Ceri Shaw



Playlists: 6
Blogs: 1742
events: 231
youtube videos: 537
SoundCloud Tracks: 21
images: 767
Files: 55
Invitations: 9
Groups: 33
audio tracks: 1000
videos: 8

A Message From Tywysog Llywelyn Cymru

user image 2021-10-16
By: Ceri Shaw
Posted in: News

King of Britons wins pretrial hearing against Bell Helicopter


AmeriCymru: Hi Llywelyn, and many thanks for agreeing to this interview. Can you please explain to our readers who you are and what you are doing?

Llywelyn: Shwmae Ceri a diolch am siarad efo fi. Yes, I am the true Brenin y Brythoniaid or King of the Britons, and I am working to restore our people to their rightful and lawful place on the island of Britannia as the legitimate British people, as our ancestors have claimed would happen for hundreds and hundreds of years now. I created a legal thesis which proved that England does not have a valid, true, and sovereign title to Britain or any lawful right to contract as ‘British’; and also, that succession to British royal titles is a dynastic (family) matter under the customary public international law and the laws which govern the titles. Which is to say that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, their self-appointed “royal commissions”, and any other parties which are not qualified dynasts under the
de jure British dynastic laws have no jurisdiction whatsoever over British royal titles, as the sovereignty of the British state makes the titles ultra vires any non-British dynast. Which is partly why they pretend to be British to this day.

I use the sword and the stone allegory to explain it to people. Only in my version, the sword is called ‘Sofraniaeth’ and the stone is called ‘Britannia’. The Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Angevins, Plantagenets, Stuarts, Lancasters, Yorks, Tudors (Beauforts), Hanovers, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor-Mountbattens can pull all they want on that sword, but only a true Briton has the ability to draw it out.

By claiming the office of Kingship I was able to prove that the diplomatic protest of our ancestors coupled with my actions have preserved our claim to sovereignty to this day. The office of Kingship is one of the three pillars of the true British state. By inheriting the office and titles of the true British Kings we are able to bring attention to the legitimate version of British history, which has been historically discredited by politics driven academics.

Scientific and archeological evidence has exonerated our ancestors and it has turned the English version of history on its head. The entire basis of English sovereignty is based upon ‘the Anglo-Saxon Conquest of Britain’ which was recently proven to be a pseudo-historical event. It had to be recently renamed the ‘Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain’ by academia. Our ancestors codified into our laws that the English had come into their position via fraud. Both the British and the English historical records point to an event which has been called the ‘Night of the Long Knives’. This violation of international law and fraud is the genesis of the English state and their sole basis for sovereignty. A legitimate military conquest would have established a basis for a claim to title in the international law. However, a fraudulent military conquest invented to coverup a historical atrocity and regicide nulls the entire chain of title. The only reason they claim to be British today is because they know the British have the paramount claim to sovereign title in Britain, as a result of the Britons not being legally conquered. Conquest is a legal term. The legal requirements for the alleged Conquest of Britain were never satisfied. Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd (The truth against the world).

AmeriCymru: You are saying that Queen Elizabeth doesn’t have a right to royal titles because she is not British according to the British laws? Is that right?

Llywelyn: I am saying that the U.K. has already acquiesced that they are not the legitimate British government. I am saying that the Windsors (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) have been defrauded just like the rest of the world as well. The politicians of England and Scotland had them renounce their German royal titles under the guise of having the legitimate paramount claim to sovereignty. I suspect that England and Scotland have known for a great deal of time about the flaw with their claim to title. There are documented events in history where we can see the English and Scottish Kings attempting to repair their jactitation of title, or slander of title.

England and Scotland allege to have become ‘Great Britain’ in 1707. Yet anyone that knows true British history knows that Prydain Fawr (Great Britain/Britain/Britannia) was in existence long before 1707. The English claim to have conquered ‘Britain’ in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Owain Glyndwr describes ‘Great Britain’ and a specific line of Kings to the King of Scotland in the 1400’s.

‘Most esteemed Lord and Royal cousin, may it please you and your royal excellence to know that Brutus, your most noble ancestor and mine, was originally the first crowned King to live in this kingdom of England, which used to be known as Great Britain . Brutus fathered three sons, namely Albanactus and Locrinus and Kamber; you are descended from the direct line of this Albanactus, while the descendants of this Kamber ruled as Kings until the time of Cadwaladr, who was the last crown King of my people, and from whose direct line I, your humble cousin, am descended. Since his death, however, my forebearers and all my people have been, as we still are, subjected and held in bondage by my and your mortal enemies, the Saxons (English)'.

