What do you think?
Rate this book
The Holy Kingdom: The Quest For The Real King Arthur
In this explosive book, the authors show that after the Roman conquest, Britain retained its culture; its royal families intermarrying with the Caesars. There were two kings named Arthur -- one, the son of the emperor Magnus Maximum, the other his sixth-century descendant. Their lives rolled into one and elaborated upon by medieval poets, they became the single King Arthur of myth and legend. The authors reveal the burial grounds of both Arthurs as well as a secret historical current linking our times with the mysteries of Arthur and the Grail.
From the Paperback edition.
From the Paperback edition.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published September 15, 1998
5 people are currently reading
90 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Geoffrey Gilbert
23 books28 followersAdrian Gilbert is a bestselling British author and independent publisher who lives in England. His books are centred on investigations into ancient Esoteric knowledge and religious Mysteries.Adrian was born in Beckenham, Kent, England. His primary school was Bishop Challoner School, Shortlands, Beckenham, and for secondary education he went to St Edmund's College, Ware, Hertfordshire. He read Chemistry at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Whilst at university he took up yoga and had several mystical experiences that changed the course of his life. His first job after leaving university was as a pharmaceutical representative, but he left this after less than a year on ethical grounds. After travels in Europe, to Israel and the US, he took up a post as sales and marketing manager with Turnstone Press, a publisher of esoteric books. Leaving Turnstone, he worked for a time as postal sales manager for Watkins Books, London's oldest esoteric bookstore. In 1978 he changed career entirely and retrained as a computer analyst/programmer. He returned to publishing in 1986, working as a representative for Element Books Ltd as a preparation for setting up his own publishers, Solos Press, in 1991. This specializes in the publication of books concerning Gnosticism, Christian mysticism and Hermetic Philosophy. He is mainly known for his books The Orion Mystery, which was co-authored by Robert Bauval in 1994, and The Mayan Prophecies, which was co-authored with Maurice Cotterell in 1995. Both these books were Sunday Times Top-Ten best-sellers. To date his books have been translated into some twenty languages, including German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Turkish, Chinese, Korean and Japanese
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 26, 2020
I scarcely know where to start with reviewing this work except to say that it is one of the most misguided books produced by a mainstream publisher that I have ever come across.
With sensationalist claims (the publishers go for the hyperbolic "explosive" and "astounding") the authors, calling themselves historians, purport to overturn orthodoxy: they claim there were not one but two kings named Arthur -- one the son of the imperial pretender Magnus Maximus and the other his sixth-century descendant from Glamorgan -- whose careers were conflated to produce the single King Arthur of legend.
They not only identify the supposed burial sites of both Arthurs, they then go on to justify the title of their book with theories about holy dynasties and the quest for the grail.
I have to confess a personal interest in countering the nonsense that the authors spout. I first wrote to Wilson and Blackett in August 1983 after Welsh paper The Western Mail reported on their claims, expressing what I thought was mild scepticism while also acknowledging that at that time I didn't have their full arguments at my disposal. I wasn't prepared for the abuse that I subsequently received, nor the deliberate misrepresentation of what I'd written, mistakes in transcription, mistranslations of Latin and fanciful claims.
I started to make a list of questionable statements in this book before stopping, exhausted, at page 40. These include calling medieval poets Chrétien and Wolfram by the place they're associated with (Troyes and Eschenbach) as though these are bona fide surnames or titles; true scholars would use best practice and simply call them by their given names, as they would have been then, otherwise it's a bit like referring to Tom O'Bedlam only by the 17th-century madhouse he was confined in.
They then accuse Tudor historian John Leland of "faking" place names around Cadbury in his Itinerary. What Leland wrote was "At the very south end of the church of South-Cadbyri standeth Camallate, sometime a famous town or castle. . .The people can tell nothing there but that they have heard Arthur much resorted to Camalat." As spelling was variable in those days (witness Leland's own variation) Leland interpreted the places we now know as West Camel and Queen Camel, both near the River Cam (Celtic for "crooked"), as related to Camelot on the basis of local folk etymology.
