Post By Alan Hassell
Nov 16, 2010, 07:34 PM
King Johns Treasure doesnt exist he was murdered by the Church of Rome
KING JOHN WAS MURDERED HIS TREASURE DOES NOT EXIST.
The following is an extract from the Bruts of England (Bruts = Histories)
copyright alan hassell and Alan Wilson november 17 2010
Many of the Barons of England were in rebellion against King John and they invited aid from the King of France who sent his son Louis over into England with an army. So John immediately placed the castles into the hands of his foreign soldiers-aliens. In this chaos Louis was attacking castles in the South and King John was marching down from the North.
His line of march is recorded and it did not go anywhere near the wash where he is supposed to have lost his treasure with the incoming tides.
Chapter CLV (155)
And at the same time the Pope sent into England a legate who was called Swalo, and he was a priest Cardinal of Rome, for to maintain King John’s cause against the barons of England: but the barons had so huge a party and help from Louis the son of the King of France, that King John knew not whether to turn nor go.
And so it befell that he would of gone to Nichole, and as he went hitherward he came to the Abbey of Swyneshead, and there he abode two days. And as he sat at meal he asked a monk of the house how much a loaf of bread was worth that was set before him on the table. And the monk said it was worth but a halfpenny. “Now” quoth the King,” and I may (leue)...., such a loaf will be worth twenty shillings (240 pence) before half a year be gone.”
And when he said these words, much he thought and often he sighed, and he took and ate the bread and said, “By God the word that I have said it shall be truth.”
The monk that stood before the King for this word was full sorry in his heart, and thought rather himself suffer piteous death, and thought to ordain perform some manner of remedy.
And anon (after) the monk went to his Abbot and was shriven by him and he told the Abbot what the King had said, and he prayed that the Abbot would assist him and he would give the King such a wassaile (good drink) that all England shall thereof be glad and joyfull.
So went the monk into the garden and found a great toad therein, and took her up and put her in a cup and pricked the toad through the broach many times, so that the venom came out on every side and went into the cup.
And he took the cup and filled it with good ale, and bought it before the King, and kneeling he said, “Sir”, quoth he. “Wassaile, for never days of your life drank you of such a cup.” “Begone monk,” quoth the King, and the monk drank a great draught and took the king his cup, and the King drank also a great draught, and set down the cup.
The monk anon went into the infirmary, and there he died anon, on whose soul God have mercy, Amen.
And the monks went singing for his soul and shall do whilst that Abbey stands. The King rose up anon (afterwards) and full evil of ease, and commanded anon to remove the table and asked after the monk, and men told him he was dead for his womb was broken in sunder.
When the king heard these tidings he commanded for to trusse but that was for nought as his belly began to swell from the drink that he had drunk, that he died two days after Saint Luke’s day.
And this John had begotten fair children of his body, that is to say Henry his son, that was King and his father, and Richard was the Earl of Cornwall, and Isabel that was Empress of Rome and Ailenore (Eleanore) that was the Queen of Scotland.
And the King John when he had reigned seventeen years and five months and five days, he died in the castle of Newark and his body was buried at Winchester. Actually King John is buried at Worcester Cathedral.
So it is fairly clear that the Cardinal from Rome had King John set up and murdered in an Abbey although he was probably removed immediately to Newark Castle in an attempt to save him. Then England was restored to peace with the young boy Henry III crowned as King of Gloucester.
The crap about Kings always being crowned at Westminister and by the Bishop of Canterbury is several times wrong. As History the tale is somewhat over brief and consequently but the story of the assassination of King John is very clear.
The fact the murderous monk was for ever after revered by the church says it all.
The money flowing out from the Churches and Abbeys of England and into Rome was resumed and King John was no longer a nuisance to Rome or the Barons.
His first marriage to the Apostolic Christian Lady of Glamorgan and their daughter Joanna marrying Liewellyn the Great of North Wales is ignored, as the Church of Rome refused to recognise the Khumric Apostolic Christians founded AD 37.
The Apostolic Christians took Christianity to Rome in AD 51 and finally the British Emporer Constantine the Great allowed Christianity to be a legal religion in Rome in AD 325 just 288 years after Britain.