'Owain Glynd ŵ r, a casebook', Livingston & Bollard (2013) Liverpool University Press, p. 478

It should be no surprise then that some hundred years later one Henry Richmond is claiming to descend from this same line with his faux pedigree. Historians today speculate that Henry Earl of Richmond, called Tudor much later in life, was more than likely an English Beaufort from the line of Edmund Beaufort.

By its very nature the evidence for Edmund Tudor’s parentage is less than conclusive, but such facts, as can be assembled, permit an agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort were first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact from Beauforts on both sides.

“Owen Tudor: Founding Father of the Tudor Dynasty” Terry Breverton (2017) Amberley Publishing

In “Tracing Your Aristocrat Ancestors” written in 2013, Anthony Adolph writes, “...the first Tudor King, Henry VII (d. 1509) had forced Welsh genealogist to forge him a pedigree connecting his male-line back to Rhodri Mawr” (Adolph, 2013). “Tracing Your Aristocrat Ancestors” received praise internationally, and the endorsement of the Journal of the Society of Genealogists.

Elizabeth Archibald a Professor of English Studies at Durham University, and Principal of St Cuthbert's Society, and David F. Johnson a Professor of English at Florida State University both also concur with Philip Schwyzer that the Tudors had invented their Welsh ancestry. In the text, “Arthurian Literature” it is written;

Philip Schwyzer has recently argued that the early Tudor kings played up their British (i.e. Welsh) roots for political advantage, nothing how Henry Tudor marketed himself as the mab darogan, or son of prophecy, on his march through Wales from Milford Haven to the Battle of Bosworth. In his History of the Kings of Britain, written in Latin in the early twelfth century, Geoffrey of Monmouth tells of how Cadwalladr, the last king of Britons, was forbidden by an angel to return to Britain from Rome. ‘for that God had willed the Britons should no longer reign in Britain before that time should come whereof Merlin had prophesied unto Arthur’. The angel asked the Britons patiently submit to Saxon rule, but prophesied their future deliverance by the mab darogan, a military leader who would free the Britons from their Saxon yoke, and who in the Welsh bardic tradition was identified as a direct descendant of Cadwalladr. It was no accident then, that Henry Tudor commissioned a genealogy which traced his family tree through Cadwalladr to the ‘ancient kings of Britain and the Prince of Wales’, nor was it coincidence that at Bosworth, and again at his coronation as St. Paul’s, Henry Tudor bore on his coat of arms the red dragon which the prophet Merlin (according to Geoffrey of Monmouth) identified with the Britons, and which in the History fights and eventually defeats the white dragon of the Saxon invaders. Henry Tudor was very much aware of the role of the mab darogan in Welsh political prophecy, and in his presentation as king he shrewdly exploited its symbolism”

Another hundred years later propagandist claim that the Scottish King is now the King of “Great Britain” as a result of his “Welsh blood”.

In Percy Enderbie’s 1661 "Cambria Triumphans", Enderbie a self-proclaimed Welshman and propaganda writer, presents a “Genealogy of Charles the 2nd, Monarch of Great Brittain, from the Welsh Blood,” which traces the Scottish king’s ancestry from Cadeth “King of South-wales” through several kings and princes of Wales to the marriage between Nest, “daughter of the Welsh King Griffith ap Lhewelyn, and Fleance, Son of Banquo”; the issue of this royal pair was Walter Stuart, first in the Stuart line.

Both the English and Scottish monarchs have played up Welsh roots because they know that the Welsh Kings in reality are the legal heirs to the Ancient British Kings, and it is only this line which has a lawful claim to sovereignty in Britain. This is why all of the different usurping dynasties have attempted to play up any distant Welsh connections or attempted to recreate British establishments and customs like Arthur’s legendary round table. Because these parties know that the Welsh are the true Britons.

Longshanks (Edward I) for instance attempted to make himself appear as the heir to King Arthur via his conquest over the Anglo-Saxons, and often relied on the Briton’s claim to sovereignty in Britannia as the basis for his claim to sovereignty over the Scottish.

“King Augusele carried Arthur’s sword, for the service of Scotland, which he owed to him. Since that time to the present the kings of Scotland have all been subject to the King of Britain.”

