'Ardrey delivers a bombshell... fascinating stuff'
- Los Angeles Times

'A brilliant piece of detective work... enthralling'
- Scots Magazine

Jun 4, 2016
1st May 2016

Why Scotland should be independent and why Scotland should not be independent.

Warner Bros 'King Arthur' trilogy, the first film of which will be released in March 2017, will atrract tourists to Tintagel and Glastonbury but not to Scotland unless Scotland does... something.

Tintagel

Tintagel has no historical Arthur.

Tintagel is only connected with Arthur because Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wanted to curry favour with his patron who owned the place, wrote about Tintagel it in his Arthur blockbuster, The History of the Kings of Britain.

Check English Heritage’s website – the whole tourist industry of the Tintagel area is based on this fiction.

Glastonbury

Glastonbury too has no historical Arthur.

Glastonbury is only connected with Arthur because the monks of Glastonbury needed money to repair their monastery after it burned down in the late 12th century, and so they said they had ‘discovered’ Arthur’s grave. Arthur brought tourists (pilgrims) and tourists brought money.

Check out Glastonbury’s website - Glastonbury's whole tourist industry is based on this scam.

Scotland

Unlike Tintagel and Glastonbury Scotland has an historical Arthur - Arthur Mac Aedan (c.559-596CE).

Unlike Tintagel and Glastonbury, Scotland no Arthur-tourist industry. 

If Scotland was populated by Americans, something would have been done about this by now.

This is why Scotland should be independent and this is also why Scotland should not be independent.

We should do something about this.

 

 

Category:General

Add a comment

Name:
Email address:
Title:
Comment:
Notify me of replies:
 
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)
 

Categories