SURVIVAL OF TEMPLAR RECORDS & RESOURCES BY ESCAPE
Notwithstanding the “official narrative” of school textbook “history”, the Order of the Temple of Solomon was never dissolved nor extinguished any time after 1307 AD. Most of the central working assets, equipment, writings and records of the Knights Templar, and the majority of its Knights, Dames and supporters, successfully fled from France shortly before the infamous French Inquisition raid by King Philip IV.
As recorded in testimony of the Knight Jean de Châlon, the Templars had advance warning of the impending raid, and arranged a fleet of 18 galley ships to leave La Rochelle port, visibly leaving behind a couple ships to avoid raising suspicions of their escape . This testimony during the trials specified that “Gerard de Villiers, the Paris Preceptor, had escaped with 50 horses and 18 ships.” 
The historical record leaves “no doubt” that the Templar Grand Mastery “was aware that the arrests were impending”, planned for 13 October 1307 AD. It is documented that “the arrest orders were dated 14 September, so at the most the Templars had four weeks’ advance notice. … With a depleted stockpile of workable assets, coinage, gold, jewels and other saleable goods, the Templars fled the area of immediate persecution before the hammer could fall.” 
It is known that “the very Rule of the Templar Order commanded the brothers to defend one another”, with a “duty to protect the order; at the cost of [one’s] own life if necessary.” For this reason, the Grand Master Jacques de Molay and a group of dedicated knights stayed behind, to avoid arousing suspicion, thus allowing the majority to escape to safety. “Only 620 Templar personnel are known to have been arrested in France” after the raids of 1307 AD. Historians “estimate that there were over 3,000 Templars” in France at that time, such that “over 2,000 fully armed and equipped Templar brothers, with their entire retinues of squires, servants, horses, baggage trains and camp followers” in fact did escape, and must have boarded the 18 ships that left the port of La Rochelle. 
Scholars generally agree that “the Templars managed to disperse most of their portable wealth before the King’s henchmen came to confiscate it. Indeed, the royal agents found monasteries that had in large part been abandoned… they found the ships had set sail”. Other smaller “Templar fleets in the south and north of France, Flanders, and Portugal also left port – and sailed into legend. … Also missing from the Templars’ strongholds were the documents and records” of the former empire of the Order. 
To provide for the infrastructure of the new form of the Order as an underground network, “with no more Holy wars to wage”, the Templars “fell back on their second career, finance and trade.” Naturally, “most of the Templar wealth was out in the field earning interest and revenue for the order… the money would be transferred to those branches still open and put to even greater use to recover the recent losses.” Also, besides the 18 ships that escaped from the port of La Rochelle in 1307 AD, “the vast majority of Templar ships, both merchant vessels and armed galleons… would surely have been doing what the Templars did best – plying the seas of the Mediterranean and Atlantic, earning money to keep the order financially sound.” 
SURVIVAL OF TEMPLAR COMMUNION BY “CHINON PARCHMENT”
King Philip IV of France was excommunicated by a Papal Bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 AD, as punishment for the King having asked the Pope to excommunicate the Knights Templar, who were loyal to and cherished by the Pope. In retaliation, Philip IV had Boniface kidnapped, causing the Pope to die “from shock”. The successor, Pope Benedict XI, also died suddenly, believed to have been assassinated by the French King.
With such overwhelming unlawful influence from King Philip, under duress, and under immediate threat of two Popes being very recently killed, the Vatican elected the King’s childhood friend Bertrand de Goth as “Pope Clement V”. In 1307 AD, the French King had the Templars arrested and brought before the Inquisitor of France by whom they were examined, all under torture.
Therefore, while the infrastructure and institution of the Vatican Inquisition was used as the vehicle of persecution, all of it was conducted under duress and control of the secular French authorities.
Pope Clement V made all possible efforts to protect the Templars, at his own great risk, refusing to accept the charges and confessions against them. He deeply resented the King’s interference with an order which prominently operated under Papal jurisdiction, and wrote in the strongest terms to the King urging their release. 
The fact that the Templar persecution was driven solely by the French King Philip IV, and resisted by the Vatican, was confirmed at the time by a formal opinion of “theologians at the University of Paris”, who advised King Philip that he “was in violation of canonical law for ordering the arrest and examination of the Templars by the secular arm rather than by Holy Mother Church.” These scholars insisted that “judgment had to be rendered in ecclesiastical, not secular, courts.” 
The infamous raid and arrest of the Templars in France was executed on “Friday the Thirteenth” of October 1307 AD . It is interesting to note, that this fact is the origin of the medieval and modern Christian superstition of the dangers of “Friday the Thirteenth” as a day of evil, because what the French King had done out of greed and jealously was seen even by the Vatican as motivated only by pure evil.
