What I'm about to tell you is something that many may find, at the very least, disconcerting. Others will see the light of truth in the following and may just alter their way of thinking where their illustrious geneaologies are concerned. At issue are the ancient British kings claimed, not only by the Claypooles, but other families as well. Oddly enough, like the Claypooles, many of these families have interesting and rich histories, even when the early British kings are not included.

My concern is that, to be credible, family geneaologies must be packed with factual information, revealing sources that can be checked by anyone. The names must square, the dates must match, and reliable 2nd, 3rd, etc sources for the data must exist. Without these jewells of verification, it becomes nothing but fictitious fantasy.

But, how do we know who really existed and who did not? Everyone, especially the rich and famous, leaves evidence and artifacts of their very existence every day they live. Regarding ancient royalty -kings, queens, dukes, and other types of ruling potentates, they leave many bits and pieces of their lives in many different places. Ancient rulers were extremely materialistic. They left castles, churches, forts, armour, and many, many luxury items. They are keen on leaving a mark to be remembered in the world and there will never be any question as to whether or not they were real people. If Geoffrey's ancient rulers of Britain existed, where are the many accounts of interactions with them? Where are the coins with their images stamped into them?

(All rulers make coins -click here to see some ancient coins of Britain)

Where are the royal jewells? Where are the trinkets and memorabilia they left behind? Where are the laws that bear their names? While some may justify these curious absences by saying it is possible that British society was, at that time, too primitive to produce these types of things, remember that they exist to this day for rulers far more ancient than these British kings.

The Source of the Nonsense...

So, where did the history of these kings come from? The source of this questionable history that so many families cling to is largely the work of a medieval monk named, Geoffrey of Monmouth. Geoffrey definitely drew from the works of other noted , ancient historians, like Gildas, Bede, Nennius, and the Roman historian Orosius. He probably also took some of his information from Welsh oral tradition and legend. Around 1136, Geoffrey produced his great work 'Historia Regum Britaniae' (The History of the Kings of Britain), which was a sort of national genealogy for the British monarchy. Although it was an attempt to document an stable, unbroken, continuous line of kings, it is clear that History of the Kings of Britain is very nearly completely fiction.

Geoffrey claims that his Historia drew heavily upon an "ancient book" loaned to him by Walter, Archbishop of Oxford. But, like Joseph Smith's golden plates with the book of Mormon carved into them, mysteriously this book has never been found, though sought fervently and furiously for centuries.

What caused Geoffrey to write such material?

Fifty years after the Norman Conquest, there was a strong interest in the history of Britain and, unlike today's historians who write about history out of a love for the subject and to whom integrity means a great deal, many ancient historians were all too happy to pervert and embelish history to provide wealthy patrons with a family history that includes impressive ancestors.

Twelfth-century chroniclers, such as William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum Anglorum, 1125) and Henry of Huntington (Historia Anglorum, 1139), wrote long and ambitious histories dedicated to their patrons. Romance also increasingly influenced the historiography of the time, and there was a penchant for legends and anecdotes, clever ruses and amusing stories.

Likewise, Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae ("History of the Kings of Britain") was writen to please these same men. And, yet, Geoffrey only pretends to write history and actually admonishes both William and Henry not to say anything about the early British kings, as they know nothing about them, not having the "certain very ancient book" setting forth their deeds that he has translated as his own history. In spite of this appeal to authority, it is obvious that much of what he writes is from his own imagination.

Geoffrey is the first, for example, to tell the story of King Lear and, although not the first to mention King Arthur, until the sixteenth century Geoffrey's fanciful accounts of King Arthur and his list of the more ancient kings was regarded as the standard history of ancient Britain.

How can we judge whether or not an ancestral claim is fact or fiction?

For one thing, a real, live person generates biography that is multi-dimentional, that attests to the good, the bad, and the ugly -the person from every angle, if you will. But, Geoffrey's historical accounts of these kings and their character are curiously two-dimensional -the stories are fabelistic or sometimes even resemble old themes first attributed to folk tales and mythological persons even more ancient than they themselves.