–Letter of King Edward I of England to Pope Boniface VIII

Rachealle Sanford, author of 2009 thesis “Edward I and the Appropriation of Arthurian Legend” states:
"The Arthurian writings of authors such as Chrétien de Troyes in the late twelfth century and the subsequent Vulgate Cycle pushed Arthur’s popularity to new heights on both the continent and in England, providing the monarchy, in the words of N. J. Higham, with “a source of political precedent and propaganda to be reformulated for present purposes of political status and aggrandizement.” This would not have been possible, however, if a monarch’s subjects—or his enemies—had not been familiar with the character and plot of Arthurian lore, which the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the romance writers assured. The international awareness of the elevated status granted to Arthur by Geoffrey of Monmouth (from warrior to king) allowed the British kings the opportunity to place their royal “ancestor” on the level of Charlemagne, the Christian Frankish Emperor of great renown, and increase their prestige among the other European monarchs. The conception of genealogy and land as an important marker of kinship, and thus of identity—which more fully developed in the Middle Ages—was also particularly important in making such claims, and several kings including Edward IV and Henry VII had their ancestry deliberately traced back to their Welsh roots. Henry VII, in particular, was able to make use of his Tudor ancestry and was promoted in Wales as “the Son of Prophecy,” the claimant to the “crown of Britain.” Even the name “Arthur” could have a political undercurrent when given to a child of the royal family. According to Constance Bouchard, aristocratic children from the eleventh century on were frequently named after relatives, family being a key aspect of medieval identity: “glorious ancestors were a key attribute of glorious aristocrats.” Thus, naming one’s child “Arthur” could easily be construed as a way for the English royalty to play upon the prestige of their supposed ancestor. It is telling that, according to royal genealogies, at least seven royal children were given the name Arthur from the twelfth century to the present. These include: Arthur of Brittany, nephew of Richard I and John; Arthur Plantagenet, illegitimate son of Edward VI; Arthur Tudor, son of Henry VII; Arthur, Duke of Rothway, son of James V; Arthur of Rothway, grandson of James V; Arthur, Duke of Connaught, son of Victoria; and Arthur of Connaught, grand-son of Victor"

Edward I and the Appropriation of Arthurian Legend, Rachealle Marie Sanford (2009) Western Kentucky University, A Capstone Experience/Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of University Honors College at Western Kentucky University


AmeriCymru: Care to explain the background to this legal case for our readers?

Llywelyn: Without going into too many details about the case; I can tell you that part of the case stems from discrimination based on race/national origin and harassment based on race/national origin as a direct result of my British (Welsh) heritage. The details of the case should be public information.

My former employer Bell gave me the ultimatum to either stop administering the affairs of the
de jure government in exile or face losing my career. Initially Bell offered to help me and move me to England, and I turned the position down for obvious reasons. Sometime after my diplomatic challenge to the UK with our own passport, Bell changed their position and then gave me 24 hours to chose between my ancestry, heritage, and birth right or the career that I had worked to build. I was working as representative for Bell on the V-22 Osprey program, and I was making a handsome salary. I have had a long history with that aircraft, and I was fortunate to have played a small role in the early days. I knew when I took up this fight for our people that I would face great resistance and opposition. The decision to continue fighting for our people rather than quit at the first sign of resistance was one easily made. I didn’t know then how I would provide for my family, but I knew that I would be able to figure it out in time.

AmeriCymru: And what do you do now for income? How have you been able to provide for your family now that you are no longer employed by Bell?

Llywelyn: When I left Bell all I had was the money in my retirement account and a rental house I had purchased a few years before. We took everything we had, sold our house, and used the funds to invest in crypto currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and about a dozen others. Today, I am a multi-millionaire, and my money works for me. I work for our movement full time. They tried to break us, and they only made our movement stronger.

AmeriCymru: Are you alleging that your dismissal was for political reasons connected with your stance on the subject of British/Welsh sovereignty, and the restoration of the true British state?

Llywelyn: Yes, I am. I was a good employee at Bell. Literally the number one employee at one point. I was saving them millions. Bell only had a problem with my performance after I refused to take down my social media and stop my political work. They weren’t happy with the fact that I was deliberately disobeying them and calling into question the sovereignty of their ‘customer’. They tried to make me bow down and I gave them the Welsh two finger salute.

AmeriCymru: To what extent do you suspect that the UK government was involved in your dismissal?

Llywelyn: I do find it odd that Bell tried to move me to England because it would have gone against their own policies since I was already on an international assignment in Japan at the time. I also find the timing of their issues with my political works to be interesting. It was only after the passport challenge that Bell had an issue with me. The UK was unable to arrest me during the passport challenge because I had not broken any laws. They knew that criminal charges against me would have led to me challenging their English jurisdiction and claim to British sovereignty. My DNA can be presented as verification of my identity in any jurisdiction. DNA has been used modernly to resolve disputes regarding the inheritance of noble titles and dynastic rights, as these are family rights and follow the laws of blood (jus sanguinis) in order to qualify as a legitimate dynast or heir. My blood proves that I come from the legitimate line of British Kings.

The only thing they could do was exile me so that I could not meet with my supporters in Cymru. Later they used BBC Cymru to make some propaganda about an American claiming to be the King of Wales. We already know that the “U.K.” uses psychological warfare on all people in Britain to maintain the status quo with their 77
th Brigade. It will not surprise me at all if the U.K. becomes implicated in having anything to do with these matters.