There never was any King John’s treasure lost in the wash as claimed by modern historians as being a true event. The story was invented as a cruel cover up to hide the fact that the Church of Rome had murdered King John and had to distance itself from the event it could never be seen to have broken its own ten commandments, Thou shalt not Kill.
The fact that this story appears in the Bruts of England is one of the reasons modern academics don’t want anyone to know about it. It is a huge embarrassment to the English Establishment too.
This is another reason the Bruts of England is such a hard book to obtain, even so academics will say, “Oh you don’t want to read that stuff,” of course they would because they have their own invented fabricated history and do not want you the public to know about real history and how it is embarrassing to them once the truth is told.
The Bruts are written in old English and many changes have taken place since then, but he meanings are the same.
Nov 16, 2010 07:34 PM
Nov 17, 2010, 11:32 AM
Re: King Johns Treasure doesnt exist he was murdered by the Church of Rome
Dec 09, 2010, 03:11 AM
Re: King Johns Treasure doesnt exist he was murdered by the Church of Rome
A fanciful yarn, but history didn't happen that way. John Lacklands died of dysentery which he contracted in the area around East Anglia. Soon after he died a rumor began to circulate that he was killed by poisoned ale, plums, or peaches. The truth of the matter was that he died after succumbing to an illness, one which he suffered from for several weeks prior to his passing.
There was never a priest named Swalo in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, most especially not a Cardinal priest. The Papal legate that was sent by the Vatican was Pandulf Masca. He was not an ordained clergyman, but he is often times confused with Pandolfo Cardinal Masca of Pisa.
He was the acting Papal legate which formally accepted John Lackland's formal surrender to once again be received as a Papal fief. This was because John Lacklands has been excommunicated by the Vatican for choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury. The Canterbury Chapter claimed themselves the sole body to choose a new Archbishop after Archbishop Herbert Walter died in 1205 and they favored a cleric named Reginald, own of their own members. John Lacklands, on the other hand, picked John de Gray, in order that the Crown of England could better influence the Church.
After not being able to come to an accord, the Canterbury Chapter held a secret election from which another of their own members was elected. This was again opposed by John Lacklands and he insisted on a second election. After that election failed to settle the dispute, in 1207 John Lacklands and members of the Canterbury Chapter traveled to Rome so Pope Innocent III could settle the matter.
Pope Innocent III claimed that the previous elections were invalid and then ordered that the 16 monks who sent as representatives of the Canterbury Chapter to elct a new candidate. They then elected Stephen Langton as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Pope Innocent III accepted the election and conecrated Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury on 17 June 1207.
John Lacklands was not happy with this and he received support from many English Barons and members of the Canterbury Chapter. The dispute then escalated, with John Lacklands expelling the Canterbury Chapter late in 1207. This led to Pope Innocent III placing and interdict on the English kingdom in March of 1208. John Lacklands retaliated to the interdict by having all of the churches in England closed and their properties seized.
This in turn led to his excommunication in November 1209. After several years of negotiations failed to produce results, in 1213 the Papacy decided to remove John Lacklands from power and King Phillip II of France was charged with the task. Since England was in no military position to be able to successfully repel an armed French invasion, John Lacklands offered to surrender England to God and to the Saints Peter and Paul (the Roman Catholic Church) for an annual fuedal service of 1,000 marks, 700 for England and 300 for Ireland. This act in turn gained John Lacklands the formal support of the Vatican, which he desperately needed to control his Barons, the majority of which opposed John Lacklands as the King of England.
The rest of the tale is pure imagination. Constantine the Great was in no way a British Emperor, he was the Emperor of the Roman Empire. His father was Flavius Constantius of Moesia and his mother Helena was a Greek Christian. There were no such people called the Apostolic Christians. England did not witness the first onset of Christianity until late in the 2nd century AD.
The reason why modern scholars don't want people to study the Bruts is because it's all one big lie.
Feb 03, 2012, 05:32 PM
Re: King Johns Treasure doesnt exist he was murdered by the Church of Rome
Mr. LAMAR has given his version of events and in doing so left the door open for a reply.
Well, Mr. LAMAR,
who told you the Bruts were a pack of lies? Can you prove it yourself? have you even bothered to read them?
Do you know what the Bruts are and how they came into being? Is this the sort of history your superiors teach you?
