Englands place is in Germania!
The Saxons in Anglia - by Woden's Folk (link here) and with thanks to DC.
The one thing that hinders any advance of an English Awakening is the rigid adherence to the idea that the English were 'invaders' of these islands starting in 449CE with Hengest and Horsa. It is certainly true to say that Hengest and Horsa should be considered as the founders of the English Nation, just as Romulus and Remus founded Rome. But we should look much deeper into these historical times if we are to break free of the dogma that sees the Germanic English as 'foreigners' in a 'Celtic' land.
Firstly, it has never been considered why the English should name such places as Wayland's Smithy after one of their own gods, nor to why many more very ancient burial mounds have been called after Saxon Chieftains, even though these were clearly built thousands of years before the English were supposed to have invaded these islands. The one consideration that has been missed is that the English recognised these as being the burial mounds of their own distant Germanic Ancestors and therefore gave new names for them from their own kin and god-names. Since the area around Wayland's Smithy does seem to reflect the myth of Sigurd the Wolsung slaying the Dragon with the Sword of Wayland, the Saxons obviously recognised this myth built into the landscape and named the area in the names of their gods and heroes as they sounded them.
If we recognise that the English were here long before the era they are deemed to have arrived, going back to the time of At-al-land which sank around 7,000 years ago, then the ancient monuments all around these islands can be seen as the work of their own Hyperborean Ancestors ('Sons of Bor') and the so-called 'Druids' of today and 'Celts' of today cannot lay claim to everything in these islands. Since scientists have shown that the DNA in these islands has remained almost the same for thousands of years then we English can lay claim to being here since time immemorial.
We have seen how a battle took place around Mold in North Wales, between an alliance of Saxons, Scots and Picts and their enemy the Christian Britons - and that this took place around 430CE, some 30 years before the English were supposed to be here. We have another reference from Ammarius (364CE) to an alliance of Saxons, Picts and Scots against the Britons -
'Hoc tempore Picti, Saxonesque, et Scotti et Attacotti Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis...'
The Attacotti are also named here. So we have yet another reference to the Saxons, and this time well before 449CE. This name could be linked to a Germanic Tribe called the Chatti. Indeed, the famous English Historian Kemble has this to say, some 100 years ago -
'I confess that the more I examine this question, the more completely I am convinced that the received accounts of our migrations, our subsequent fortunes and ultimate settlement, are devoid of historical truth in every detail.'
Since this was the opinion of one of the most influential English Historians, why does the case for an 'English invasion of Britain' still persist? Simply because it suits the Established Order to push the 'Celtic/Druid' idea and make the Germanic Folk appear 'invaders' and thus 'foreigners' to this land. What is more important to us is the question as to why the promoters of English Civic Nationalism still persist in pushing the same old 'invasion theory' despite the growing evidence to the contrary.
Again, we have yet another quote from Kemble -
'Widukind's story of an embassy from the Britons to the Saxons, to entreat aid, is thus rendered not altogether improbable; but then it must be understood of Saxons already established in England...'
The Saxons in England - Kemble (my underlining).
'Victricia Caesar signa Caledonios transvexit ad usque Britannos: fuderit et quamquam Scotum et cum Saxone Pictum....'
'Caesar took his victorious legions over even to the Caledonian Britons, and although he routed the Scot, the Pict and the Saxon...'
The Poems of Sidonius.
So we have here an account of the Roman legions under the leadership of Caesar routing the Scots, Picts and Saxons. Caesar, of course, invaded with his Roman Legions in 55 BCE! This was some 500 years before the time of Hengest and Horsa. There are also accounts of battles taking place in the Orkneys, again with an alliance of Saxons, Picts and Scots as well as another group called the Vectriones whose name suggests the ancestor of the Jutes - Vecta. This was in the 4th century CE.
We have an account of an Angle princess who was betrothed to Radiger, a prince of the Varni, a Germanic Tribe. Radiger deserted his promised bride and offered his land to Theodechild, widow of her father and sister of Theodberht. The Angle princess had a fleet of 400 ships and 100,000 Angles which took prisoner this Radiger. Rudolf of Meginhard states that these 100,00 Angles sailed from these islands. This was around 534 - 537 CE. This number of Angles is very high for the time but we have no way of proving this as fact, since not all of the tale tallies with the dates.
The Coritani were around the area of Mercia, and were considered to be a Germanic Mannerbunde. We have also a tribe known as the Chauci which lived on the south-east coast of Ireland, and were probably a Germanic Tribe. The Littus Saxonicum was an area where the Saxons lived in England. The Romans also settled some of the Germanic Alammani here in England. There was also a group of Alans settled in Northern England- Southern Scotland whose name derives from Old Iranian Arya. The Alans, like the Scythians and Saxons were sword-worshippers, the East Saxons being descended from the sword-god named Seaxnot, who is mentioned as Saxnot in Old Saxon texts. The Alans were also known as As'c, As, Os or Osi (Ossetians) which links them to the Os-Rune; they had golden-yellow hair and fierce eyes.
