 1

It was Geoffrey of Monmouth in Britain about the year 1140 who resurrected the stories of the Dark Age, King Arthur. But the stories that came to dominate the Arthurian legend, were those of the poetically talented, Chretien de Troyes, at the so-called Court of Love of Marie of Champagne the daughter of Henry 2nd.

However, we cannot entirely blame either Geoffrey of Monmouth or Chretien de Troyes, as their version of events also used the oral bardic traditions that were firmly established in Celtic lands before the time of Christ.

In having authority on tribal lineage and past deeds of the clan, bardic stories also included ideas similar to those of the Holy Grail. In so far as some Celtic myths concern heroes who were searching for the Goddess of Sovereignty. In effect, myths about kingship and the renewal of the land.

This is presumably the reason why we can still identify Celtic hero’s in Chretiens work. His Percival, for example, is the Old Welsh, Peredur. Whilst his, Gawain, can be recognise in Welsh stories as the hero, Gwalchmei. In both these vastly different version of events Gawain and Gwalchmei were depicted as Arthur's nephew and even their horses had the same name.

Whatever outcome was intended, these themes became more and more popular when told by the troubadours to the crusading armies and evolved into a concept that became known as, "The Matter of Britain".

Later, between 1200 and 1230, to Chretien de Troyes and all that went before, Christian scholars added their story of the Holy Grail. Producing a combination that has distorted practically the whole of the British Dark Ages with concepts that historians find difficult to dislodge.

Supposedly the cup used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, the Holy Grail was blatantly attached to the stories of King Arthur due to the popularity of these particular stories throughout Europe at the time of the Crusades. Hence, a story associated with Arthur to suit the political and religious ends of the 12th. and 13th. century.

From the point of view of Christian Europe, the most important factor in the equation, was when Jerusalem was occupied by those regarded as the heathen Saracens. An event that resulted in the First Crusade of 1096-9. Other Christian crusades followed for various reasons until 1228-9, including the loss and recapture of Jerusalem.

It was in fact the Crusades, that saw the Knights Templers appear. Plus the formation of various heretical Christian groups in western Europe, such as the Cathars and the Albigensions. Heresies that were then opposed by the newly emerging orthodox Dominican and Cistercian orders of monks.

Therefore, whilst the publicity attained by religious and political manipulators with regard to the stories of King Arthur produced these effects, we should nevertheless ask ourselves; how come they got away with adding the Holy Grail story and that of Joseph of Arimathea to Arthur's story without being branded heretics?

Although, once this question is asked, one answer is simply to assume that they had secret evidence in their possession that made Joseph of Arimathea initially more important than the later gospels came to imply.

Possibly indicating that the concept of the Holy Grail in existence was rapidly becoming a Christian herecy but had not by then achieved this end.

If this was the situation, it is what these secrets may have revealed, that is a story that is now worth telling.



To uncover what may have persuade the Christian Church to keep a story about Joseph of Arimathea secret at the beginning of the 13th. century, we first need to go back in time to the Judea of the 1st. century A. D. when Joseph of Arimathea was alleged to have lived.

However, if we ignore the Bible interpretation of events at the beginning of the first century for the time being, we have scant information to go on regarding how the people of Judea behaved prior to the work of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.

What we do know, is that Flavius Josephus (circa 34 to 100 AD), was a Pharisee who compiled a history of the Jews that included the first revolt of the Jews against Roman rule that occurred in the period 68 to 74 AD.

As a Pharisee, Josephus believed in the resurrection of the dead and a free interpretation the Bible using the oral tradition and that divine providence cooperating with free will. In his time, the Pharisees were the largest major group with the popular support of the people

Josephus starts the section depicting his own involvement in the rebellion in the following manner:-

"The family from which I derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests. ..........I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty four courses,.......... by my mother I am of the royal blood."

The infamous Nero was the Roman Emperor when the Jews first rebelled against Roman rule in Palestine and when the general Vespasian was sent with a legion from Egypt to deal with it.

Josephus goes on to tell us of his own reluctant involvement in the rebellion and how he was sent by the leaders of the rebellion from Jerusalem to take over the Galileen region on their behalf after the Romans lost control of that area.