In 1308 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Chinon Parchment, which unequivocally absolved the Knights Templar and their Grand Master Jacques de Molay of all charges. The Chinon Papal Bull “extended the mercy of pardon from excommunication”, thereby “restoring to unity with the Church and reinstating to the communion of the faithful and the sacraments of the Church”. 
This Chinon Parchment from 1308 AD was rediscovered by the Vatican Secret Archives in 2001. (Another copy of the Chinon Parchment had been previously discovered during the Renaissance period, which was published in 1693 and 1751 AD, containing the same wording.)
In 1311 AD, the Council of Vienne held in Dauphine further ratified the Chinon Parchment, voting to continue the Vatican’s active support of the Templar Order.
Based upon the two official Vatican proclamations in 1308 and 1311 AD, both explicitly pardoning, absolving and reinstating the Templar Order to full communion with the Church, the Knights Templar continued to remain in good standing with the Vatican. However, the unrelenting persecution by King Philip IV persisted in placing the surviving Templars in danger, and increasingly escalated to dangerous pressure and threats against the Vatican itself.
SURVIVAL OF TEMPLAR LEGAL LEGITIMACY & SOVEREIGNTY
In 1312 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso (“Voice From on High”), for final resolution of the status of the Knights Templar. This famous Papal Bull is typically claimed and widely believed to have “dissolved” the Order, and even proponents of Templarism describe it more softly, but still mistakenly, as having “suspended” the Order. The historical record, however, proves that in fact it merely “suppressed” the Templars, which is a very limited and purely political move.
Even Vatican scholars rarely cite the original text of the Papal Bull, instead referring to Vatican records which describe it being read aloud to the Council of Vienne. Those references routinely note that it was read under the overbearing presence of the French King Philip IV and his three sons. The official records state the following:
“The Pope said that though he had no sufficient reasons for a formal condemnation of the Order, nevertheless, because of… the hatred borne them by the King of France, the scandalous nature of their trial, and the probable dilapidation of the Order’s property in every Christian land, he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence.” 
Declaring that there were “no sufficient reasons”, and that it was “not by definitive sentence”, clearly emphasized that it had no real legal effect. All official statements consistently highlight (and thereby protest) the pressure and interference from the French King, indicating that the resulting Papal Bull would be necessarily null and void by the legal doctrine of “duress”.
By the operative key words “suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power”, Pope Clement V revealed the true legal context ofVox in Excelso:
The Vatican was well aware that it had already granted the Templar Order full, permanent, irrevocable and independent sovereignty in its own right, specifically on the basis of its own ecclesiastical authority of the Templar Priesthood, in the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD, reconfirmed by Milites Templi of 1144 AD and also Militia Dei in 1145 AD  . Having no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Templar Priesthood, the Pope was limited to exercising “sovereign power”, solely in a governmental capacity. Under customary law and Canon law, the Pope also could not claim to assert any sovereignty over the Order’s autonomous legal status or existence.
By definition, the Pope could only exercise “his sovereign power” over his own institution, the Vatican itself. The only relevant power, within the confines of the Vatican’s own jurisdiction, was to simply cease its own active recognition of and direct cooperation with the Templar Order. Naturally, given the overwhelming socio-political influence of the Vatican, merely ceasing such support would thereby serve to “suppress” the Order, only by means of the practical and political effects which would follow.
Moreover, in 1312 AD it was abundantly clear that the French persecution had already effectively “suppressed” the Order de facto since 1307 AD, such that five years earlier the Order was already forced to survive only as an underground network. Accordingly, whatever declarations the Vatican could make were mere political posturing, solely to protect the Vatican itself from the relentless continuing aggression of the insatiable French King.
In the context of those clear limitations and qualifying statements, the original official text of Vox in Excelso specifically declared the following resolutions:
“The Order, moreover, had a good and holy beginning; it won the approval of the Apostolic See. The Rule, which is holy, reasonable and just, had the deserved sanction of this Holy See. For all these reasons we were unwilling to lend our ears to the insinuation and accusation against the Templars… Then came the intervention of… Philip, the illustrious King of France.” 
This part reveals that the Temple Rule of Saint Bernard in 1128 AD, by its ratification at the Vatican Council of Troyes in 1129 AD, was considered an “approval” and “sanctioning” of the Order by additional Papal Patronage, separate from its own independent sovereignty. It confirms that the Rule itself remains “holy” and thus worthy of future use. It also admits the unlawful interference and duress by King Philip IV as the sole reason for issuing the Papal Bull.
“Indeed, although legal process against the Order at this time does not permit its canonical condemnation as heretical by definitive sentence, the good name of the Order has been largely taken away by the heresies attributed to it.” 
This part admits that the disposition of the Papal Bull was not supported by legal process, and not permitted by Canon law, revealing it is legally void and invalid, and thus purely political. It again emphasizes that the sole reason for suppression was the persistent unlawful false defamation promoted by the French King, creating a purely political problem.