What are they afraid of and why do they tell you not to read them?
Before you make or write your post you should of learnt something at least about Ancient British History and why it was changed to suit a German Monarch in 1714 George the first of Hanover.
You would also realise that all books written before that date tell a different history to the one that your trying to tell all your friends and give them the wrong fabricated history that you yourself were taught.
Are you are unable to do any research on this matter yourself and rely on what you were told by your masters?
The reason you fail to research this yourself is because you know yourself you are standing on thin ice because the truth prevails over misinformations.
I note you hide behind a nickname instead of writing under your real name for fear that anything you yourself have written and published would be discredited. I could be wrong but inclined to think not.
This is a typical ploy used by academics if someone tells the truth you are declaring war on the world.
Academics have attempted to do this to Immanual Veliokovky and destroyed a great scientist and human being in the process.
But their victory was short lived once the experts realised what Veliokovsky had written was true.
You have taken it upon yourself to write this post to ridicule and discredit myself Alan Hassell but also Alan Wilson who is a graduate from Cardiff University who has a degree in History but unlike yourself seeks out and publishes the truth even if you don't like it.
Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have between them over 70 years of great research and have published eight books all of which should be available in every school.
Did you know Alan Wilson put out a challenge to every University in England for their top people to debate live on television the subject of British History and the truth?
You ought to know that not one single highly educated professor or so called doctor has come forward to take up the challenge?
How would you fare against one of the worlds leading authorities on the subject?
The Roman church is on dodgy ground right now because it is not the first time this so called business has lied to the public.
The king of France was in debt to the knights Templars and to wipe out the debt he conspired with the Pope who the Templars had something the Roman Church wanted themselves. The church having this great opportunity of using the Kings army to overthrow the Templars used Heresy as a crime and had all the leaders either burnt at the stake or executed in one way or another.
However the Church never got what they wanted neither did the king.
Then how about the Spanish inquisition where thousands were murdered in the name of so called Christianity?
Why were Moses ten commandments broken in the name of religion by the devious men in black who consider themselves gods?
Are you aware that in Holland the Roman Church and its employee's the priests who are supposed to guard and protect children in their care are accused of sexually abusing over 30 to 35,000 children that were in their care from 1945 upto the present day?
This article was published in The Guardian UK read it for yourself http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...tutions-abused I dont tell lies.
The church did everything in their power to keep this dastarly and hideous crime secret.
The Roman Church cannot be seen to be accused of sins, therefore it will protect itself in any way it can.
Do you really belive the version that you have concocted is the truth?
Is it beyond your educated comprehension to believe that the story put out by the church is true or just another of its inventions and concoctions to deceive the public, yourself and others in order to protect itself?
Dont you realise religion is a man made invention designed to control people from the day they ae born till the day they die.
How many ancient academics did they kill off or hide away because certain individuals were able to think for themselves and had ideas that undermined religion?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you realise you have opened up a huge can of worms that you should of left alone.?
By writing your reply and putting it onto a public forum has unfortunately put you into the firing line.
Everyone should read this and find out the truth for themselves including you.
Then again so called Academics cannot get things wrong can they?
You have publically accused myself and Alan Wilson of being Liars, which we are not and for that we both expect a public apology from you.
At least we have evidence of what we say you only have the words of modern academics who keep you in the dark like mushrooms and feed you on horse dun.
You forget that in the 1850's a certain Bishop Stubbs and Edwin Guest were appointed to rewrite their version of history which is full of inventions and fabrications.
You forget that prior to 1714 you will not find the word Celt in any of the ancient documents, it was an invention by those Germans who brainwashed Briton's into believing they were all of Saxon (German) origin and heritage.
This was done because another German married Victoria. it was also done for political and religious correctness too.
Everyone here should go to youtube and see what's on there? Theres 200 videos explaining the real history of Britian and the real truth of what happened.
Don't you now wish you had kept your opinions to yourself and kept your name and reputation intact?
I invite everyone to click the following link and see for themselves how blind modern academics really are and why they continue to protect themselves.
Academics write books too and make a lot of money from doing so.
However because of pride they hate it when their writings are proved to be wrong and their names and reputations are on the firing line.
Interesting how you start your reply with Dear Group? and end with
The reason why modern scholars don't want people to study the Bruts is because it's all one big lie.