The reason why Josephus was chosen was presumably due to his status in the Jewish heirachy but we are left with the impression that he was not all that commitment to it, believing it was doomed to failure.

He also gives the impression that his purpose was to ensure the ordinary people of Galilee would not unduly suffer once the rebellion failed and the Romans regained control.

Because of this lack of commitment, several attempts were made on his life by the more zealous members of the Galileen Jews involved in the rebellion. But when his army did come up against the Romans they were defeated and Josephus was imprisoned by them.

We will never know for certain wether it was due to his conduct during the campaign or his status in Jewish society or his intellectual ability or a combination of these that first impressed his captors.

However, Josephus does reveal how all of society was superstitious and believed that magic influenced events and it is this that makes it easy for us to see how this particular Jewish pharisee gained access to the highest ranking family in the Roman Empire. We then discover that Josephus foretold that Vespasian was destined to become the Emperor of Rome.

To understand the significance of this, is to recognise that Vespasian was then only a Roman general and the chance of his attaining this high office were practically nil.

However, when we refer to the history of the Roman Empire, we discover that when Nero died in 69 A.D. Galba took over. Civil War then broke out and Galba was disposed of by Otho. Civil unrest persisted and it was only then that Vespasian was called upon to settle the issue. He then marched on Rome and became the new emperor. Because of these unusual events, the year 69 A.D. is known as the year of the four Emperors by Roman historians.

Chapter 3


From the moment Josephus’s deductions proved true, he was treated like a member of Vespasians own family and adopted the insignia used by this family to become, Flavius Josephus. Vespasian being the first of the Flavian Emperors.

Vespasian left his son Titus behind in Palestine and after a prolonged siege in 70 AD, Titus conquered Jerusalem. Of this time Josephus recorded the following event:-

"......I was sent by Titus Ceasar with Cerealius and a thousand horsemen to a certain village called Tekoa in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintances. I was very sorry at this in my mind and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

The "Life of Flavius Josephus" by Josephus himself, is now contained along with other works of Josephus in William Whiston’s English interpretation called, "The Genuine Works Of Flavius Josephus".

In this work, we discover how Josephus sets out a list of those he refers to as, "my progenitors", showing that several members of his family were called, "Matthias", including his father. In effect he was,"Joseph bar Matthias," meaning, Joseph the son of Mathew.

This information is referred to by the American novelist Frank Yerby in the Appendices of his book, "Judas my Brother". Yerby uses it to suggest that Christian gospel writers, such as the Greek, Saint Luke, either misinterpreted or exploited the name, "Joseph bar Matthias." as "Joseph of Arimathea" and introduced him into the story of Jesus.

Yerby also suggested that the gospel writers may also have enhanced the story of Jesus’ crucifixion by using the crucifixion story recorded by Flavius Josephus on his return to Jerusalem from Tekoa with Cerialis. As Luke’s gospel was not compiled until about 84 A.D., Yerby’s suggestion is realistic or otherwise an amazing coincidence occured. Especially if the life of Jesus had only been passed on via the oral tradition and possibly not even from eye witnesses accounts until first written down.

In addition, although most place-names that appear in the Bible continue to exist or can be identified in some way, Arimathea does not appear to be one of them.

What Frank Yerby and others who have proposed similar connection between sections of the work of Flavius Josephus and the Christian gospels have not mentioned, is that the Cerialis who accompanied Josephus from Jerusalem to Tekoa and back again in the crucifixion story, was not only a member of Vespasians family and the trusted friend of Vespasian but also the Petillius Cerialis who became Vespasians’s first governor of Britain in 71 AD.

NOTE:- The crucifixion story in CHAPTER 3 is taken from Page xxiii of Whiston’s Josephus and Josephus’ ancestry from Page v of the same book. It should also be pointed out that Whiston simply translated Josephus own words.



What the information in the chapter on the Rebellion of the Jews offers this Holy Grail story, is the opportunity to turn what is at present considered a myth into a possibility.

This is because we can no longer say with any conviction, that when Petillius Cerialis became Vespasians governor of Britain, that Flavius Josephus, his close companion in Jerusalem, did not come to Britain with him.