“[We] suppress the Order by way of ordinance and provision of the Apostolic See, assigning the property to the use for which it was intended. … Therefore, with a sad heart, not by definitive sentence, but by apostolic provision and ordinance, we suppress… the Order of Templars, and its Rule, habit and name… and we entirely forbid that anyone from now on enter the Order… or presume to behave as a Templar.” 
This part is the core substance of what was actually decided. It clearly states that the Order was only “suppressed”, specifically “by way of ordinance and provision”, meaning merely politically, solely by administrative measures, and only by means of “assigning the property” of the Order.
To “forbid” joining the order or being seen as a Templar applied only to Clergy and followers under ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Vatican itself. This could not lawfully apply to independent cultural Templars nor to any others outside the Roman Catholic Church, and could not have any legal effect on the Order’s own rightful existence possessing its own sovereignty.
To “suppress” the “Rule” meant that the Vatican was rescinding only its own Papal Patronage of the Temple Rule, which was already unnecessary as it was superseded by full permanent Papal Protection granted by Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD. Nothing in any part of Vox in Excelso claimed to invalidate or revoke that prior Papal Bull, which by customary law and Canon law is irrevocable.
Proving conclusively that the grant of independent sovereignty in Omne Datum Optimum is absolutely irrevocable, that Papal Bull declares: “If anyone, with the knowledge of this our decree, rashly attempts to act against it… he shall lose the dignity of his power and honor” due to that “perpetrated injustice” . This makes any claimed attempt to revoke the prior Bull legally null and void, as contrary to law and justice. Furthermore, as the word “dignity” is a historical legal term meaning “official capacity”, this would also legally trigger involuntary abdication of any Pope who would ever attempt or presume to revoke it.
Therefore, while Vox in Excelso did politically “suppress” the Order of the Temple of Solomon in practice, the Papal Bull did nothing to change the Order’s own inherent status of full legal legitimacy as a sovereign chivalric and religious institution in its own right.
Furthermore, while ostensibly “suppressing” the Templar Order, Vox in Excelso specifically upheld and reaffirmed its full pardon and absolution from the Chinon Parchment of 1308 AD, incorporating it by reference: “Through this decree, however, we do not wish to derogate from any processes made… in conformity with what we have ordained at other times.” 
The Chinon Parchment of 1308 AD had fully absolved the Knights Templar and their Grand Master of all charges, and granted the Order “pardon from excommunication”, also “restoring to unity with the Church and reinstating to the communion”. 
Upholding the Chinon Parchment was also again reaffirmed by the subsequent Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD, which repeated: “We had no intention of derogating from the processes made… as we have ordained elsewhere.” Also referring to all Templars who were collectively pardoned and absolved in 1308 AD, it declared: “Thus those who have been legally acquitted… shall be supplied with the goods of the former Order whereby they can live as becomes their state.”  This declaration also confirms that the Templars continued to retain their “state”, meaning their recognized and irrevocable official capacity, from the permanent independent sovereignty of the Order.
The medieval concept of “heresy”, and related accusatory practices which created the political necessity for suppression of the Templar Order, have been effectively eliminated in the modern era. The Vatican established the first Code of Canon Law in 1917, which was refined by the Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”) in 1965, and updated in 1983. Several major improvements rendered Vox in Excelso obsolete, such that it can no longer prohibit Roman Catholics from joining the Order of the Temple of Solomon:
The recognition by Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome in 418 AD that ancient religion as “true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christian” , which “established anew the ancient Faith” within Catholicism , is now given force of Canon Law as the “common and constant opinion of learned authors” (Canon 19); Ancient “immemorial customs” from the Solomonic origins of Christianity and related “centennial customs” of the Templar Priesthood are incorporated into modern Catholicism (Canon 26), and cannot be revoked (Canon 28) as long as they are “reasonable” (Canon 24, §2); Freedom of liturgy and “the right to follow their own form of spiritual life” is required (Canon 214) .
The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law of 1983 now prohibits all of the historical instruments of persecution which were used against the Knights Templar, including: Aggressive interference with disregard for rights and justice (Canon 287, §1); Defamation to “unlawfully harm good reputation” by inflammatory accusations (Canon 220); and Falsely or maliciously “denouncing” to “injure the good name of another” (Canon 1390, §2) .
SURVIVAL OF CULTURAL TEMPLARISM FOR DOCTRINAL SUCCESSION
Starting in 1312 AD, as the Vatican gave much of the Templar assets to the Knights of Malta (Hospitalliers), some Templars joined the Knights of Malta (founded in 1099 AD). Most Templars joined the Order of the Holy Sepulchre under the Vatican (founded 1099 AD), the Order of Teutonic Knights of the Vatican (founded 1190 AD), and the Franciscan Order of the Vatican (founded 1221 AD). It is believed that other Templars joined King Robert the Bruce of Scotland (1314 AD) helping to win independence from Britain, becoming the Scottish Knights Templar.