Now we must turn to certain Welsh texts that contradict the history that we have been taught about the Saxons in England. In the Book of Llandaff (12th century) we find the phrase 'Britannia and Anglia' which seems to suggest that Anglia (an earlier name given to England) was not actually in Britain (this statement will become clearer later). Geoffrey of Monmouth describes his source as 'a very ancient book in the British tongue' and refers to 'The book in the British tongue which Walter the Archdeacon of Oxford brought from Britannia' suggesting again that England was not actually in 'Britannia'. In a work called The Keys of Avalon Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd suggest that 'Britannia' was actually Wales and did not refer to the whole of England. The book also gives some compelling thoughts on the subject of the Saxons already being established in England, and that this area was then called Anglia - they also use the term Germania! (I would not suggest that they are right in everything they say, just that the book gives food for thought; it is written from the Welsh point of view so has nothing to gain in regard to the English stance.)
The last battle that Hengest fought was said to be at Caer Cynan (Cunungeburg) at which he was captured and executed by the Britons, being buried in a barrow on a hilltop near to Caer Cynan. The reason for the execution was the Night of the Long Knives where Hengest and the Saxons were said to have slain the nobles of the Briton on May 1st. Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us that this took place at Stonehenge, but the Welsh texts contradict this, for they tell us that it happened at Maes Mawn yn Cymru which means 'Great Plain in Wales'. There is actually some reason to suspect what we have been told by historians since they are continually trying to try to find Welsh roots to names given to places they say are in England. We can understand that places like Chester once held Welsh names. since these border Wales, as does the Marshes etc. But when it comes to Eastern England these ideas do not hold water. If we shift 'Britannia' to Wales this makes more sense.
The place Caer Cynan (Conungeburg) has always been seen as Conisbrough near Doncaster, but Cynan was the brother to Elen who was the wife of the Roman Emperor Maximus and the son of Eudaf Hen, who had been given the realm of Prydein by Maximus as Elen's 'maiden's fee'. He was also known as Cynan Meriadoc which is preserved in the name Cefn Meriadog which is near St. Asaph in North Wales.
To understand more we need to consider the part played by the Picts in all this, since (with the Scots) they feature as allies to the Saxons on many occasions. We are led to believe that the Picts were 'little people' who occupied the north of Scotland, and yet these people were actually called Alban of the Yellow Hair and resided in a place called Alban. A 14th-century manuscript from Jesus College, Oxford, refers to a fifth-century 'king of the Gwyddel Ffichti of Powys', the Gwyddel Ffichti being the Picts and Powys being in Wales. In the Welsh Brut we are told of a King Rodric (Germanic name) had come to Alban (Powys) and conquered it in the time of Marius, son of Aviragus (around 70 CE). Marius eventually defeated the Picts, killing Rodric and most of his army, but the remnant was given part of Powys as long as the British nobles were allowed to take their daughters as wives. It seems that the Picts would not allow their daughters to marry these Welsh nobles, and preferred to allow them to take wives from the Gwyddel in Ireland.
There is a hill just south of Betws y Coed called Iwerddon below which is a village called Dolwyddelan which means 'Meadow of the Gwyddel, and a mountain ridge north of Blaenau Ffestiniog has the name Iwerddon, as does the lake on it. The name Gwyddel refers to the Picts and Iwerddon to the Irish - 'Irish Picts'. If this is true, and there was a settlement of Picts in Wales then the battles at Mold and elsewhere can be seen in their true light, and this would also explain the battles of the Scots and Saxons which would have taken place in Wales, the Scots being akin to the Picts. It would also explain the name Anglesey ('Angles Island') which is in North Wales. This was once occupied by the Angles, as the name tells us. The Reverend Wade-Evans spent 60 years promoting a theory that Insula Britannia referred to Wales and the south-west corner of England, and not to the whole of these islands. This would mean that the terms Cymru, Alban and Lloegres did not refer to Wales, Scotland and England, but were areas of Wales alone.
This theory would also explain the Welsh Brut story of Arthur gathering an army and setting off for Caer Efrog to fight the Saxons. Colcrin, the Saxon Chieftain, gathered an army of Saxons, Picts and Scots and met with Arthur and the Britons at the banks of the River Dulas, where the Britons were victorious. An army under Baldulf was also defeated, and then Cheldric arrived in Alban with reinforcements from Anglia (England). Here, again we must ask the question - 'Why was Arthur and the Britons fighting against the Picts who were supposed to inhabit a part of Northern Scotland? A colony of Picts in Powys (Wales) makes this feasible, as does the idea that the battles between the Britons and the Saxons, Picts and Scots also took part in Wales - and not here in England, which was already inhabited by English Tribes or Germanic Tribes.
In The Privilege of St Teilo (from the Book of Llandaff) which was written in both Latin and Welsh we find the following -
Latin - 'aregibus istis & principibus britannie ('the kings and princes of Britannia'.)
Welsh - Breenhined hinn hatouyssocion cymry (the kings and princes of Cymry [i.e. Wales]).
And in the same Book of Anglia - 'The borders of Britannia and Anglia towards Hereford... From both parts of Anglia and Britannia...'
