Pirate Kings of the Mediterranean - British Royals Reassessed - who cares apart from the Tourist Office?

for the last few Free Planet posts, I’ve been ranting on about the research of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett that concerns itself (righteously, one supposes) with the re-telling of British History, a re-examination of the Welsh Kings of Britain and the Khumric language and geographical origins.

It’s all good historical research and worthy of your eyes and ears, sure, but I can’t (for the life of me) work out WHY it is important to the world as we know it today. Here in Britain we have an 18th century imported Royal Family in the form of the Hanoverians or Saxe-Coberg-Goethas or Windsors as we know them.

If we go back before the Romans and find a LINE OF ENGLISH KINGS (leading back through Brutus of Troy and Albyne of Syria) that were a lot more relevant in pre-history and Bronze-age times than we give them credit for, that should be a good thing, right? But they’re still a foreign family or families or tribes or sea-faring peoples or pirates or exiled kings of the Mediterranean, they’re still an Imported Royal Family. Sure, if we find that British Kings like Arthur I (300AD) and II (500AD) kicked out the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons respectively… If this old like of British Kings spoke what’s been called Old Khumric… If these old peoples of Britain turn out to the what remained of the Ten Tribes of Israel…

They should have their notch on the historical bed post but this still leaves Britain as AN INVADED ISLAND NATION that was set up as nothing but a Fertile Farmland by Kings From Elsewhere. So what does it matter to us, as people of our own land? Why should we be interested in ‘some other country’s invading kings’? If only to uncover our real heritage, to discover that our ancestors were not British. Is anything British? Are any so-called ‘people’ fixed in terms of origin? Isn’t it just ENOUGH THAT WE ARE HERE on this Free Planet, as it should be?