King James II of Spain convinced the Vatican to allow the dynastic Order of Montesa to take over substantial Templar assets, and the Order of Montesa was given Vatican Patronage by the Pope (1317 AD), establishing the Order of Montesa based upon the Templars, many of whom joined that Order. In Portugal, the Knights Templar were cleared of all charges and merely changed the name to the “Knights of Christ” (1319 AD), keeping their assets. The last Grand Master of the Order of Montesa (before it merged with the Spanish Crown dynastic orders) was the brother of Francisco de Borja who founded the Jesuit Order of the Vatican (1534 AD), and thus many surviving Templar descendants later joined the Jesuits.
The 12th century Knights Templar of Portugal (directly continued as the “Order of Christ” in 1319 AD) helped establish the Rosicrucian Order ca. 1407 AD, apparently named after the trademark Templar Red Cross (thus “Rose-Cross”). This is evidenced by the Portuguese Templar headquarters “Convent of the Order of Christ” featuring three artifacts of a rose at the center of a cross in the initiation room, dated ca. 1530 AD  . This establishes that many surviving Templars joined the Rosicrucians from 1407-1530 AD.
Some later cultural Templars (possibly including some descendants) joined a select few “revival” Orders which began in 1804 AD with subsequent offshoot Orders. These self-styled Orders mostly derived from a movement initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte I, relying on nobility patronage from his grandson Napoleon III, with no connection to the actual Templar Order. Napoleon I was inspired by his archaeological expeditions in Egypt and related review of certain documents from the Vatican Secret Archives (which he stole by brute military force), which included the earlier discovered copy of the Chinon Parchment absolving the Knights Templar.
Many surviving hereditary descendants of titled Knights and Dames of the original Order continued over generations, in unbroken lines of succession. Since knighthood is only sometimes hereditary, and in any case must still be earned or retained only by merit and dedication, many highly skilled scholars, historians, and various professionals studied and mastered the arts, sciences, history and traditions of the Templar Order and the Templar Priesthood, actively preserving them over the centuries.
In this way, successive generations of both hereditary and non-hereditary initiatory Templars effectively continued the Order’s traditional activities, preserved its knowledge and heritage, and pursued its historical missions. All of this was maintained as ongoing operations, generally under the umbrella of the alternative Vatican Orders, and even under some of the later “revival” Orders.
Through this strategy, hereditary and cultural Templars independently continued to dramatically influence the development of Western Europe, as evidenced by signature Templar advancements and relics in Switzerland and Edinburgh Scotland. The Knights Templar had successfully survived, and indeed thrived, as an underground network, for centuries and into the present day.
That history resulted in the survival of authentic lines of both initiatory succession and doctrinal succession from the original Templar Order. This preserved the collective heritage, driving the continuation of the movement of “cultural Templarism” worldwide. As a result, the underground network developed a leadership of university historians, archaeologists, and international lawyers advancing cultural Templarism, which survived to later reconnect the movement with the founding sources of authority from the original Grand Mastery.
SURVIVAL OF KING FULK ROYAL PATRONAGE FOR MAGISTRAL SUCCESSION
The historical Order of the Temple of Solomon was founded under the Royal Patronage of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, initially granted in 1118 AD   , officially confirmed in 1119 AD  , and again reconfirmed and formalized at the Council of Nablus in 1120 AD , as the founding and primary source of authority for its original Grand Mastery .
King Fulk of Jerusalem (Count d’Anjou) was a prominent figure in the Order of the Temple of Solomon since its inception in 1118 AD. He supported its first and second Grand Masters for 25 years, served as a co-founding Knight Templar on its Grand Mastery for 23 years, and carried the founding Royal Patronage of the Order for the last 12 years of that period.  
It is that original founding authority of the Grand Mastery which would be passed on to dynastic successors of the Royal line of King Fulk into the modern era. Vatican experts note that “the Kingdom of Jerusalem [was] a feudal kingdom transmissible through women”, such that succession of the Royal line of King Fulk legitimately passes through female lines . This helped to ensure that the Fulk line would survive into the modern era, to become available to support the future restoration of Magistral Succession of the Templar Order.
While the Knights Templar held Royal Patronage as a chivalric Order from 1118 AD, the Vatican did not give its additional Ecclesiastical Patronage until 11 years later with the Temple Rule of 1129 AD . When the Vatican suspended its chivalric patronage of the Templars in 1312 AD, the Order automatically legally reverted to its prior founding patronage from the Kings of Jerusalem, which was never rescinded nor terminated.
However, separate from the issue of patronage, the Vatican Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum (1139 AD) also granted the Order the superseding status of permanent and irrevocable Sovereign Protection , as a sovereign non-territorial Principality of statehood in its own right  . Therefore, the historical Royal Patronage of the King Fulk line is secondary and not necessary for legitimacy of the Templar Order, although survival of that Royal line did serve to support the reconnection of the surviving Order to its original Grand Mastery, thereby enhancing direct Magistral Succession.