Since Anglia and Britannia are not one and the same, and Britannia clearly refers to Wales, this mix-up has thrown our own history out of gear and made things appear in a totally different light. What seems to have happened is a corruption on the part of Geoffrey of Monmouth whose purpose may have been to aid the rulers of the time in extending their realm to the whole of Britain, needing a 'past' to confirm their legal right to do so - as the Norman Barons had to do, and also later rulers whose usurpation needed to be seen as 'legitimate'.
'In a brilliant propaganda coup they made the history of the British kings their own. With the true British monarchy penned up in Wales, Geoffrey's chronicler legitimized the claims of the Norman conquerors by tracing their descent from Trojan stock, which was something the original kings of the Britons always claimed to be. By spreading the geography of ancient Briton beyond the confines of the homeland, the Historia incorporated the domains of the new monarchy into the history of the British kings. It also took Arthur away from his Welsh roots and turned him into a figurehead in an attempt to unite Briton, Saxon and Norman into one nation.'
The Keys to Avalon.
We should recall that not only was William of Normandy financed by the money-lenders in his conquest, but also arrived here with many Bretons of the same stock as the Britons, and they were given land and power here. In regard to this we should recall what has been said of the Welsh and the Druids on the subject of the Jotun. This was nothing more than another attempt to overthrow the White Dragon of Germania and supplant it with the Red Dragon of Juda-Rome. This was further emphasised when Henry VI (Henry Tudor) usurped the Throne of England in 1485.
What we need to investigate further is the idea that the body of Hengest was buried in North Wales, and also what links this has to the Welsh name Cor Saeson which means Circle of the Saxons and which is near to Cerrig y Drudion in North Wales. This article is speculation and not fact, and should be taken as such, but it has the seeds of something extremely important for the English since it would mean that their history in these islands - and on the sunken continent of At-al-land - stretches way back into the past. On this same subject (At-al-land) it should be noted that the Oera Linda Book is a Frisian work and although it should not be taken as a historically accurate work, there may well be grains of truth in its references to the sunken land of Atland. The Frisians were kin to the Saxons and Angles.
* There is also a reference to an invasion of the Orkneys by the Saxons and subsequent settlement there. This would seem rather strange but there may be an explanation for this from Welsh references to the 'three adjacent islands' (mentioned in Enwau Ynys Prydein) named as Mon, Manaw & Weir - Anglesey, Man and Lundy. Some variants replace Mon (Anglesey) with the name Orc, so the reference to Orkney (Orc-ney) could refer to Anglesey rather than the Orkneys above the Scottish mainland. This would make more sense since we have the name Angles-ey (Angle's Island) given down to us today. It may well be that this island was once invaded by Angles and occupied for a while - long enough to give it the name anyway.
** The place called Cor Saeson was originally named Mynydd Maen which means 'Mountain of the Stones' and it is interesting to note that the term maen is used for 'sacred' stones - standing stones. The area that these stones are in is on a wide open valley which could have been the 'Great Plain' that was mixed up with Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain. The name Cerrig y drudion means 'Stones of the Heroes'. The Welsh Brut states that the Giant's Dance could be found at Caer Caradog which is a hillfort overlooking Cerrigydrudion. So this Welsh tradition has the site of the Night of the Long Knives in North Wales and not Stonehenge.
*** There are Welsh references to the leadership of the Saxons under Hengest, and under his son Octa, and also his cousin Ossa. Since much of these events do not occur in the English versions they are dismissed out of hand, yet if the battles took place in Wales and not England they would have been recorded in Welsh annals rather than the English. We are told of battles fought by the Welsh against the son of Hengest - Octa - and in view of the page on this site relating to the Jotun and to the link between Hengest and AEtla (Attila the Hun) it should be noted that Hengest named his son, Octa, after a son of Aetla the Hun! (This would certainly suggest that Hengest was well aware of his Wyrd as the new 'World-Ruler' and the 'Scourge of God'. The episode where he is given the Sword of Aetla would be symbolic of this act of transfer of Wyrd from AEtla to Hengest.
**** It would seem that the name 'King Arthur' was not really used of this Welsh chieftain, for he was known in the annals as Dux (Duke) and since he was illegitimate his right to the throne would have had to be secured through some kind of 'legend' - i.e. the sword in the stone. It is possible that he was 'promoted' to a king so as to unite England and Wales under the Norman & Breton Barons - under the Red Dragon.
It should be noted that just recently archaeologists have come to the conclusion that the area now known as 'Dogger Bank' was once part of a large landmass that sank beneath the sea some 7,000 years ago due to a massive tsunami. This actually confirms what had been told to me some decades ago by an Odinist Magician living in the Scottish Highlands. He mentioned a massive catastrophe that sank vast areas to the north of Scotland, and that affected the area around the Moray Firth which is a massive fault-line that crosses the area. From this catastrophe molten stones were thrown up from within the earth as the whole land was affected, and one of these Magical Stones is still held in secret by the Cult of Woden here in England. Since this area of the Dogger Bank was part of At-al-land then we have further evidence that this area was inhabited by the Hyperboreans, and that the Frisians had kept a record of this catastrophe which was recorded in the Oera Linda Book. This was never a 'historical' document but was an Initiated Work, as can be gleamed from the title 'Over the Linden Tree'.