reply to post by poet1b
I hope you don't mind a bit of a ramble about Christianity in Britain, which plays into the Grail lore..
I live in Sussex, and our first King, King Aelle is purported to be the pagan Saxon chief who fought Arthur at the battle of Mons Badonicus, which is
surprising really, since we have no Arthurian legends.. but if the battle took place then Aelle fits the bill as a leader.. all except the Pagan
That is the major flaw in all the assumptions put forward about pagan Saxon Britain is that the archaeology does not support what we assume is true
(not around here anyway)
From around the late 3rd century the Saxons around here where being buried in the manner of Christians..
(Good examples of this are the Saxon burial sites at Alfriston or Highdown Hill both of which clearly show most of the bodies buried rather than
cremated were laid out east-west with the head at the western end in the manner of early Christians. These date from late 3rd century onwards.. as a
bit of trivia Alfriston is also the site of the early female Saxon Saint Lewinna, so there is a strong Christian connection there)
(Another bit of trivia to maintain the contrary nature of all this: Sussex is said to have been the last Saxon Kingdom to convert to Roman
Christianity by St Wilfred)
So now marry the burials with the archaeological evidence that the Briton's in Sussex lived with the Saxons in harmony, while the notion has been put
forward that contrary to popular misconception of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles the Saxons in Sussex where in fact in the service of the local Britons,
this notion is more in tune with the archaeological evidence that that presented in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
Which is also born out in the Sussex dialect which is a mix of Brythonic, Anglo-Saxon and old Dutch with only a hint of 14c French. (the Sussex
dialect was only pushed out of the way by Standard English in the last century and you can still find the books written in the Sussex dialect and
Sussex dictionaries on line if you want to follow that up.. you'll also find Rudyard Kipling using the dialect in his works)
Learning that what I was taught was not true took me down the path of looking at Roman Britain and the battle that was raging between the Christian
Church of Rome and the Christian Church in Britain. Which can be clearly seen in the battle between Pelagius and the likes of Augustine of Hippo,
Jerome (main author of the Vulgate) and others in Rome.
Religious beliefs we now accept as the foundations of the Roman Church only came about after and as a direct result of a conflict between the 2
different views (Rome and Britain) of original sin.
A further response from Rome was to try to eradicate this religious view from the British Isles and from within the specific British leadership of
Vortigern, they did this by sending the likes of St Germanus of Auxerre to Britain (Bishop and Roman General) and Palladius (Predecessor of St
Patrick) to Ireland to prevent the spread of Pelagianism there.
Interestingly while in Britain, St Germanus raised an army and fought a battle against a combined Saxon/Pict Army in the Mold, Northern Wales, and one
can almost conclude that the only way for the Picts and Saxons to get that far into Britain was with the help of the British leadership, adding fuel
to that fire St Germanus excluded the British leadership from the Army he raised.
So from an invasion from the North we then obviously move onto the Saxon invasion from the South and the likes of Aelle being put forward as the
leader who fought King Arthur, and if we can accept that Saxons where in the employ of the Britons, and where buried in the manner of Christians.. We
can almost conclude that Arthur was a supporter of not just Rome but the Church of Rome and his battles an extension of the battle between these
version of Christianity.
From that I conclude (my opinion) that the Britons who left Britain for Brittany where in fact also supporters of Rome and the Church of Rome..
leaving behind a Christian Britain.. one that didn't support Rome., obviously open to invasion, but that seems a side point to ridding Britain of the
And then we have the arrival of the not so Pagan Saxons (at least not down here) and the spread of what we now call Celtic Christianity (a name I feel
is merely used to cover the Pelagians that Rome tried to eradicate)
But what is surprising is that you will find a large number of non glosses of the Vulgate in Anglo-Saxon Britain.. literature that is said to be only
good for criticism of the Vulgate.. and I would really love to see a full translation to see if it does marry into Pelagianism or hint at what the
heck created this clash in the first place.
We then have the Papal mission to Britain to convert the Anglo-Saxon, but Rome was again confronted with Celtic (Pelagian??) Christianity.. Which in
Sussex meant St Wilfred getting beating up on his first attempt to convert them..things seem to settle down after this..
Then we jump forward to the Papal sponsored Norman Invasion that brought back the Britons from Brittany and continued the battle of the Churches,
which is what I think we see within the Arthurian legends.. a way of regaining control of these Isles, the Normans then led the conversion of Ireland
back to Rome.
The thing is, what I do not understand fully is why was the driving force behind the Christianity of these Isles that has set it on course to clash
with Rome for the better part of 1700 years????????
Now that is the question I can not answer...