AmeriCymru: The Defendant in this case has submitted a 'demurrer'. What is a demurrer and what are the arguments in this particular document?

Llywelyn: Yes, Bell submitted a demurrer. A demurrer is a type of objection. They were trying to get the court to throw out a charge against them. The California Labour codes 1101 & 1102 protects the rights of employees to seek political office. Bell was trying to state that my actions as “His Royal Highness Prince Llywelyn, the lawful King of Britons,” and “Administering the affairs of the exiled Welsh government” were not a “traditional political activity” and that they should not be protected by the California law because they are “international activities” and would more so fall under the international law.

The judge has already issued a decision on their demurrer, and he overruled Bell. He stated in the court documents “
sufficient facts have been pled showing a violation of Labor Code Section 1102 ”, and this is because Bell had threatened to terminate me because of my political actions, which are a protected activity not only under the California labor codes, but in my mind also the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Congress did not ratify the amendment that would have made it unlawful for Americans to inherit foreign titles of royalty and nobility. The proposed Constitutional amendment currently pending since 1810, would revoke the citizenship of any person who accepts a foreign title of nobility. However, this Amendment has not yet been ratified by the required majority of the states. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). Therefore, at the moment there is nothing which prohibits an American from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, or from claiming and inheriting foreign titles as a birth right.

Americans are able to join organisations such as Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), which was charted by the U.S. Congress, and which membership is based solely on ancestry. How then would it be fair for the same Congress to state that I cannot enjoy the incorporeal hereditament rights which go with my own ancestry? I should not be barred from enjoying the rights which go with my ancestry simply because heads of states friendly to the United States have long pretended that my ancestry was their own; or simply because my ancestry comes with a legal and royal title.

My DNA has been public for several years. It demonstrates that I descend on a direct male line from the same line of British Kings that the English and Scottish Kings have long pretended to descend from. This makes me a legitimate British dynast, capable of legally claiming to be the heir to the true British Kings, according to the dynastic laws that govern the titles, and under the customary public international law. Whereas, parties like the Windsors are legally label “usurpers” under the international law because they do not have the required blood to be a British dynast.

He who is allowed to do the greater ought not to be prohibited from doing the less. He who has authority to do the more important act ought not to be debarred from doing what is of less Importance. 4 Coke, 23) outlines that I should be allowed to enjoy both sets of rights. But in reality, I have lost some rights as a result of my political actions. I no longer take part in American elections because this would be a violation of the customary international law, as States cannot interfere with other States.

AmeriCymru: Where do things go from here? With the legal case and with the U.K.? What is your end goal?

Llywelyn: My end goal is supreme excellence. That is, to be successful in restoring our people to their rightful place in the world without any fighting. Glyndwr was widely successful with violence, and many assumed that I took up the office of kingship to exercise the legal powers of a Monarch by raising an army against the alleged U.K. However, Glyndwr regained our recognition of sovereignty from the Kingdoms of France, Scotland, and Castile after approximately 117 years of occupation via the powers of statehood and diplomacy, not just the violence. Glyndwr did not have the information and technology available to him that we have today. He flew Y Ddraig Aur on the battlefield symbolic of his subscription to the beliefs of our ancestors. The belief that one day a Briton would be King of Britain again. Today, we have the technology and evidence to prove the claims and the chain of title of our ancestors. My goal is the same that is has been since the beginning. To correct the injustices and the atrocities and to restore things to the way they ought to be, if not for the unlawful interference of others.

AmeriCymru: But where does that put the Windsors? Or Scotland for instance?

Llywelyn: The King is a source of law and must dispense justice. The English and Scottish people today are not the same people that were fighting against our ancestors. I do not hold any ill will towards any person which unknowingly took part in the unlawful actions that have been historically carried on to present day. My dream is for a legitimate union. Independent, free, and sovereign nations, united in history, friendship, defense, and trade. If these revelations of the past have exposed anything I believe that it is that it is time for us to find a better way.

AmeriCymru: How would this affect BREXIT?

Llywelyn: I believe that we should go back to the European Union and explain that recent discoveries have had us investigate our history, and that has shown us that Britain has always had connections with Europe. Britain should be seated near Europe at the table of the family of nations as she always has been. These food and fuel shortages should be an alarm for anyone living in Britain to wake up and find a better way. The people that they believe are looking after them do not have their best interest in mind. These Etonians only care about lining their own pockets and retaining the powers and positions they have unlawfully come into.

AmeriCymru: Any final message for the readers and members of AmeriCymru?

Llywelyn: Ydw, diolch am dy amser. Thank you so much for your support over these last few years. Your messages and your applications to join this movement keep me going. Your support has meant the world to me. I promise that I will never quit on you. My family will never quit on you. We will be restored to our lawful place in the world once again.


comments powered by Disqus