What is known, is that Flavius Josephus was granted a pension and moved from Palestine and was given a house in Rome and that he was originally, "Joseph bar Matthias." A name that could so easily have been misinterpreted as "Joseph (of) Arimathea." Hence, the startling possibility of someone thought to have been Joseph of Arimathea having entered Britain remains.

Before attempting to join Josephus Flavius in Britain, however, we should first add detail of the story still in vogue but composed between 1180 and 1199 by Robert de Borron.

In the de-Borron version of events, he alleges that Joseph of Arimathea was a soldier at the time of Pontius Pilate who had become a Christian and was the one who collected the blood of Christ after the crucifixion in a vessel used at the Last Supper. A vessel or cup that later became the Holy Grail. Joseph then gave this precious cup to Bron or Hebron, his brother-in-law, who brought it to the west. (Hebron is the name of a place about 12 miles south of the place Tekoa of the Flavius Josephus - Petillius Cerialis story).

Bron was then told to become a fisherman and was known later as the Rich Fisher or the Fisher King. It was the Fisher King who was then the one mainly involved with the Holy Grail.

If we now refer to William of Malmesbury original treatise on the Treasures of Glastonbury, compiled about 1130, we are informed that this was a work of classic scholarship. But there are several reasons why we refer to this particular work. The first of these is because William of Malmesbury clearly believed that (King) Arthur was a historic warrior leader who had lived in the past. Other than this he considered that the people of Cornwall talked nonsense in expecting Arthur to return from beyond the grave to help their conflict with the foreign invader of their land.

To William, Arthur was obviously dead but he actually commented on the fact that he did not know where Arthur's body was to be found. Therefore, in his work on Glastonbury, he does not associated either Arthur’s tomb or Bron or Joseph of Arimathea with Glastonbury.

Yet 60 years or so later, on the instruction of the king, Richard 1st., the kings relative, the Abbot of Bermondsey, recovered a body at Glastonbury he claimed to be the body of King Arthur. (Even today, this blatant hypocrisy is indicated by a plaque at Glastonbury Abbey , indicating the spot where this was alleged to have taken place).

With so much hypocrisy still about, is it any wonder, that when the work of William of Malmesbury on Glastonbury was revised at the end of the 12th. century, this version included information that Bron’s destination in Britain was Glastonbury.

With power politics in play, a late 12th. century return to the Joseph of Arimathea theme, now reveals that Joseph of Arimathea was alleged to have entered Britain in the year 63 AD. In addition, this story tells us that, after the Resurrection of Christ, Joseph of Arimathea was put into prison and only released by Vespasians army after the fall of Jerusalem. As the fall of Jerusalem was in 70 AD, Joseph had apparently arrived in Britain, six year before he was released from prison.

What we do know as a fact, is that the historian Flavius Josephus was imprisoned by the Romans about 70 A.D. and released shortly after this event. A combination of 12th. century stories that suggest there were those who new Joseph of Arimathea was a fiction and that this character was based on the real Flavius Josephus, the companion of Petillius Cerialis in the ride back from Tekoa to Jerusalem.

The ride when Flavius Josephus observed on his return to Jerusalem, that amongst those crucified were three of his friends and on his instigation they were cut down and two of them died but one of them lived.


The story of Joseph of Arimathea’s imprisonment after the resurrection of Christ and his release by Vespasian after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., surely illustrate that at least those who revised William of Malmesbury’s work, must have concluded that Joseph of Arimathea and Flavius Josephus were one and the same.

Indeed, we know from Flavius Josephus himself that he was imprisoned by the Romans for his part in the revolt of the Jews but on the instructions of Vespasian was released. A set of circumstance that would place his imprisonment between 69 and 70 A.D. However, if Josephus Flavius as Joseph of Arimathea did come to Britain, why did de Borron say it was 63 A.D. and not whilst Petillius Cerialis was governor in 71 A.D.?

When we ask this question, there is curious possible answer. Namely, that once we assume Joseph was in Britain because Petillius Cerialis was in Britain, then, as the legate of Legio IX during the Boudiccan rebellion, Petillius could indeed have been in Britain in 63 A.D.