SURVIVAL OF TEMPLAR PRIESTHOOD FOR MAGISTRAL SUCCESSION
The Order of the Temple of Solomon was founded, and rose to power, primarily based on the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon which was sought by the Cistercians, which the first Knights recovered from the historical Temple of Solomon      . Vatican records witnessed the Templar Order exercising its recognized ecclesiastical authority, as Templar Chaplains had exclusive authority to perform all sacraments within the Order . The Templar Priesthood carries the most ancient origins and direct foundations of the 12th century Independent Church Movement, which created the 19th century Old Catholic Movement and related Reformed Catholic Movement, and the resulting 20th century Liberal Catholic Movement.
In 1139 AD, Pope Innocent II issued the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum (“Every Good Gift”), recognizing the inherent ecclesiastical authority of the Templar Priesthood as the basis for permanent independent sovereignty , as a non-territorial Principality of statehood  . This made the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon the primary source of sovereign authority for the original Grand Mastery of the Templar Order. It also set a precedent for ecclesiastical autonomy, which led to the beginning of the Independent Church Movement only 6 years later in 1145 AD, confirmed by the Vatican’s Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD .
From 1307 AD, after the French persecution, the underground network of surviving Knights Templar mostly preserved their Ancient Priesthood of Solomon through the Independent Church Movement. Initiatory and doctrinal succession of the ancient Templar Priesthood thus survived over the centuries, supported by Independent Bishops within the larger movement of cultural Templarism.
In 1520 AD, Pope Leo X issued the Papal Bull Debitum Pastoralis (“Pastoral Duty”), confirming the right of Independent Bishops to perform Episcopal consecrations without a Papal mandate. This strengthened the continuous transmission of “Templar Lines” of direct Apostolic Succession from the 1st century Essenes, Gnostic Apostles and Holy See of Antioch, 6th century Celtic Christianity, the 11th century Cathars, and the 12th century Ancient Priesthood of Solomon of the Knights Templar. All such “Templar” Apostolic lines passed through multiple Vatican Bishops and Popes throughout history.
In 2000, the Vatican issued the Papal Bull Dominus Iesus (“Lord Jesus”), which officially recognizes the legitimacy of the Independent Church Movement, including the derivative Old Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism, and the resulting Liberal Catholicism . This stimulated the restoration and revitalization of the Templar Priesthood of Solomon, carrying the original denomination of Ancient Catholicism, by the surviving movement of cultural Templarism.
That history resulted in the survival of authentic lines of both initiatory succession and doctrinal succession from the original Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, as a founding source of authority for the original Grand Mastery. It also provided supporting lines of Apostolic Succession to enhance the survival of the Templar Priesthood in full canonical legitimacy. As a result, the underground network of cultural Templarism developed a select body of Episcopal Clergy, supported by archaeologists for restoration and preservation. In this way, the Templar Priesthood survived into the modern era, remaining in a position to fully restore direct Magistral Succession of the Order of the Temple of Solomon from 1118 AD.
TRUE HISTORICAL BASES OF ARTHURIAN TALES OF THE HOLY GRAIL
No presentation of the authentic Knights Templar of the Order of the Temple of Solomon would be complete, without an exploration of the medieval Arthurian legends of King Arthur, his Knights of the Round Table, and their Quests for the Holy Grail.
Indeed, much popular awareness and a significant part of the public image of the Templars in the middle ages was shaped and promoted by the Arthurian tales. The literary portrayals of “knights in shining armor” fighting to champion noble causes, and always pursuing deeply spiritual Quests, seeking profound esoteric wisdom by pursuing or protecting the Holy Grail, were all an artistic expression of the genuine traditional values and religious beliefs of the Templars.
The Arthurian legends have their own historical value as symbolic esoteric teachings, and an expression of medieval culture. Separate from this, however, there is the independent topic of the identity and factual history of a historical figure, who was later transformed into the legendary King Arthur of Camelot.
THE REAL “KING ARTHUR” OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD
This work identified Arthur as a “Prince”, who was the “son of King Aidan” (King of the Scots from 574 AD). It recorded that Arthur and his father King Aidan led a coalition of “Briton” (modern UK region) kings who fought the invading Picts and Saxons, and that Arthur never became “King”, as he was “slain… in the battle of the Miathi”. 
The Irish Annals of Ulster reports an almost identical description of the event of the death of Arthur, calling it the “battle of Manann”, fought against the Picts who lived in Miathi. This explains why the same battle was alternatively called the “battle of Miathi” in the Scottish record.
Official royal records of Scotland have revealed that when Columba (a Catholic priest) performed the induction ceremony for the coronation of King Aidan of Dalriada in 574 AD, Aidan’s eldest son was Arthur, indicating that he was born in 559 AD.