Elsewhere there is a so-called report into a 1990 dig northeast of Cardiff, at the site of St Peter's Super Montem which Wilson and Blackett had previously bought. Two archaeologists, Dr Eric Talbot and Alan Wishart of Glasgow University, were down to lead the dig. Unfortunately the report is incomplete, inadequate and has clearly been doctored. Despite being authorised by then Royal Commission for Ancient Monuments, the artefacts discovered -- axe, knife and small electrum cross inscribed Pro Anima Artorius -- have still not been examined by either trained archaeologists or other independent experts. The fact that Pro anima Artorius is in illiterate Latin (it's not 'for the soul of Arthur' but the gibberish 'for Arthur the soul'), the finish is crude and that the design is completely anachronistic should alert anyone to the fact that it's a plant and a hoax. We're not even told its find spot, which in itself speaks volumes.
Of the archaeologists, Eric Talbot unfortunately died in 2011, but the report is unworthy of someone with his expertise and reputation. Alan Wishart (who reportedly did most of the digging) is currently a dealer in postal history specialising in material dating from 1400 to 1870, an area he pursued from soon after the 1990 excavation, and is no longer involved in archaeology.
A previous find was the so-called gravestone of Arthur II, identified from an inscription reading ARTORIVS REX FILI MAURICIVS. Unfortunately this doesn't read 'King Arthur the son of Meurig' as the authors pretend but the gibberish 'King Arthur Meurig of the son'. Both the suspiciously fortuitous and unprovenanced cross and stone 'proving' the existence of 'Artorius' run counter to any established scientific method.
Quite frankly Wilson and Blackett, like Adrian Gilbert, are seekers after what they call suppressed knowledge, investigating "ancient Esoteric knowledge and religious Mysteries": in other words, they are conspiracy theorists. It's pointless going into aspects of their ridiculous assertions -- others have done this effectively, for example here and here. They've also been antisocial and litigious neighbours; and in 2004 they stood unsuccessfully as local government candidates for the defunct far right British National Party. These are not trustworthy individuals: Blackett was not only BNP candidate under the name Brian Terry, he was apparently convicted of handling stolen art. Is his name Anthony Thomas Blackett, or Mike (said to be his brother’s name), or M T Byrd, or Grant Berkeley?
This all then results a confused and badly written narrative, featuring two fantasists who have no real historical sense at all, authored by a writer who specialises in Alternative History (another name for, let's give it its proper appellation, Pseudohistory). The Holy Kingdom is anachronistic, relies on speculative antiquarianism and has little foundation in any recognisable reality. The result is unreadable nonsense -- extremely easy to parody -- which depresses the human spirit; you cannot have a meaningful dialogue with theorists who say they are right and you and everyone else is wrong. The real King Arthur? Don't make me laugh.
With sensationalist claims (the publishers go for the hyperbolic "explosive" and "astounding") the authors, calling themselves historians, purport to overturn orthodoxy: they claim there were not one but two kings named Arthur -- one the son of the imperial pretender Magnus Maximus and the other his sixth-century descendant from Glamorgan -- whose careers were conflated to produce the single King Arthur of legend.
They not only identify the supposed burial sites of both Arthurs, they then go on to justify the title of their book with theories about holy dynasties and the quest for the grail.
I have to confess a personal interest in countering the nonsense that the authors spout. I first wrote to Wilson and Blackett in August 1983 after Welsh paper The Western Mail reported on their claims, expressing what I thought was mild scepticism while also acknowledging that at that time I didn't have their full arguments at my disposal. I wasn't prepared for the abuse that I subsequently received, nor the deliberate misrepresentation of what I'd written, mistakes in transcription, mistranslations of Latin and fanciful claims.
I started to make a list of questionable statements in this book before stopping, exhausted, at page 40. These include calling medieval poets Chrétien and Wolfram by the place they're associated with (Troyes and Eschenbach) as though these are bona fide surnames or titles; true scholars would use best practice and simply call them by their given names, as they would have been then, otherwise it's a bit like referring to Tom O'Bedlam only by the 17th-century madhouse he was confined in.
They then accuse Tudor historian John Leland of "faking" place names around Cadbury in his Itinerary. What Leland wrote was "At the very south end of the church of South-Cadbyri standeth Camallate, sometime a famous town or castle. . .The people can tell nothing there but that they have heard Arthur much resorted to Camalat." As spelling was variable in those days (witness Leland's own variation) Leland interpreted the places we now know as West Camel and Queen Camel, both near the River Cam (Celtic for "crooked"), as related to Camelot on the basis of local folk etymology.