He even makes up people, like Genissa, porported daughter of Roman Emperor Claudius. The problem is that the only children ever recorded for Claudius was Brittanicus and Octavia -no 'Genissa' is ever mentioned in connection with Claudius by any other valid, ancient historian. Only in Geoffrey's writings can you find anything about this. In addition, Geoffrey also tells what are supposed to be medieval tales with an 11th or 12th century spin. A good analogy for today might be Hollywood making a movie about ancient times and showing actors dressed in togas, with zippers in their garments and wristwatches visible.

This is not to say that it is all nonsense. These people, Brutus, Beli Mawr (Heli), Llud, Arthur, etc., may have very well existed as real human beings. And they may have been high status individuals in British tribal culture, perhaps even kings. But, the lives that Geoffrey of Monmouth spun for these people does not reflect reality. Rather it is an artificially agrandized, revisionist history of the British monarchy, with the real victim in this situation being the truth of the matter, the idea of which is temptingly far more interesting than Geoffrey's manufactured history, pumped up with mostly unbelievable tripe. The names he uses simply don't square and his dates just never match up with reality.

What is the Result of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Fictitious Writings?

The main tragedy associated with Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is that, to this day, perfectly intelligent people, blinded by a desire to prove themselves something more than just ordinary human beings, pumped up with vanity, seeking to glorify their blood and very existence by connecting themselves to ancient, legendary figures, actually believe they are the decendants of these royal spectors conjured up in Geoffrey's prolific imagination.

While the Claypooles do have a notable family history, when they married into the Wingfield family, they inherited the Wingfield geneology, which included attempts to trace ancestry back to before Christ was born, so this really wasn't the Claypoole's idea originally; however, they were eager to jump on the band wagon. Fortunately, the more it is studied, the more engineered it looks. In this geneaology, I present charts showing the lineage as asserted by Evelyn Claypool-Bracken to provide an indepth analysis of these characters, especially those whose existence is questionable. As was said, the Claypooles have an extraordinary history as it is. They don't need claims of ancestry to mythological figures whose existence cannot be proven.

The Origins
The History of the Ancient Britons is reflected in the origins encompassing the times of the Celts, the Romans, the Saxons, and those perenial British favorites, the Vikings. The Tudor dynasty, starting with King Henry VII, claimed to descend from ancient royal lineage in an attempt to further legitimise the Royal House of Tudor's claim to the English throne for, although his mother was of a high station, he was also the son of a butler, basically, and had need of illustrious ancestors.

The thing that should be impressed in your mind about all this is the shear number of families, many in America, who continue to delude themselves by claiming to be descendent from Geoffrey's fictitious line of kings. And yet, these people arrogantly cling to these outrageous claims The reason I am including this explanation is as a cautionary note. Don't take what is written here as gospel. When I tell you that it is unclear whether certain people even existed or not, please believe that there are serious scholastic debates about the issue.

Case and point, you know there's something wrong when my research into the the lives of some of these 'ancestors' returns only self-ingraciating geneological materials that people take at face value because they are too vain to admit that some of it might not be true after all. As proof of what's said here, this link was found on the Internet and illustrates 'The Grand Delusion' at work. These people think quite a bit of their family history and have egos so over the top that they failed to question its content

(Click here to read about this family's beliefs that they are descended from the ancient British kings, as listed by Geoffrey of Monmouth).

Notice how they seem to claim some of the same ancient ancestors that Evelyn Claypoole Bracken lists in her book as being great progenetors of the Claypoole family.

When reading their web page I began looking at the whole idea of claiming descent from these ancient kings differently. Suddenly, the ludicrous nature of such a suggestion became crystal clear -it's just plain unfounded and crazy! Not worthy of serious discussion anymore, unless you want to contemplate upon which real, historical figures Geoffrey's fictitious list of kings is losely -very losely- based.

These deluded famiies, so proud of their lineage, are quick to tell others that their ideas of royal descent are probably 'fabrications of illustrious pedigrees,' but that theirs are legitimate. They don't even bother to question, as we have attempted to do here. Therefore, be careful how you present this part of the history to others. It is interesting; however, it simply cannot be verified. And if you continue to insist that it's true, you might end up sounding like an ass. (right: Uther Pendragon and Dragon)