This is because, it is only in recent years that the Boudiccan rebellion has been dated to 60/61 AD. In the 19th century, for example, Meiklejohn dated the Boudiccan rebellion to 62 AD. Therefore, opinion placing Petillius Cerialis in Britain in 63 A.D. could be accepted, as we do not know for certain exactly when he left Britain after the rebellion ended.

Flavius Josephus was not the only one who referred to Petillius, he was also included in the works of the Roman historian, Tacitus. Tacitus revealing that he was sent to the Rhine to quell the rebellion of Civilis in 70 A.D. and that he was a man with a flair for action, headstrong and impatient but nevertheless, usually successful.

As a friend and relative of Vespasian, Petillius Cerialis was sure of advancement in his career once Vespasian was emperor. Becoming Vespasians governor of Britain in 71 AD, with a second consulship in 74 AD. Whilst he was governor of Britain in 71, the Romans moved into Brigantia for the first time. Brigantia roughly comprising the North of England from either the Ribble or the Mersey in the west and the Humber in the east to were Hadrian’s Wall was later constructed.

In one of the Grail stories, we again read how Joseph of Arimathea delivers the Grail to the safe keeping of his son, Bron. This story then introduce a character called Petrus and this time it was Petrus who was told to depart to the west and not Bron. The destination of Petrus was the vales of Avaron and it is there that Bron will join him; along with Alein, one of Bron’s sons.

There are also a cross section of 12th. and 13th. century Grail stories that all included a character called King Pelles. He was allegedly the uncle of Galahad in the Vulgate Cycles Queste Del San Graal and one of the uncles of Perceval in other Grail stories.

In effect, King Pelles was the brother of the all important Fisher King and likewise the brother of the evil king of Castle Mortel. Hence, from other stories where Bron was the Fisher King, we can assume that Bron and Pelles were considered brothers.

From these stories, therefore, we could so easily believe that it was Flavius Josephus’s companion, Petillius, who was to play the part of Petrus and also of Pelles. Whilst Bron and Joseph of Arimathea either accompanied him to the west or joined him there later depending upon which version of events you read.

Or are we to believe that the names Petrus and Pelles were used by these late 12th. and early 13th. century story tellers by coincidence when the above account is capable for the first time of logically attaching Petillius Cerialis to a believable Joseph of Arimathea?

Seen in the context of a story with a series of similar plots that name so few characters and when accurate dating of events was no way as refined as it is today, what this new information does imply, is that those compiling the Joseph of Arimathea story were taking their themes from credible historical material.

Presumably with those compiling it, truly believing that Flavius Josephus the historian, was in some way associating with Jesus and later his name was simply misinterpreted to give, Joseph of Arimathea. Especially if these stories are seen in the context of where Flavius Josephus was previously the Pharisee, 'Joseph the son of Matthew', who had operated in the Galilee region; the real homeland of Jesus.



Modern research into myths and legends have suggested to some, that the Holy Grail idea evolved from the pagan Celtic stories of such magic vessels as the cauldron of plenty. A vessel that supplied endless food to all comers.

However, it is difficult to believe that King Arthur and his followers with a background of 150 years of Christianity, would be attached to a pagan cauldron of plenty myth. But if not, what other reason is there for attaching the Holy Grail stories specifically to Arthur court?

When we ask this question, one answer would be if a vessel or cup was known to have been specifically associated with Arthur up to the 12th.century and the legend regarding it was lost or forgotten due to the Holy Grail taking over Arthur court from it by the end of the century.

To pursue this theme, we recall how Joseph of Arimathea trusted the Grail to Bron and then either Bron or Petrus was told to depart to the west to the vales of Avaron.

However, we should not necessarily assume that Avaron was Avallon, the alleged mythical otherworld to which Arthur was taken after the civil war battle of Camlann. Instead, the vales of Avaron, could just as easily have been, the vales through which a River Avon would run.

In this regard, "The Place-names of Roman Britain", by Rivet and Smith, reveal that the, 'Avon', word generally evolved from the word, 'Abona'. A British word that simply meant, 'river'. Indicating that there are eight Rivers Avon, of which two are in Scotland.