The second reference to Arthur in a historical context was in a 9th century Latin text, the Historia Brittonum, which reported Arthur as “dux bellorum” (war commander), fighting “alongside the kings of the Britons” against the invading Picts and Saxons. In this work, the chronological order of the appearance of Arthur in between other dated events indicates the peak of Arthur’s notable activities as during the early to middle 6th century AD. 
The third reference in the historical record to Arthur (using the Celtic spelling “Artuir”) was in the 11th century Irish Annals of Tighernac, which reports: “Death of the sons of Aidan” including “Arthur at the battle of Chirchind, in which Aidan was victorious.” This account confirms that Arthur was the son of the Scottish King Aidan, and that he died in a battle allied with Briton kings fighting against the Picts and the Saxons. 
The fourth reference to King Arthur was found in the 12th century copies of earlier 10th century manuscripts, called Annales Cambriae. These detailed historical chronicles reported his military victory while carrying “the cross of our Lord”. 
Other manuscripts mention that Arthur was appointed “Commander” in 575 AD, at the age of 16. This confirms the interpretation that his first battle would be 576 AD, one year after becoming Commander. That corroborated time frame also confirms the date 589 AD as the approximate year of his death.
The fifth reference to Arthur as a historical figure did not appear until a 12th century Latin text, the Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who described the materials as being his Latin translation from “a very ancient book in the Breton toungue” which came “out of Brittany”, suggesting that its source was older Celtic Gaelic writings.  
While the existence of the landmark work Historia Regum Britanniae is part of the historical record, it is not generally considered a chronicle of factual history. These were the first documents to ever call the royal warrior “King” Arthur, although he was actually a Prince. Nonetheless, it is a fact of medieval royal protocols that “King” is technically a “title of office”, and all kings were also princes and often alternately used the title of “Prince”. Certainly, a Prince who was leading a group of kings in battle could fairly be assumed to himself also be a “King”.
Mostly, this work was historically significant because it is attributed with inspiring and leading to most of the later Arthurian legends telling various symbolic tales of “King Arthur” and the Knights of the Round Table, and their Quests for the Holy Grail.
The connection between the historical Prince Arturius Aidan and the legendary “King Arthur” is confirmed by an 8th century manuscript, The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee. That historical record contains a clear reference to “Morgan” as the daughter of King Aidan, being the half-sister (same word as for ‘sister’) of Arturius. This matches the legendary King Arthur having a sister “Morganna” (the feminine grammar for Morgan as a woman’s name), also known as “Morgan Le Fey” (simply adding “The Fairy” as a title of honour after the same name Morgan).
Arthur Aidan’s mother was reported to be Ygerna del Acqs (better known as “Igrain”), the High Queen of the Celtic kingdoms. Accordingly, Arthur’s grandmother was Vivien del Acqs, the Queen of Avalon and a High Priestess of the ancient Celtic religion. Arthur’s father King Aedan was the son of King Gabran and Lluan of Brecknock, and Lluan was reported to be a direct descendant of the Biblical Joseph of Arimathea, thereby entitling King Aedan mac Gabran to the title of “Pendragon” (which meant “Chief Warrior”, being a King higher than other kings to unite them).
The name “Merlin” was also a title, which meant “Seer to the King”, a position which was reserved for a High Priest of the Celtic religion. One person (of many at different times) who held the title “Merlin” was Emrys of Powys, the son of Aurelius, and Emrys was an elder cousin to King Aedan, Arthur’s father. Arthur did have three brothers, Eochaid Find, Eochaid Buide, and Domingart. Since Arthur was the eldest son and Crown-Prince, however, “Merlin” was assigned to mentor, guide and train Arthur. Therefore, although Arthur was not an only child and not without a living father, the legendary accounts in stories that Merlin “raised” Arthur from childhood is a fair description, which does not contradict the historical record.
These facts placed Prince Arthur Aidan in the unique position of being both ancient Celtic royalty, as well as Biblical and Catholic royalty, simultaneously. This made Arthur the embodiment of balance and reconciliation between the developing Catholicism and the ancient Celtic religion, resulting in their effective “merger” into the medieval form of the “Celtic Church”.
The battle in which Arthur died was variously called the battle “of Miathi”, “of Manann”, “of Chirchind” and “of Camlann”. None of the four historical accounts specify the location, but all of them describe the same royal Arthur leading the same battle against the same invaders, thereby confirming that it happened in the same place. The varied historical references to King Arthur’s death at this battle are reasonably close considering the prevailing practices of mostly “oral history” during that time period, averaging ca.589 AD.
Arthur’s birth in 559 AD, becoming Commander at age 16 in 575 AD, and beginning of active battles at age 17 in 576 AD, would make him 30 years old at the time of his death ca. 589 AD, having a total of 14 years of military experience by that time. That timeline and resulting level of experience would explain how that last battle he led was victorious, despite his being killed in the process.
