• I address the question of King Arthur, whom I argue is more important as a literary and legendary figure than as a historical one, then I address the question of Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the 5th century and argue that they cannot have been peaceful and that recent studies have not properly distinguished the DNA of Anglo-Saxons from that of Brythonic Celts. Finally I return to the figure of Arthur as a returning hero, and stress the importance of this perennial archetype as a esoteric representation of a spiritual awakening of the people.

    To clarify, what I do not say clearly in the film: Barbarossa, Charlemagne , King Arthur, King Harold Godwinsson and other European kings whose return from the grave has been prophesied are regional variants of an ancient legendary motif of the perfect king who represents the perfect harmony of earthly power legitimised by transcendent and spiritual principles. This will not be achieved by a king climbing out of his grave, but by a spiritual re-awakening of the European peoples.

    CORRECTION: At one point I state that "nobody ever called themselves by that name" (Anglo-Saxon) This is incorrect. I had thought that Anglorum was used more than Anglo-Saxon but I have subsequently learned that there are several ecclesiastical texts in which the English were termed Anglo-Saxon during the Anglo-Saxon period.

By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.