Of those in England, these are all in the south west. The ones of interest to us, are probably those in the Ravenna Cosmography document, as these were, River Avon, known to the Romans. Rivet and Smith believe these to be:-
1). The River Avon that runs from the River Severn through Bristol, Bath and Bradford on Avon and then north towards Chippenham.
2). The River Avon that runs from the Vale of Pewsey south via Salisbury Plain and Salisbury into the English Channel just east of Bournemouth.

If the vales of Avaron were those through which a River Avon ran and we continue to assume this was actually a river in Britain due to the Joseph of Arimathea connection, then the ideal Avaron or Avon would surely be the one from the Vale of Pewsey in preference to the other.

This is because, just north of the Vale of Pewsey are the 3000 to 4000 year old Avebury Circle and Silbury Hill; the latter, the highest man made mound in Europe. Whilst south of these and close to this particular River Avon, is Stonehenge. A place attached to both Merlin and Arthur by the forerunners of those who compiled the Holy Grail story.

Other than this, within 6 miles of the source of this particular River Avon and on the edge of the Vale of Pewsey, a 2nd. century cup was found in a well at Rudge Coppice, near Froxfield in 1725 and it is the wording on this cup that must intrigue all Arthurians.



Found in the debris of a well at Rudge Coppice, near Froxfield in Wiltshire, the Rudge Cup is now deposited at Alnwick Castle Museum in Northumberland. The 'Name Cup' is traditional used for it but it is shaped like a small bowl. It is a bronze enamelled vessel four inches in diameter and three inches in height.

However, it is the inscription around the rim of this beautiful relic that is of interest to us, as it reads:-


Rivet and Smith point out that these as, "five forts in the Cumbrian group at the western end of the wall". In doing so, they agree with Richmond and considering the letter "A" at the beginning of the group as probably a preposition. To Rivet and Smith the following apply:-

MAIS as the Roman fort at Bowness on Solway in Cumbria.
ABALLAVA as the Roman Fort at Burgh-by-Sands in Cumbria.
VXELODVM as the Roman fort at Stanwick in Cumbria.
CAMBOGLANS as the Roman fort at Castlesteads in Cumbria.
BANNA as the Roman fort at Birdoswald in Cumbria.

There are those who consider the Rudge Cup having odd Latin forms in its word structure. Because of this, they can not derive a satisfactory origin or meaning for the word, "MAIS", that follows the letter, "A", on the rim of the cup.

However, as almost all alleged Roman place-names in Britain are not Latin but Celtic in origin, there is a possibility that the, "A", was not always separated from the "MAIS" word but was originally attached to it to give the word, AMAIS.

We then need to ask whether it is more than mere coincidence that the word, AMAIS, is a word in Gaelic with the meaning "to meet". Or should we ignore the fact that some Goidel Celt words from which Gaelic derives, could have survived in parts of Britain and in the Solway area in particular.

Once we consider a Goidel Celt origin for the place-name (A)MAIS, it is interesting but possibly of no value, to also discover that an Old Irish word from the, 'amais', stable is the word, "ammus", meaning, to "lie in wait" to "attack".

We now move on to, "ABALLAVA" the next place-name on the rim of the Rudge Cup. Discovering that this was the only Roman place-name in Britain that could naturally have evolved as the place, Avalon.

To Arthurians, Avalon, was the otherworld kingdom where Arthur was alleged to have been taken when he suffered a mortal wound at the battle of Camlann. To the pagan Celts, this otherworld was usually associated with either a lake or with the sea.

However, if similar concern of Arthurians is to bypass VXELODVM on the Rudge Cup and move on to the, CAMBOGLANS, place-name, we have here the only Roman place-name in Britain to which Arthur's battle site of, Camlann, is alleged to relate.

So in the context of the Rudge Cup, it would appear that when Arthur was transported from Camlann to Avalon, the suggestion is that his real world would meet the otherworld where the land met the sea. Therefore, in the context of the Rudge Cup, 'ABALLAVA', being Burgh-by-Sands alongside the Solway was on the way to the sea. Whilst, (A)MAIS, as Bowness on Solway, is where the Solway meets the sea?

