The Anglo-Saxon Kings

The English histories of the Saxons don’t usually go back beyond 400 AD, the time when they began to first plant themselves in their new island home. Some Historians make mention of their origins from the mainland of Europe, but most just leave their pre-English history a mysterious blank. Bill Cooper in his book on pre-christian Europe,(1) points out that while the Saxons were not as prolific as the Irish or Welsh, the blank page is not due to a lack of extant material written by the Saxons themselves. There is in fact a wealth of information about the pre-migration pagan Saxons, and it was all very well known in jolly old England up to fairly recent times.

The problem wasn’t the lack of material, but rather the content of the records that has caused them to have disappeared from the realm of common knowledge. You guessed it, the Saxon records traced the Saxons straight back to Noah through Japheth, and after the rise of Darwinism and the self acclaimed rationalism in the 1800’s, they fell out of vogue and were dimissed into swift retirement.

It was well known that back in the early 1600’s it was common for many castles in England to have large tapestries whcih traced the 6 lines of the Saxon clans back to Noah. (2) Groos. These are of course scoffed at by modern scholarship as products of a self promoting and imaginative Saxon nobility. Unfortunately for the intelligentsia, a myriad of much older material consisting of kings lists and genealogies also exists, which could haunt those doubters of the ancient record keepers.

And you have to wonder if the confidence of those early 19th century scoffers would have been dampened if they had known of the hundreds of ancient chronolgies and genealogies found in so many countries and particularly in the indigenous peoples of the world. Most of it recently discovered, often with very biblical sounding flood and creation stories. Perhaps not, but the fact that the Saxon histories were not backed only by the other European nations, but by most of the others as well, shouldn’t be ignored.

Some of these ancient Saxon genealogies have been found in the leather bindings of old books and they do sound a common theme. An interesting but often overlooked point is that in the more ancient and pre-Christian accounts the name of Sceaf appears as the son of Noah from which the Saxons are descended. In the more recent Christian period accounts, the name Japheth is the progenitor of the Saxons.

Some Scholars have tried to link Sceaf to the biblical Seth, the son of Adam, but even the sceptical Sisam has doubted this, recognizing that all the Northern European peoples traced themselves back to Noah through Japheth. Sisam, however, lines himself up quite well with most modern scholarship when he regards all the kings and names beyond Cerdic to myth or legend.(3) The Saxons felt differently though and said;

“Se Sceaf waes Noes sunu and he waes innan threae earce geborhen”. or as Cooper translates, “This Sceaf was Noahs son, and he was born in the Ark.” (4) Cooper (5) Reliq. Ant. p. 173

Clearly here Sceaf was a son of Noah and said to have been born on the Ark, not the son of Adam. Later Christianized Saxons would not have recognized the name of Sceaff but would have used Japheth and every monk in England knew that Japheth helped to build the Ark, he wasn’t born on it. So it seems more than likely that Sceaf is the pre-Christian pagan Saxon name for Japheth and thus helps point to the premigration and pagan nature of these histories. Nor is the manuscript quoted the only one that speaks of Sceafs sonship with Noah or his birth on the Ark.

However this wealth of manuscripts and histories remains locked up in the dusty tombs of “undesirable” physical evidence that could otherwise rise up and haunt the keepers of the New Religion of Secular Atheism and damage their efforts to keep us lesser folk in the dark and “trusting Darwin”, into oblivion. Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

(1) Cooper, Bill, After the flood, New  Wine Press.

(2) Groos, the Diary of Baron Waldstein, p.61

(3) Sisam, Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies, p.322

(4) Cooper, Ibid.

(5) Wright, Reliquae Antiquae, Londons Guildhall Library


5 Responses to The Anglo-Saxon Kings

  1. Martin says:

    I really enjoyed reading this, very interesting stuff. God bless you and write until you die. God likes it.

    ~ m


  2. Steven Posey says:

    I read somewhere that the English identified more with the ancient Celts (maybe even Romans) than with the Saxons up at least until Queen Elizabeth. I knew that by the 1800s the English embraced their Saxon heritage. Do you think this is true? Of course now many are saying that the DNA make up of England (and of course the rest of the British) is overwhelmingly Celtic. How they can tell, 1500 years later what makes DNA Celtic or Saxon, I don’t know.


    • notmanynoble says:

      Ha, yeah, that’s a good question, Steve. How after so much blending can they be sure which is Celtic and Which originally Saxon. Naturally like you I think they all came from Noah, and it’s pretty acknowledged that most of the ancient writings of all the Northern Europeans claims to be from Noah’s son Japheth. However, some different son’s of Japheth, ie Gomer, Javan, etc. I think the first Brits and their relatives across the Cbannel in Brittany or Cape Breton were mainly Celtic, actually coming from Troy or thrace etc. Obviously there would have been bleending of Saxon, Norse, Pictish blood too.The early church though that started right after the Roman invasion by Caesar though was celtic and I dont think the Saxons begin to dominate for many centuries.


  3. Sceaf could possibly be spelled, alternatively, Skeaph/Skeas…or even (a)S(h)keas — which looks suspiciously like Ashkenaz, the first recorded son of Japheth’s older offspring Gomer. Since the Saxons are somehow related to the Teutonic Germans (= Gomer??) anyway, it is more likely that Gomer (like Arphaxad from Shem) was born during the 370 days upon the ark while the Flood-waters covered the earth, and then Gomer named his descendants/tribe “Saxons” or “Ashkenazi” after his son Skeas/Sceaf (just as Cain named his tribal city “Enoch” after his first-born son of the same name, in Genesis 4). I realize that this is speculation, but just thought it worth mulling over…. The discrepancies in spelling might well be due to proto-Hebrew diverging from early proto-Saxon after the confusion of tongues from whatever Adam et al. spoke originally, the divergence beginning at Babel (which seemingly occurred only 100 years after the Flood). Given the extra 100 years, Skeas/Sceaf might have been as old as 40 by the time of the Babel incident, being born when Gomer was 60 (which was a common “begetting” age in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11). By the time the Saxons became a “settled” people then, Skeas/Ashkenaz may well have been old enough to take the role of first king or “chieftain” of the tribe. My chronological reading of the OT would have Gomer being born at about 2225 B.C. and thus Ashkenaz born about 2165 B.C., becoming the first official tribal chief of the Saxons circa 2105 B.C. — Does that compare well at all with the surviving Saxon records for their line of kings?


    • notmanynoble says:

      Those are possibilities. I haven’t looked at the genealogies for some time. There are existing Saxon writings and I’ve researched and read about Saxon genealogy found on tapestries very common up to the acceptance of Darwinism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.