Now you have a much more serious challenge that is to convince everyone that your intentions were honorable and truthfull instead of attempting to discredit other people with fabrications invented by the English Establishment.
Just click on the link here and you can see for yourseves the real truth about ancient british history not the false information you give?
Decide for yourself who is right and who is wrong?
I bought this to the attention of Alan Wilson himself. Despite being busy with other time comsuming matters he did decide to make a reply himself in this instance.
It would be very wise of you to reconsider what you have posted Mr. LAMAR.
We might also ask what qualifications you have, if any?
Alan Wilsons reply to LAMAR which will interest everyone especially with a genuine interest in Ancient British History especially how the Bruts came into being and why the establishment does not recognise them.
Alan Wilsons reply.......
Well there is no change in the situation of Church fabrication of History. This "Lamar" who hides behind a pseudonym is quite incorrect in his strange claims.
The plain fact is that there are no less than 167 copies of the Bruts (Histories) of England. Some are complete whilst others have sections missing.
Leaving aside the more ancient parts of these texts these Histories were complied as contemporary records, and the same events are described in different wording by different recorders in various places in England.
It is a very remarkable concept that there were deliberate forgers working away contemporaneously in different parts of England,and perhaps Lamar can explain this extraordinary situation.
It parallels the Establishment and Church claim that virtually ALL ancient BRITISH Histories preserved by the Khumric-Welsh were forged over a 1500 years period by several hundred historians and recorders spread from Anglesey to Gwent and from Pembroke to the Mersey estuary.
The Bruts were cast aside in the same manner that some 99 % of Ancient British -Khumric History was deliberately disregarded in order to promote secular and Religious politics.
In1906 the struggling English Manuscript society managed to engage the services of Freidrich Brie a German scholar and he chose four of the ancient English Texts to produce a composite Historical Text. Freidrich Brie chose 1.the Rawlinson MSS. B. 171 (Bodelian) , supported by the MSS Doouce 323 -Bodelian Library,3. MSS Trinity College,Dublin,490.. 4. the MSS Harley 4690 and MSS Arundel LVIII in the College of Arms,London.
Interestingly the English Manuscript Society were saddened by the fact that for every £1 they managed to raise at least £22 was donated the Hellenist (Greek) Society.
This speaks volumes for the Establishment campaign to eradicate all accurate English as well as all Khumric-Welsh ancient history and to replace the mass array of provably accurate British ancient History with imported Greek and Roman Histories.
They even named British warships and airplane types after legendary Greek and Roman "heroes",-Hermes, Bellerophon, Achillies, Ajax, Agamemnon (Nelson's first command), and so on.
As for King John,-well he was not quite Lackland. He married the Lady of Glamorgan and that gave him control and use of Glamorgan-Gwent and Gloucester,and their daughter Joanna married Llewellyn the Great of North West Wales.
The castle where tradition alleges that Magna Carta was drafted is still there in South Wales. So he had quite powerful allies.
It beggars the imagination that when King John's slow moving wagon train made its way south from the North of England that this convoy would be diverted and go across a dangerous track where the sea flooded this primitive roadway twice daily.
The places where this royal caravan rested each night are recorded and they are nowhere near the Wash where the seas allegedly swallowed up John's treasures.
Equally the monastery where he rested and was poisoned is not on that route.
Even more interesting there is a magnificent embellished goblet that once belonged to King John still in Norwich, and this somehow escaped from the waves and swam ashore.
In short the Church has fabricated a yarn to avoid the obvious fact that they murdered King John by poisoning. The Bruts of England record the facts and so the only way out for the Church to avoid the charge of Regicide is to try to claim that the Bruts are incorrect.
These unpopular English Histories -the property of the English people - are remarkably correct even in the most extraordinary and earliest records.
There are remarkable exact correlations between these very early British records and archaeological discoveries made over the past 200 years of our modern era.
The earliest story of Albyne sailing to Britain from Syria around 1500 BC is precisely matching with records excavated by Austin Layard in 1846.
The history of Brutus leading the second mass migration around 500 BC from the remnants of Troy is proven beyond dispute, and so on.
Whenever it has been possible to test these remarkable English Histories using parallel other Histories and a mass of information resulting from archaeological excavations, they are shown to be honest, honourable, and accurate.