Therefore, for some obscure reason, the words on the Rudge Cup may have come to indicate, that Avalon simply represented a staging post between life and death. A situation that was alleged to have actually applied to Arthur, as he was always considered capable of returning from beyond the grave to assist his compatriots against their enemies.

The potential return of Arthur to assist those of Brythonic Celt descent against the Norman's, was the recorded belief of the people of Cornwall and many other parts of the south west of England in the 12th. century and this is the region where the Rudge Cup was found.

Thus, after publicising the stories about Arthur in the reign of Henry 2nd. for their own political and religious ends, the Norman hierarchy suddenly realised that many of the people they ruled, believed Arthur would return to help their cause against them.

Therefore, in 1190, in the reign of Richard the Lionheart the son of Henry 2nd., the Prior of Bermondsey, a relative of the king, was instructed to set in motion the alleged exhumation of body from behind screens set up at Glastonbury. There they unearthed a tall man they said was Arthur.

According to Gerald of Wales, who was alive at that time, a leaden cross was also found on the underside of a stone, with the Latin inscription on it that read: "Here lies Arthur, the famous king, in the island of Avalon".

It is reasonable to assume that the, 'Avalon', wording on this cross was designed by the Normans to indicate that Glastonbury was Avalon and Avalon was not the otherworld of Celtic myth. In effect, Arthur had been found and could no longer return from beyond the grave to help his compatriots to extract their enemies from the realm.

Since then the cross has vanished and we only have the 17th. century representation of it from Camden’s Britannia. All that can realistically be said about the writing on the cross is that it is pre-11th. century or earlier rather than the 12th. century. One can guess that there was no conceivable chance of the wording on this cross having been 6th. century when Arthur must have died.

Indeed, William of Malmesbury’s academic treatise on Glastonbury Abbey of about the year 1130, did not associate Arthur with Glastonbury or Glastonbury with Avalon and certainly did not record Arthur's grave in this place. The chances are, the late 12th. century find of this cross was the first recorded identification of Glastonbury with Avalon.

However, when recording facets of Arthur's life, William of Malmesbury did say that no one new where his body could be found. Hence, the onus is now on us to decide. Do we believe the Prior of Bermondsey, the relative of the king, or William of Malmesbury? If we believe William of Malmesbury, Arthur's Avalon must be elsewhere and not Glastonbury.

In any event, what we should remember, is the Rudge Cup can be identified as a 2nd. century Roman relic, so the wording on it was either coincidental or may even have been used in the distant past to create the myth of Avalon in the first place. Arthur having lived over 300 years after it was made.



In the view of the academic, Sir John Rhys, the name of the Dark Age warrior the bards referred to as ‘Seithennin’, was actually a corrupted name from the word, ‘Setantii’. (Pronounce Setantii as Setanti-eye).

In effect, Rhys is saying that when the later bards took their stories from oral traditions, they misinterpreted their source material and thought, when the Setantii tribe was mentioned, a warrior leader was intended and as the years went by the word was corrupted to Seithennin.

If we now accept the views of Rhys as realistic, then the pre-Roman Setantii people simply continued as a viable tribal group throughout the Roman period and into the Dark Ages.

The importance of this, is to recognise that the Setantii were a people originally identified in the 2nd. century by the Roman geographer Ptolemy as having possessed a harbour and this was north of the River Ribble in the North West of England.

What we do know, is the bards name a series of sons of Seithennin who were active about 470 A.D. and that one of his grandsons  was Gwenwynwyn, who was referred to as Arthur's First Fighter.

However, it is the fact that one of Seithennin's alleged sons was called, 'Menestry' , that is of interest, as this is a word that meant, ‘Cup-Bearer’ in Brythonic Celt; the common language of the Romano-Britons in the Dark Ages and that later evolved into the Welsh language. But of equal importance, is that another alleged son pf Seithennin was, 'Senewr', a word that meant, 'Senator'

Together, these two names, suggest the probable existence of a Setantian Senate that possessed a special cup or drinking vessel. Presumably this   was either a symbol of   the Senates authority or part of an important religious ceremony practised by this Senate.