Elsewhere there is a so-called report into a 1990 dig northeast of Cardiff, at the site of St Peter's Super Montem which Wilson and Blackett had previously bought. Two archaeologists, Dr Eric Talbot and Alan Wishart of Glasgow University, were down to lead the dig. Unfortunately the report is incomplete, inadequate and has clearly been doctored. Despite being authorised by then Royal Commission for Ancient Monuments, the artefacts discovered -- axe, knife and small electrum cross inscribed Pro Anima Artorius -- have still not been examined by either trained archaeologists or other independent experts. The fact that Pro anima Artorius is in illiterate Latin (it's not 'for the soul of Arthur' but the gibberish 'for Arthur the soul'), the finish is crude and that the design is completely anachronistic should alert anyone to the fact that it's a plant and a hoax. We're not even told its find spot, which in itself speaks volumes.
Of the archaeologists, Eric Talbot unfortunately died in 2011, but the report is unworthy of someone with his expertise and reputation. Alan Wishart (who reportedly did most of the digging) is currently a dealer in postal history specialising in material dating from 1400 to 1870, an area he pursued from soon after the 1990 excavation, and is no longer involved in archaeology.
A previous find was the so-called gravestone of Arthur II, identified from an inscription reading ARTORIVS REX FILI MAURICIVS. Unfortunately this doesn't read 'King Arthur the son of Meurig' as the authors pretend but the gibberish 'King Arthur Meurig of the son'. Both the suspiciously fortuitous and unprovenanced cross and stone 'proving' the existence of 'Artorius' run counter to any established scientific method.
Quite frankly Wilson and Blackett, like Adrian Gilbert, are seekers after what they call suppressed knowledge, investigating "ancient Esoteric knowledge and religious Mysteries": in other words, they are conspiracy theorists. It's pointless going into aspects of their ridiculous assertions -- others have done this effectively, for example here and here. They've also been antisocial and litigious neighbours; and in 2004 they stood unsuccessfully as local government candidates for the defunct far right British National Party. These are not trustworthy individuals: Blackett was not only BNP candidate under the name Brian Terry, he was apparently convicted of handling stolen art. Is his name Anthony Thomas Blackett, or Mike (said to be his brother’s name), or M T Byrd, or Grant Berkeley?
This all then results a confused and badly written narrative, featuring two fantasists who have no real historical sense at all, authored by a writer who specialises in Alternative History (another name for, let's give it its proper appellation, Pseudohistory). The Holy Kingdom is anachronistic, relies on speculative antiquarianism and has little foundation in any recognisable reality. The result is unreadable nonsense -- extremely easy to parody -- which depresses the human spirit; you cannot have a meaningful dialogue with theorists who say they are right and you and everyone else is wrong. The real King Arthur? Don't make me laugh.
Based on and expanded from a review in a 1998 issue of the Journal of the Pendragon Society
January 16, 2013
Even among the ridiculously large amount of pseudo-historical (and some legitimately academic works) on the idea of an 'historical King Arthur', this book is kind of problematic.
It presents some interesting ideas, and I'm not entirely adverse to the idea that Arthur may have his roots in Wales, but when a large proportion of your evidence is conjecture on the level of - "It's not impossible that this is the case", or "we've become convinced that x" without presenting any of your real reasoning to the audience, and another major aspect is purely based on the names of places in the Welsh countryside, you've a problem from the outset.
Even some of the key textual evidence, relies on blatantly ignoring the studies of these texts that had been produced in the decades preceding the publication of this book, instead choosing to follow the conclusions of outdated academia from the first decades of the twentieth century.
Worst, though, is the somewhat arbitrary inclusion of a chapter on the "Grail Dynasty" and the myth of Joseph of Arimathea brining the 'blood' or possibly 'lineage' of Jesus to Britain, and establishing a bloodline here (an idea made popular in the 1980s by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'), with, once again, only vague linguistic similarities and possible corruptions based on loose comparative readings of the gospels and some apocrypha. Indeed, it seems like this chapter only exists because of the continued popularity of the holy grail conspiracy myths, and in order to distance themselves from works like 'Holy Blood'.