The practice of defending the misdeeds of the Church of Rome and its splinter in England by rejecting our own National Records is a dangerous policy.
We have to date compiled nine large detailed Books on our provably accurate British Histories,and there are more to come.
Much can be learned from the many entries on "disclose Tv" and on U-tube,under the name of 'LucyLastic60'.
At long last the huge royal palace of four acres on an eleven acre site is being excavated at Lantwit Major in Glamorgan. London officialdom ordered the Welsh excavations of 1882 to stop and they have prevented excavation ever since.
This Palace of the British Arthurian Kings was destroyed in AD 562,and it is a National disgrace that every effort has been made to conceal the very existence of this British - not Angle or Saxon - great palace.
Wales was, and still is a Kingdom, and not a pathetic Anglo-Saxon Principality.
And 80 successive Welsh Kings are NOT going to vanish permanently to suit the politics of London and Rome. Get accustomed to the truth.
We -the British-have a long and illustrious past and our Histories record this.
The foul slander that our ancestors were primitives and undeveloped and near totally uncivilised is 1000% wrong and a very foul pack of lies.
Christianity arrived in Britain in AD 35 two years after the crucifixion,and this arrival of the Holy Family in Britain - NOT the South of France -is well attested by British and foreign sources.
Christianity was taken FROM Britain to Rome in AD 51 and there is evidence in abundance.
The First Bishop of Rome was Linus a son of King Caradoc, and the Church of Rome has had a long run of fraud and deception.
There is considerable detail on all this.
The fact is that our British records state that King John was poisoned by the servants of the Church of Rome, and the fairy stories of his heavy ox-drawn treasure wagons being lost on a beach under an incoming tide are a pathetic nonsense.
He was murdered and he died of deliberate poisoning by drinking poisoned ale.
He was not much of a King but he did grant the Magna Carta and unlike his predecessors he actually lived in Britain,and the Barons did not like this.
Richard the Lionheart was useless and he spent only four months of a twelve and a half year reign in England,getting himself crowned King at Winchester.
His most memorable act in England was to get blind drunk and chop down most of an Inn in Beaconsfield with a battle-axe.
As King John is still buried in Worcester Cathedral an autopsy on his corpse would tell the truth.
Time and time again the modern archaeological finds prove the English Bruts to be correct.
Jun 23, 2012, 10:36 PM
Has anyone noticed that this Mr. Lamar never had the guts to make a reply to Alan Wilsons comments?
What sort of people are you that never bother to do your own research and find out the truth for yourself?
The internet is full of information if you care to look for it and research it.
Alan Wilson was aware that a comet had struck Britian in AD 562 and when he said it to me it went in one ear and out the other until one day reading Morte D Arthur reading how Camelot was built out of White Dressed Marble that it was blinding to look at when the sun shone on it.
Having been taken to Caermeade near Llantwit Major in Wales by Alan Wilson for the express purpose of showing me what the English called a Roman Villa I wondered why anyone would want to destroy it and and break it up into millions of fragments covering a vast area or 11 acres.
The manpower alone to have done it would be enormous because this site was originally built of White Dressed Marble.
The question was how did it end up broken into fragments so small they can fit into the palm of your hand?
It would of taken an army to have beaten and crushed the size of these fragments.
But how do you prove that a comet actually caused all this destruction? All I had was archaeological reports of a dig that was done in the 1850 approx.
Huge rooms 50 x 60 feet with elaborate paintings on the walls and mosaics on the floors exactly the sort of thing anyone would find in a building built for kings.
Human skeletons as well as horses were found as well as signs of fire or burning. Modern day academics would automatically asume the a fight had taken pleace and the building burnt down after the fight finished.
have any of you the slightest idea of what happens when a comet strikes earth? probably not the same as i was ignorant too until i started to explore and do some research of my own. Scotland has over 50 hill forts and guess what most of them are VITRIFIED. The problem is no one can explain how solid granite was turned to glass. Even Arthur C. Clarke using archaeologists and academics failed to do this including a brilliant young woman who wanted to do a thesis on vitrification. So started an intense research into the subject of comets what they did and the dymanics of these dangerous things we know little about.