Therefore, reliable and verifiable historical evidence does establish that in fact, the legendary “King Arthur” was the Celtic Crown-Prince Arturius Aidan of Scotland, ca. 559-589 AD, who facilitated establishment of the Celtic Church which integrated Catholicism with ancient Celtic spirituality.
All of the above facts and references are further supported by the scholarly works of Norma Lorre Goodrich, Ph.D. (1917-2006), Professor Emeritus at Claremont Colleges in California, who is credited with developing the most reliable modern translations of the relevant ancient and medieval manuscripts. As a result of her work, archaeologists have successfully found evidence of several key conclusions on these interrelated topics of the historical figure of Arthur. 
THE ARTHURIAN KINGDOM & THE ISLE OF MAN
The land of the Arthurian legends was known as “Avalon”, described as an island. Avalon was most notably described by the renowned British-Welsh poet, “Bard Taliesin”. He was the author of 56 Welsh manuscripts from the 6th century, which were later published as the 14th century manuscript called the Book of Taliesin, which is preserved in the National Library of Wales.
It is interesting to note, that from the 12th to 16th century Bard Taliesin himself became a legendary “mythic hero”, reportedly a contemporary companion of Bran the Blessed and “King Arthur”.
Most scholars who translated these 6th century manuscripts assumed (since they were re-published in the 14th century) that they were written in “Old French”, instead of the “Old German” Celtic languages they were originally written in. Thus, Bard Taliesin’s description of Avalon as “Insula Pororum Fortunata” was mistranslated as Old French for “Island of Apples”, even disregarding the significance of the third word which was omitted from translations.
However, since Taliesin in his time spoke ancient Celtic, his words “Insula Pororum Fortunata” originally meant an “Island by the Sea”, one characterized by “abundance” (“Fortunata”). This full and more accurate translation is additionally supported by various accounts of the profuse vegetation on the island of Avalon, and the inhabitants accordingly living long life spans.
The ancient Celtic name for the Isle of Man, in its native Manx language, is “Ellin Vannin”, literally the “Island by the Sea”. This indicates that the Isle of Man was exactly the same place with the same ancient name as described by Bard Taliesin in his own native language, thus being the true historical location of Avalon of the Arthurian legends.
In the Arthurian legends, Guinevere’s father was named “King Orry”. The French historical writers and poets Chretien de Troyes (a Templar) and Marie de France found the name “Orry” to come from the Manx word “Gorrie”, clearly identifying the Isle of Man. That fact also explains the otherwise strange spelling of the name Guinevere, which is actually a Pictish name. During the historical time period of Arthur, the Picts were ruling the Isle of Man.
The prominent British historian Sir John Rhys (1840-1915 AD), founding fellow of the British Academy and first Professor of Celtic Studies at Oxford University, and other authoritative scholars, have translated the old Celtic languages with supporting documentation, establishing that “Avalon”, the “Grail Castle”, and Arthur’s third castle “Galoches” were all in fact on the Isle of Man. 
This was further confirmed by the British lawyer, scholar, Vatican ecclesiast and Canon law advisor to King Henry II, Gervase of Tilbury (ca.1150-1228 AD), who described “King Arthur” in a royal establishment, explaining that the palace was located on a “three sided, three legged Island”. The national symbol of the Isle of Man, from its most ancient Celtic times, is three legs joined at the thighs.
It is also relevant and interesting, that all factual historical data for the real Prince Arthur Aidan (who later became the legendary “King Arthur”) was recorded primarily only in Ireland and Scotland, equally. This fact is significant, because the Isle of Man is located in the sea at equal distance between Ireland and Scotland, and was the only part of the modern United Kingdom that experienced several millennia of mixing Irish and Scottish culture, while alternating Irish and Scottish rule, before the British later got involved with the territory. This context of sources of the historical record further supports the conclusion that the location of the Arthurian “Avalon” was in fact on the Isle of Man.
ARTHURIAN LEGENDS & THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
The historical record has established that “the very first Grail Story, written by Chretien de Troyes, in about 1188 AD, was produced in the very city where Templarism was born, Troyes.” It was at the Council of Troyes (France) in 1127 AD where Bernard de Clairvaux established the Roman Catholic Cisterian Rule of the Templar Order. Historians confirm that: “Subsequent Grail stories emanated from various parts of Europe, and many of them mentioned Templar, or Templar-type knights, and espoused their virtues as… Holy knights. It is more than probable that, from first to last, Templars… either wrote or sanctioned many of the Grail stories.” 
It was the very same Chretien de Troyes whose translations from ancient Celtic Gaelic identified the Isle of Man as the historical location of the legendary “Avalon” of “King Arthur”. Accordingly, it was one of the original “second generation” Knights Templar, Chretien de Troyes, who began the 12th century tradition of Arthurian legends embodying ancient mythology and sacred wisdom, possessing a connection to factual academic knowledge of the true historical Prince Arthur Aidan of the 6th century.