Despite that, if these theories are ever published in an academic context, with actual evidence and some kind of impartiality, it may prove an interesting study.
It presents some interesting ideas, and I'm not entirely adverse to the idea that Arthur may have his roots in Wales, but when a large proportion of your evidence is conjecture on the level of - "It's not impossible that this is the case", or "we've become convinced that x" without presenting any of your real reasoning to the audience, and another major aspect is purely based on the names of places in the Welsh countryside, you've a problem from the outset.
Even some of the key textual evidence, relies on blatantly ignoring the studies of these texts that had been produced in the decades preceding the publication of this book, instead choosing to follow the conclusions of outdated academia from the first decades of the twentieth century.
Worst, though, is the somewhat arbitrary inclusion of a chapter on the "Grail Dynasty" and the myth of Joseph of Arimathea brining the 'blood' or possibly 'lineage' of Jesus to Britain, and establishing a bloodline here (an idea made popular in the 1980s by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'), with, once again, only vague linguistic similarities and possible corruptions based on loose comparative readings of the gospels and some apocrypha. Indeed, it seems like this chapter only exists because of the continued popularity of the holy grail conspiracy myths, and in order to distance themselves from works like 'Holy Blood'.
Despite that, if these theories are ever published in an academic context, with actual evidence and some kind of impartiality, it may prove an interesting study.
February 4, 2012
This is a strange one. Author Gilbert is dragged around the countryside of Wales by Wilson & Blackett as they search for rocks with fuzzy inscribtions. Then, they make cracked postulations, because real historians (those goofy academics) got it all wrong. In "fact," there were two King Arthurs, both related by blood or plasma to Constantine the Great, Saint Helen, the Virgin Mary, and Christ himself. How's that for an impressive pedigree?
April 27, 2020
For decades this book has been shelved among my other books on religion, only to recently find out that this not a book about religion at all, but a book concerning King Arthur. Rather a misleading title...
This book is written by Adrian Gilbert, but most of his ideas have come from Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, the co-writers, and it gives us a very different take on the legend of Arthur. Now that is something I applaud, not taking established science as fact, but asking questions. In this book, Gilbert postulates that Arthur did exist, and was a king in the 5th century.
But first I must point out that most of what Gilbert writes, is spoon-fed to him by Wilson and Blackett. The latter two take him on tours throughout Wales, visiting burial mounts, churches and so on, telling him their ideas and Wilson simply laps it all up. No questions asked. Not only do they know who Arthur was (including a family tree), they also know where Camelot was situated, and where Arthur is buried.
For me, there are far too many assumptions made, like “there is a person called Athrwys, son of Meurig, so that can only mean that Athrwys is King Arthur”. And there are many more instances of this kind. Gilbert also takes Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the Kings of Britain” to be a true account of events. This book is a translation of a (now lost) book, given to him by Walter, the Archdeacon of Oxford. Gilbert has the answer: that work can only be the “Brut” by the 6th century prince (later monk) Tysilio. Now, this is possible, of course, but Gilbert makes it look like he is the only one who has a copy, and the only one who has ever heard of it! Nonsense, as there are copies, like the one in the library of Jesus College, Oxford.
He also whines quite a lot, lamenting, for instance, the lack of cooperation he gets from the local authorities to excavate sites, and the often-used phrase “not many people know this because it is not taught in schools”. And his constant “I am right and the rest is wrong” attitude, which gets rather tiring after a while.
All in all a rather irritating book, but with interesting views.
This book is written by Adrian Gilbert, but most of his ideas have come from Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, the co-writers, and it gives us a very different take on the legend of Arthur. Now that is something I applaud, not taking established science as fact, but asking questions. In this book, Gilbert postulates that Arthur did exist, and was a king in the 5th century.
But first I must point out that most of what Gilbert writes, is spoon-fed to him by Wilson and Blackett. The latter two take him on tours throughout Wales, visiting burial mounts, churches and so on, telling him their ideas and Wilson simply laps it all up. No questions asked. Not only do they know who Arthur was (including a family tree), they also know where Camelot was situated, and where Arthur is buried.