Ok so here we have an object in space that was reported as a new star in Tysilio's Chronicles of the Kings of Britain. This star continued to grow in size unlike other start. People in ancient times did watch the heavens and were concerned about this new star.
Comets travel at between 4 kmps and approx 11 kmps you work it out into mph dont be lazy all your lives.
hurricanes can create winds upto say 200 mph people cannot stand up in it and even have a struggle at half the speed.
What is going to happen if that wind happens to be say 8,900 mph or nearly 25,000 mph?
everything gets blown away or it should. But velocity is a strange thing it also causes friction and at those sorts of speeds tempretures can get to as high as 13,000 degrees hot enough to cause vitrification. At those speeds it would only take minutes to cover the entire length of Britain 800 miles and about 30 t0 45 minutes to cross the Atlantic ocean too. Wind causes waves therefore a gigantically huge wave would also be formed and follow the comets course.
Here we have a scenario of this comet striking Britain first then travelling on to Bolivia and Peru. The Amazon forest would be set alight just as Gilda's states that Britain was on fire from sea to sea if you care to read it. He also stated that this fire came from the heavens.
No one knows what happend to the many civilisations that lives in South America or why they left.
the answer is they were all picked up by the forward blast of the Comet and ended up miles away in the Paciffic ocean. Dont laugh it happend can you stand up and suvive a 8.000 mph gust of wind or even 25,000 mph?
It doesnt matter where you look in Bolivia and Peru the signs of vitrification are everwhere even in Cusco. Followig the destruction of many of the temples what was yet to come finally finished destruction to completion. Water does not travel the same speed as a comet and would take longer to arrive.
Many bolivians claim there was a time the Atlantic ocean opened up and flooded the area. This explains the total damage done at Puma Punku.
First the atomic blast of the comet which at those speeds would be capable of moving 100 ton boulders with ease. Some of the huge have boulders were thrown over a kilometer away to where they can be found today. what sort of power would be needed to do that?
Next, the tsunami finally arrives and covers the entire area in silt and mud and buries many of the rocks under about 6 foot of deluge much the same as the tsunami that hit Japan in 2010.
There were surivors but thats a secret im keeping to myself. Dont believe everything your told by Mr. Lamar guys like him are TROLLS he get his kick out of thinking he is smarter than you. Ok so what you have here is some facts who is going to follow it up? enjoy be happy
Jun 25, 2012, 08:51 PM
Our resident jesuit has not posted on this forum since the rubber room was closed.
Jun 27, 2012, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by lastleg
Jul 01, 2012, 06:17 PM
The theory of a murderous monk didn't actually come into being until the early 1600's when William Shakespeare used the character to poison King John in "The Life and Death of King John".
And while King John was excommunicated in 1209, the excommunication was lifted in 1213.
In 1216, King John marched from Newark to Lynn. Arriving at Lynn, he was given a massive feast where it is believed he contracted dysentery. More than likely, he contracted Shigellosis, the worst kind of dysentery, which is usually spread through the exposure of human fecal matter on food or water. I'm willing to bet the cooks didn't wash their hands. It takes 12 hours to 4 days for symptoms to show up. But once they do, he would have been plagued by intenstinal cramps, nausea, severe diarrhea, possibly vomiting, and a result of severe dehydration. More than likely dehydration was ultimately what killed him.
As for the treasure, you should note that the loss is talked about in Roger de Wendover’s "Flores Historiarum" which was written between 1188 and 1235. A copy is available in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. I'd suggest giving it a read as it does discuss King John's final years quite a bit.
Ralph of Coggeshall’s "Chronicon Anglicanum", also written during the same time period, talks about the loss. But it is a strange book. I'm not sure if the manuscript is a good source of fact.
In "Flores Historiarum", the loss is not too specific. It says he lost "treasures, precious vessels, and all the other things which he cherished with special care". It does not state that the crown jewels were lost. This became implied because many of the crown jewels were not used in the coronation of King John's successor, King Henry III. But that does not mean they were actually missing.
Search tags for this page
anyone ever find king john's treasure
john lackland's missing treasure
king john's castle
king john's lost treasure
king john's treasure
king johns treasure
lost kings treasure
the missing treasure of king john
used lost treasure of king john
Click on a term to search for related topics.