Hence, as Arthur was in close contact with the Setantians in the guise of having, Gwenwynwyn, the alleged grandson of Seithennin, as his, First Fighter, then the existence of a special cup could easily have motivated the 12th. century clerics to attach their Holy Grail theme to Arthur’s court when they concocted their own stories about Arthur.

But if religion was part of the ritual, the chances are the Cup-Bearer was a Christian cleric who was alive about the year 470. If so, this priest may have been represented by, Gwyddno, another of the alleged sons of Seithennin.

Why Gwyddno could have occupied this role, is because the Welsh word for ‘druid’, is, ‘drewydd’. Information that led E.O.Gordon in his book, ‘Prehistoric London’, to realistically consider the element, ‘wydd’, in, ‘drewydd’, as originally signified a, ‘priest’, rather than an, ‘oak tree’, it later evolved into in Welsh. Hence, in the view of E.O.Gordon, ‘drewydd’, meant, ‘High Priest’.

To this we should add that Rachel Bromwich,  considered the expert on the Welsh, 'Triads', believed that the element, ‘no’, in the word, ‘Gwydd-no’, as having evolved from the Celtic word, ‘gnou’, meaning, ‘famous’. In effect, the word, ‘Gwyddno’, indicated a person alive in the year 470, who was simply, ‘the Priest famed for his Knowledge’.

A Priest who was 'famed for his knowledge', alive about the year 470 and who was probably the Cup-Bearer of a Setantian Senate, would certainly be someone capable of giving such an establishment the Christian authority it deserved. However, although the history of the British Dark Ages records few 5th. century priests of this stature, one does emerge and this was St. Germanus of Auxerre, an ex-Roman army general who visited Britain in 429 and again in 448.

The biography of St. Germanus of Auxerre, written by his contemporary, Constantius, was used in the 8th. century by Heiric, who also added new information supplied to him by Bishop Marcus.

This new information tells how a character called Cadell Derynllwg was assisted by Germanus to extract a ‘wicked king’ called Benlli from his city by sending down ‘fire from heaven’. As later genealogies reveal that the descendants of Cadell Derynllwg ruled Powys, Sir John Rhys realistically believes that the fortress of Benlli was now, Foel Fenlli, on the Powys-Gwynedd border.

The anomaly endemic in the account of Heiric, however, is that St. Germanus of Auxerre died in the year 449, but the floruit, or, 'active life period' of Cadell Derynllwg was about the year 470.

From this, one can only conclude that the additional information supplied by Bishop Marcus to Heiric, was not about Germanus of Auxerre at all but about St. Germanus of the Isle of Man who died in 474.

Considered the brother-in-law of St. Patrick, Germanus of the Isle of Man was far from an obscure figure. Famed for his teaching, his star pupil was St. Illtud, one of the best known Christian clerics of the Dark Ages.

Other than this, St. Illtud was allegedly Arthur’s cousin, who fought alongside Arthur in his youth. Whilst, St. Gildas, the most famous chronicler of events of that period, was the star pupil of St. Illtud. So collectively the outstanding Christian clerics of their day could all have been the Cup Bearers of a Setantian Senate..

Therefore, as Gwenwynwyn, Arthur's First Fighter, was a Setantian, the chances are Arthur's court was attached to a Setantian Senate and if so, this Senate appears to have had the most influential Christian clerics of the late 5th and early 6th. century as their Cup- Bearer.

In this context, it would be far from mere coincidence for a 12th. century Christian Church to decided to attach their Holy Grail story to King Arthur's court.

Unless, that is, the Pharisee who became known as Joseph of Arimathea had come into the possession of the cup from the Last Supper whilst in Jerusalem and Galilee and in 71 A.D. entered Brigantia with it in the company of Petillius Cerialis.

Nevertheless, whilst we may never know the truth, those who read the work of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, will surely be left with the impression that he would have made the ideal follower of Jesus rather than simply a Christian and on this premise alone, if he had come across the cup from the Last Supper, he would certainly have treasured it. We can of course say AMEN to all this but SUCH IS LIFE seems more appropriate.