For me, there are far too many assumptions made, like “there is a person called Athrwys, son of Meurig, so that can only mean that Athrwys is King Arthur”. And there are many more instances of this kind. Gilbert also takes Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the Kings of Britain” to be a true account of events. This book is a translation of a (now lost) book, given to him by Walter, the Archdeacon of Oxford. Gilbert has the answer: that work can only be the “Brut” by the 6th century prince (later monk) Tysilio. Now, this is possible, of course, but Gilbert makes it look like he is the only one who has a copy, and the only one who has ever heard of it! Nonsense, as there are copies, like the one in the library of Jesus College, Oxford.
He also whines quite a lot, lamenting, for instance, the lack of cooperation he gets from the local authorities to excavate sites, and the often-used phrase “not many people know this because it is not taught in schools”. And his constant “I am right and the rest is wrong” attitude, which gets rather tiring after a while.
All in all a rather irritating book, but with interesting views.
November 12, 2017
Supposedly the book is to prove that the King Arthur of legend (especially cited by Geoffrey of Monmouth) is real. The author spends too much time focusing on Rome, and it’s Imperial ups and downs and invasions to actually focus on the topic on hand. There a chapter on Joseph of Arimethia and the Holy Grail. Don’t ask me why. And a lot of the book is speculation that doesn’t supply evidence to support it
January 25, 2016
A book for seekers of the truth behind myths, 'The Holy Kingdom' is a thrilling read for anyone who enoys travelling in their imagination. It also provides massive encouragement to go on an actual King Arthur quest to the locations described. The authors generously share their ideas and discoveries, calmly ignoring ridicule and disagreement from 'official' and 'established' authorities.
For example, Iolo Morganwg has long been described as a deluded and romantic forger of ancient Welsh documents. And yet.... Maybe there is truth in his writings. It's time to find out! The meteorite theory could easily be sneered at, but again, it could well be true. I am most interested in the King described in 'The Holy Kingdom' as Arthur II. Siluria seems to me an extremely likely home area for this Arthur and I found the descriptions of his life and final burial place riveting.
Like the authors of 'The Holy Kingdom' I'm not impressed by the history currently being taught in British schools. It has the feel of an approved story. Children are asked to learn and repeat 'the facts' and never encouraged to research for themselves. Being laughed at by academics is definitely to be expected by anyone researching or writing in this kind of mythic area. Whether you agree with them or not, the dedication of the authors in their search for the truth is to be applauded.
For example, Iolo Morganwg has long been described as a deluded and romantic forger of ancient Welsh documents. And yet.... Maybe there is truth in his writings. It's time to find out! The meteorite theory could easily be sneered at, but again, it could well be true. I am most interested in the King described in 'The Holy Kingdom' as Arthur II. Siluria seems to me an extremely likely home area for this Arthur and I found the descriptions of his life and final burial place riveting.
Like the authors of 'The Holy Kingdom' I'm not impressed by the history currently being taught in British schools. It has the feel of an approved story. Children are asked to learn and repeat 'the facts' and never encouraged to research for themselves. Being laughed at by academics is definitely to be expected by anyone researching or writing in this kind of mythic area. Whether you agree with them or not, the dedication of the authors in their search for the truth is to be applauded.
December 6, 2013
As an inhabitant of South Wales with a fascination of local history, I found this book truly enlightening. I was aware of the links King Arthur had with local places such as Caerleon and I found that this book built well on the histories I had already heard. To learn about the suppression of British history at various times and how our Roman-centric history is currently favoured was truly a shock. It was nice to see how Gilbert linked up with two serious scholars of early British history and the story that was presented is quite believable and realistic, if at times it sometimes could be found guilty of over-reaching conclusions, perhaps being over-dramatic. I've read other books by Adrian Gilbert and enjoy his style and he always covers interesting topics. The whole story of Arthur is fascinating and has intrigued me to study the legends more. I think the conclusions were a little weak, and find the Joseph of Arimethea links with Britain a little too speculative. It's a great book and is one that I will be sharing with other friends interested in Welsh history.
August 22, 2008
Well... the content is, just like many other Arthurian books, highly arguable, and there are times when you wonder whether the authors are not pulling things too far or plainly joking, but I quite enjoyed this book and the theories presented in it.
December 30, 2022
Awful.
Speculation upon speculation.
And some dubious claims.
Alleges there is some sort of academic hostility and conspiracy.
Speculation upon speculation.
And some dubious claims.
Alleges there is some sort of academic hostility and conspiracy.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews