# The City of London: 666 in the City (Part 1)



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

Part 1 has been moved to: The Betrayal of Albion (Part 1): The City of London



> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2020-01-22 15:30:06Reaction Score: 5


Map showing the walled area from 1572:


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2020-01-22 17:20:29Reaction Score: 2


What part does King Lud play in this?
The Queen can only enter the City on foot, devod of regalia as a commoner.


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-22 18:25:55Reaction Score: 0


Is there a source for that?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2020-01-22 19:12:57Reaction Score: 0




Felixnoille said:


> Is there a source for that?


For which bit?
King Lud or The Queens status on entering the city?


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-23 02:14:41Reaction Score: 1




jd755 said:


> For which bit?
> King Lud or The Queens status on entering the city?


Neither, I was being facetious. King Lud is a mythical figure, a fictional character, just like, as you say John Dee is. He has no relevance whatsoever to the chain of events being presented here. If you want to showcase your King Lud knowledge then I suggest you start a new thread instead of trying to hijack this one.

As to the monarch's status on entering the City, this is covered in a later post in the series.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2020-01-23 08:59:04Reaction Score: 3




Felixnoille said:


> Neither, I was being facetious. King Lud is a mythical figure, a fictional character, just like, as you say John Dee is. He has no relevance whatsoever to the chain of events being presented here. If you want to showcase your King Lud knowledge then I suggest you start a new thread instead of trying to hijack this one.
> 
> As to the monarch's status on entering the City, this is covered in a later post in the series.


Too subtle for me.
If asking questions is hijacking a thread then I'l refrain from doing so on your posts as it clearly annoys you and that is not my intent, ever.
it's not 'my King Lud' it's Geoffrey of Monmouths.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-25 17:44:03Reaction Score: 3


Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Norman "shill" for the Pope's people.


Felixnoille said:


> The most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew texts date from the eighth century and there can’t have been many of those around in Anglo-Saxon Britain and even less people who could actually read them. Bibles didn’t make an appearance until the 15th century and yet we are supposed to believe that the early Christian Anglo-Saxons were enamoured and besotted with the Jews. The teachings of Christianity blame the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion – a point that the Anglo-Saxons must have been aware of. In spite of this they worshipped the Jews and based their culture on them in order to build a ‘New Israel’.


No, the truth is more subtle than that.  Celtic Christians were working from an earlier version of the Biblical texts, some claim that they received them shortly after the death of Christ. But the Old Testament that they used was certainly different from what Jerome cobbled together with his horrible command of Hebrew, and therefore they felt very clearly that they had a more clear picture of what the Bible actually represented. Their writings are full of slanderous comments about the ignorance of the Roman Catholics, and perhaps they recognized the Jews as being the holders of information that they deemed important to their lives as Christians.  In any event, they obviously perceived the Jews as having access to perhaps older and more authoritative versions of the Tanach than did the Popes.   And no, the most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew texts date from the tenth century BC, not the eighth century AD.  Some of this was in oral form, to be sure, but existed, yes it did.  Did they lose faith and practically abandon their own ancient texts after the captivity in Babylon?  Yes, they did, and it took them quite a few hundred (closer to thousand) years before they went back and pieced them together. That does not equate to not having them, it just means what it was - loss of interest for awhile. Well, blaming the Jews for the crucifixion is sort of true, although the Romans could have stopped what was happening, it was, after all, the Rabbin who condemned him the most.  They perhaps were able to worship the teachings without having to worship the Jews themselves.


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-26 10:14:58Reaction Score: 0




Jim Duyer said:


> No, the truth is more subtle than that.  Celtic Christians were working from an earlier version of the Biblical texts, some claim that they received them shortly after the death of Christ. But the Old Testament that they used was certainly different from what Jerome cobbled together with his horrible command of Hebrew, and therefore they felt very clearly that they had a more clear picture of what the Bible actually represented. Their writings are full of slanderous comments about the ignorance of the Roman Catholics, and perhaps they recognized the Jews as being the holders of information that they deemed important to their lives as Christians.  In any event, they obviously perceived the Jews as having access to perhaps older and more authoritative versions of the Tanach than did the Popes.   And no, the most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew texts date from the tenth century BC, not the eighth century AD.  Some of this was in oral form, to be sure, but existed, yes it did.  Did they lose faith and practically abandon their own ancient texts after the captivity in Babylon?  Yes, they did, and it took them quite a few hundred (closer to thousand) years before they went back and pieced them together. That does not equate to not having them, it just means what it was - loss of interest for awhile. Well, blaming the Jews for the crucifixion is sort of true, although the Romans could have stopped what was happening, it was, after all, the Rabbin who condemned him the most.  They perhaps were able to worship the teachings without having to worship the Jews themselves.


Excellent information, thank you very much.

Do you consider it to be possible that the 10th century BC religious texts that the Celtic Christians were working from could have been a more universal, non-sectarian belief system?



Jim Duyer said:


> Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Norman "shill" for the Pope's people.


I know he was a Norman 'fanboy', but I hadn't made the Papal connection before.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-26 13:42:54Reaction Score: 0




Felixnoille said:


> Excellent information, thank you very much.
> 
> Do you consider it to be possible that the 10th century BC religious texts that the Celtic Christians were working from could have been a more universal, non-sectarian belief system?
> 
> ...


I think it contained an early version of the Old Testament - from prior to the emendations done during the captivity in Babylon, after which certain books, phrases and ideas that conflicted with the story that they wanted to sell were removed from history. It could have been in Greek, which they read, or it could even have been in Phoenician/Ugaritic/or Aramaen, which they also had a command of.   The parts that I have translated from what they corrected in the Old Testament sayings certainly make more sense that what we have been given traditionally.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2020-01-26 13:59:37Reaction Score: 2




Felixnoille said:


> Do you consider it to be possible that the 10th century BC religious texts that the Celtic Christians were working from...


How do we know anything that took place some 3,000 years ago? Sources and discovery dates for those sources?


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-26 14:50:40Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> How do we know anything that took place some 3,000 years ago? Sources and discovery dates for those sources?


I understand your concerns, and I believe that I have a handle on your beliefs in respect to the timeline that mainstream science works under, or the lack of accuracy thereof.  Suppose that there are 1000 or 10,000 years of history that have been stretched or adjusted.  That would reduce the 3,000 years to 2,000, but the bottom line is that I decided to use the traditional timeline only for reference. In other words, when I report something that happened 3,000 years ago, please feel free to adjust that figure to one that you are more comfortable with.  It's all just semantics to me.  Whether that many years passed or not, it still did not happen last week, so whenever it happened I use those dates to put the events in order. A happened before B and C, for example, even if A was not 1000 BC but 1800 AD.  I will respect your opinions in any event.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2020-01-26 15:05:17Reaction Score: 3


My concern is that we use dates with no substantiation, that is why I always try to provide, and ask for the sources of information. Once we establish from what source the info entered our brains, we can analyze, and see how old those sources are. 

When we just go around saying 3,000 years ago this, or 10,000 years ago that... we are no different than the mainstream academia.

If we have a 300 year old source talking about 11,500 year old events which made it through time somehow, but we have no other proof that the events took place... that is something to be stated and advised of.

This is just how I see it. Otherwise we end up in the same territory those 2,000 year old busts are in, where they were all discovered and identified in the 19th, 20th centuries...


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-26 20:10:22Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> My concern is that we use dates with no substantiation, that is why I always try to provide, and ask for the sources of information. Once we establish from what source the info entered our brains, we can analyze, and see how old those sources are.
> 
> When we just go around saying 3,000 years ago this, or 10,000 years ago that... we are no different than the mainstream academia.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.  The texts that I mentioned were written by Anglo-Saxons, prior to the Norman Invasion
of 1066 AD (supposed dates) and after the Anglo-Saxons began living in Britain, which was the period just after the time when the Romans pulled out for good - in the early 400s AD.  One in particular is said to have been penned by Alcuin of York, who is said to have lived  735 – 19 May 804 AD .  He taught the Children of Charlemagne, beginning about 782.  AD that is.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2020-01-26 20:16:00Reaction Score: 0


Well, that’s what I’m trying to establish. Where are the originals, or at least how old are the available copies?


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-27 12:58:58Reaction Score: 0




KorbenDallas said:


> Well, that’s what I’m trying to establish. Where are the originals, or at least how old are the available copies?


The majority of the early history of Britain, as recorded by the Anglo-Saxon and Welsh scribes, was destroyed in an intentional fire in a Library in London.  What we have left, are indeed originals.  From the age of the paper and the writing style, they have been accurately dated as being of that period. Even if they were off by some years, whatever date you set for the present, simply subtract some thousand or more years, and there you have the date for these.  We do have the originals, and we can date the inks used and the paper.  What we can't do is get an honest translation out of our traditional scholars.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2020-01-27 13:36:37Reaction Score: 1


I always find it suspicious, as in the case with the library of Alexandria, where it’s enough to destroy one place to get rid of the entire history. Ot almost sounds like people did not read outside of them libraries. We sure can go with people being illiterate back then, but in this case who was reading those scrolls or whatever, the scolars?

This is a clear and obvious pattern, in my opinion, where a different  history either gets replaced with a newer version, or gets outright made up in place of the non-existent one.

As far as those documents allegedly properly dated, I would love to see a link to understand what docs you are talking about. So that I could do my own figging as far as dating and authenticity goes. 

Without that link I have the following question:

_Where else are they mentioned, and what is the year of the first time being mentioned._
What dating method was used to date the paper?
How do we know what the writing style was back then? Meaning what are the sources of this knowledge, and how old are they?
I’m just trying to figure this stuff out, and form an opinion based on the available information. If you can give me a few links to the exact documents we are talking about, I could probably attempt to answer the above myself.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-27 14:31:40Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> I always find it suspicious, as in the case with the library of Alexandria, where it’s enough to destroy one place to get rid of the entire history. Ot almost sounds like people did not read outside of them libraries. We sure can go with people being illiterate back then, but in this case who was reading those scrolls or whatever, the scolars?
> 
> This is a clear and obvious pattern, in my opinion, where a different  history either gets replaced with a newer version, or gets outright made up in place of the non-existent one.
> 
> ...


Linguistically, you can easily determine that they are that old if not older.  The problem is not placing them in that age, it's the fact that the powers that be keep trying to make them less old, and therefore less important to history. An example is Taliesin.   He lived, and we know this because the Romans, Irish, Welsh, British, Anglo-Saxons and others speak of him as having lived in those days 500s AD.  And yet our scholars insists on placing him in the 1200s if possible.  But this is because that would make him a Norman or under Norman influence, and they are the current family and leaders that rule Britain.
As to viewing the papers - they are online and available in their origins at the British Library.  

Here is a direct link to Old English resources in the British Library: 
Old English 
*Ælfric's Lives of the Saints on that page, is a good one to start with.
Or you can look at Beowulf in the original.*


 It takes a bit of time to learn Old English (took me about a year) and Old Welsh is perhaps more difficult (about a year and a half), but worth it if you wish to confirm anything or everything. One of the reasons that they tend to flush this history away is because he and others of that time period referred to King Arthur.  And that's a topic that has nearly successfully been erased by the powers that be - mainly because it gives hope to the masses and is against the awful leaders that we now toil under.  And don't forget that a great many Americans of wealth and power are also related to the holders of power in England, so a threat to them is a threat to all.


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-28 17:19:53Reaction Score: 0




Jim Duyer said:


> It could have been in Greek, which they read, or it could even have been in Phoenician/Ugaritic/or Aramaen, which they also had a command of.


I don't quite understand how something that's been translated from the original Paleo-Hebrew into any of the languages above could be considered original.



Jim Duyer said:


> they obviously perceived the Jews as having access to perhaps older and more authoritative versions of the Tanach than did the Popes.


_"Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: *T*orah (‘Teaching’, also known as the Five Books of Moses), *N*evi'im (’Prophets’) and *K*etuvim (’Writings’)—hence TaNaKh. _" _Source _[The 'h' on the end is not explained.]

However, the Masoretic texts didn't appear until the 10th century AD, which is after (or at least at the tail-end of) the Celtic Christians and their 'perceiving of the Jews'. The Masorets also added the vowels to TNK to create Tanakh as the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet didn't use any and relied upon them being added from the memory of those reading the original, obviously Paleo-Hebrew, texts.

Personally, I find all of this so-called history of the Old Testament/Tanakh/Tanach/Mikra incredibly over complicated and... what's the word I'm looking for... 

...oh yes - dodgy. 



Jim Duyer said:


> The majority of the early history of Britain, as recorded by the Anglo-Saxon and Welsh scribes, was destroyed in an intentional fire in a Library in London.


Was this fire recent?


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-28 19:54:16Reaction Score: 0




Felixnoille said:


> [1]  I don't quite understand how something that's been translated from the original Paleo-Hebrew into any of the languages above could be considered original.
> [2] ...oh yes - dodgy.
> [3] Was this fire recent?


1 - If the author wrote in both Ugaritic and Paleo-Hebrew, (because he was an Amorite by heritage but a Hebrew at that time period)  that is to say, using a cuneiform writing system close to Sumerian, and an alphabet without vowels nearly identical with Phoenician, why would it not be considered an original work of his?    I publish in both English and Spanish, and both are my own original works.
2 - good word for it, I imagine
3 -  23 October 1731  nearly three years to the day after the great fire in Copenhagen that also
destroyed the majority of their written histories.  There's a pattern here.

The Masoretic texts are an example of church leaders assembling a mess of documents, in many of which the original textual definitions had been forgotten, and then agreeing on what the original author might have said or meant. It is thus full of errors, yet hailed as an "inspired" work, and thus accepted.  I really don't care what they put forth as being "gospel", so I have no beef with them, but it is certainly "dodgy" to say the least.  Or, in my own humble terms "my crap detector was going off big time."   Scientifically speaking.


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-29 12:53:15Reaction Score: 5


I find it all of this very interesting. We have the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet without vowels, which were supposed to be added from the memory of the reader. Presumably this was intended to be a method of preventing the unenlightened from preaching things they didn't understand.

The same occurred in India with the Vedas. They were never meant to be written down. The Brahmins would learn them by rote and only once that had been completed successfully would they then begin to learn the meanings behind the words. The actual transmission of the words wasn't allowed until after that phase had taken place. (I believe the same principle applied to the 'bards' of the western tradition.) The problem was, along comes a devious Jesuit who tricked a Brahmin into reciting the Rig Veda while he copied it down.

From that point onward the teachings of the Vedas were doomed. They were passed from the ancient oral tradition into print. The meanings were not included in the written form. This evoked the Puranas, which are commentaries on the Vedas, but these are basically just someone's opinions. Subsequent translations by western 'scholars' (Jewish actually) deliberately distorted everything even further.

This seems to be a pattern and I'm tempted to include it in the _Modus Operandi_. 

Perhaps originally all of the 'scriptures' were held in the minds of those who had chosen to take on that responsibility. Who knows, maybe everyone just knew the spiritual laws instinctively. At the expense of getting all biblical, you could even say that the 'fall from grace' or 'original sin' was writing stuff down.

When you think that the 3 Abrahmic religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam, are all the result of that "dodgy" set of circumstances surrounding the Hebrew Old Testament, it's quite disturbing.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-01-29 15:53:40Reaction Score: 3




Felixnoille said:


> I find it all of this very interesting. We have the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet without vowels, which were supposed to be added from the memory of the reader. Presumably this was intended to be a method of preventing the unenlightened from preaching things they didn't understand.
> 
> This seems to be a pattern and I'm tempted to include it in the _Modus Operandi_.


Actually the reason that the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was without vowels, is because they did not invent it. They merely copied, exactly, the Phoenician alphabet, which was without vowels. The Arabic was the same way - without.  I believe personally that it is a case of the scribes, who were often also the religious leaders, making it near impossible for anyone to call bullshit on anything that they said - since they were the ones who could "tell" you what it meant.  The same thing is happening today, where Christians use the Old Testament, and yet you can find conflicting answers to the same questions all over the book - use the one that suits your agenda and there you go.  Two versions of creation and man's creation, both of which are different, three versions of the Ten Commandments, which differ, and another version with only seven commandments in the New Testament, which also differ.  Easy to confuse, and guaranteed to cause religious wars, genocide, and hate for thousands of years to come. And that, in my opinion, was the intention of the book all along - to create uncertainty, hate, fear and dissent among humans.
And I agree with you that it should be included in the Modus Operandi.  You might include one further element in your list - whenever there is a topic or person that might tell us some further bits about our true history, you will find a major sports player, or actor or musician or musical group or a new invention, with the same name or phrase.  This creates confusion when researching and in the modern age of the internet it guarantees that some meanings fall on pages way past where we would normally search. A cheap and effective way to sow ignorance.  Much like the Biblical texts.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2020-01-29 16:46:48Reaction Score: 3




Jim Duyer said:


> Actually the reason that the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was without vowels, is because they did not invent it. They merely copied, exactly, the Phoenician alphabet, which was without vowels. The Arabic was the same way - without.  I believe personally that it is a case of the scribes, who were often also the religious leaders, making it near impossible for anyone to call bullshit on anything that they said - since they were the ones who could "tell" you what it meant.  The same thing is happening today, where Christians use the Old Testament, and yet you can find conflicting answers to the same questions all over the book - use the one that suits your agenda and there you go.  Two versions of creation and man's creation, both of which are different, three versions of the Ten Commandments, which differ, and another version with only seven commandments in the New Testament, which also differ.  Easy to confuse, and guaranteed to cause religious wars, genocide, and hate for thousands of years to come. And that, in my opinion, was the intention of the book all along - to create uncertainty, hate, fear and dissent among humans.
> And I agree with you that it should be included in the Modus Operandi.  You might include one further element in your list - whenever there is a topic or person that might tell us some further bits about our true history, you will find a major sports player, or actor or musician or musical group or a new invention, with the same name or phrase.  This creates confusion when researching and in the modern age of the internet it guarantees that some meanings fall on pages way past where we would normally search. A cheap and effective way to sow ignorance.  Much like the Biblical texts.


Yeah... Then you just have to write a novel in the search parameters. Get SPECIFIC. That's what some turd was telling me in Boulder almost 15 years ago, closer to Google's inception. Said it would help expand the search engine.
But you're right about the confusion and burying of names and info. Looks like we need our own.
YT is f**k-all because of that too. And the sheer number of retards or closet celebrities using it as their "creative" outlet.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MuiredachDate: 2020-01-31 14:02:31Reaction Score: 1


Just to note huge props here to you, I've believed for a long-time that Britain (around that 1066 year incidentally, I've heard similar "666" things about The "Great" Fire of London for over 10 years now) started to see the major Jewish expansion, it is after all what lead to Malcolm IV, the destruction of Scottish nobility, and the scattering of what I consider to be my clan, Clan McMurray, by blood and birth.


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-31 15:23:20Reaction Score: 1




Muiredach said:


> Just to note huge props here to you,


...huge props?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MuiredachDate: 2020-01-31 15:53:27Reaction Score: 0


Sorry, British colloquialism at its finest there - I forget my tongue at times. 

Urban Dictionary: props


----------



## Felix Noille (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FelixnoilleDate: 2020-01-31 16:05:39Reaction Score: 0




Muiredach said:


> Sorry, British colloquialism at its finest there - I forget my tongue at times.
> 
> Urban Dictionary: props


I'm British, but I've never heard that before and that website is American.

To me a prop is a long pole to hold up a washing line or the position I used to play in the Rugby team. 

But, thank you.


----------



## tigermouse (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TigermouseDate: 2020-03-12 16:20:23Reaction Score: 1




Jim Duyer said:


> The majority of the early history of Britain, as recorded by the Anglo-Saxon and Welsh scribes, was destroyed in an intentional fire in a Library in London.  What we have left, are indeed originals.  From the age of the paper and the writing style, they have been accurately dated as being of that period. Even if they were off by some years, whatever date you set for the present, simply subtract some thousand or more years, and there you have the date for these.  We do have the originals, and we can date the inks used and the paper.  What we can't do is get an honest translation out of our traditional scholars.


Also the fire and destruction of Glastonbury abby's library (which at the time of it's intentional burning) which was considered the largest in the world by the time it burnt. Although its claimed size is irrelivant. After the spate of  convenient library burnings the history of england becomes a bit iffy. I used to work in the now ruined Abby as a historian. gave me a few pointers in the right direction but without true ancient sources its best to rely on archeology. is for the city.....its like having the death star on your doorstep. They use the uk like a glove puppet and always have.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-03-12 20:15:28Reaction Score: 0




Tigermouse said:


> Also the fire and destruction of Glastonbury abby's library (which at the time of it's intentional burning) which was considered the largest in the world by the time it burnt. Although its claimed size is irrelivant. After the spate of  convenient library burnings the history of england becomes a bit iffy. I used to work in the now ruined Abby as a historian. gave me a few pointers in the right direction but without true ancient sources its best to rely on archeology. is for the city.....its like having the death star on your doorstep. They use the uk like a glove puppet and always have.


Very interesting, thanks for sharing that.


----------