Legends of the “Holy Grail became popular at the end of the Crusades, and though it came to be associated with the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, its origins were lost in the mists of prehistory, as a sacred cauldron.”  The concept of the “sacred cauldron” was essentially a Celtic metaphor for true esoteric spiritual alchemy, tracing back to the ancient Pharaonic Egyptian priesthood and simultaneously the ancient Celtic Druid civilization of Western Europe.
The British folk historian Alfred Nutt published a landmark cultural work,The Legends of the Holy Grail (1902), which developed and maintained “the earlier belief that King Arthur’s knights were Templars, but insisted they were also Celtic priests who predated Christianity.” Jessie L. Weston of the Folklore Society supported this conclusion in his research work The Quest for the Holy Grail, which helped to “link the pre-Christian Knights of the Round Table to the Gnostic heretics of the fourth century, who managed to “pass on their secret knowledge to the medieval Templars.” 
The ancient spiritual alchemy behind the later Arthurian legends of the Holy Grail was most visible in a landmark work published in 1616 AD, that historians “consider to be one of the most intriguing documents ever to surface in Europe,” called The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rozenkreutz. With its very title referring to the old English word for “alchemy”, and the name of the main character referring to the “Rosicrucian” tradition derived from the Templar’s “red cross”, the story is essentially about “a ‘magical wedding’ of a king and queen in a mysterious land. The story is couched in alchemical symbolism”.
“Alchemy was a popular study and owed little to the modern conception that it existed merely to turn base metals into gold. In fact the true search of the alchemist was a sort of spiritual enlightenment that lay at the heart of the ‘Utopian’ ideals of whoever wrote The Chymical Wedding. … But what is even more interesting… is the fact that the book has all of the hallmarks of the much earlier ‘Holy Grail’ stories.” Indeed, this work of esoteric alchemical folklore “seems to be the Holy Grail brought up to date.” 
The medieval understanding of the ancient tradition of alchemy, was the Quest (or search by scientific or spiritual exploration) for the “philosopher’s stone”, which would give enlightenment. The connection of medieval alchemy and the “philosopher’s stone” to the fabled “Holy Grail” of the Knights, is demonstrated at Chartres Cathedral in France, which was built by the 12th century Templars of the Order of the Temple of Solomon.
In Chartres Cathedral, a scene of Melchizedek presenting the Communion sacrament (which by biblical definition is supposed to be “bread and wine”) to Abraham  is depicted as a statue at the northern entrance, called the “Gate of the Initiates”. In this sculpture, Melchizedek is presenting a “stone” within a sacred “Grail” chalice, thereby clearly signifying that the knightly “Holy Grail” is in fact the “philosopher’s stone” of alchemy. 
While thinly veiled in well-known symbolism of the time, this association of the Holy Sacrament with the Holy Grail as the alchemical Quest for the philosopher’s stone would be considered “heretical” at the time. Nonetheless, this evidence demonstrates that this concept was in fact part of the core Templar beliefs and secret teachings of the middle ages.
Evidence confirms that the ancient Gnostic esoteric knowledge of the Cathars (which is traditionally an integral part of Templarism) was itself central to the alchemical enlightenment associated with the “Holy Grail”. One of the Arthurian legend stories tells of a lady “Esclarmonde”, who assumes the form of a “white dove” which “escaped and flew over the walled crest”, in order to carry the Holy Grail away from the persecutors of the Gnostic Cathars. This legendary figure was identified and confirmed by historians to be Esclarmonde de Foix (ca.1151-1215 AD), a Saint of contemporary Gnostic Churches. 
DIRECT ARTHURIAN CONNECTIONS TO THE MODERN TEMPLAR ORDER
The Isle of Man, the historical site for the location of Avalon of the Arthurian legends, and the historical site of Arthur’s final battle where he died, was re-established as a Celtic kingdom in 1079 AD by the Celtic warrior King Godred Crovan, who was also King of Dublin and the Irish and some Scottish isles. Thus, 490 years after the death of the Prince Arthur, Godred Crovan reclaimed and ruled the Isle of Man for the Celts (from 1079-1266 AD).
In 2007 AD, Queen Elizabeth II of the British Crown recognized and legalized the Royal House of modern heirs of the Templar King Fulk of Jerusalem as the “Independent Kingdom of Mann”. Official genealogy by the Anglican Church proved that the Royal House of Mann descended from the Celtic Godred Crovan line through King William de Montague of Mann, and also from the Stanley Kings of Mann.
The British Crown remains the Head of State of the Isle of Man, which retains the status of a British “crown dependency” without its own sovereignty. However, the Royal House of the King Fulk line holds full sovereignty of the ancient historical Independent Kingdom of Mann of its ancestors, and it legitimately represents and continues the medieval Celtic traditions from the Isle of Man, the original territory of the legendary “King Arthur”.
In addition to embodying the original Celtic Kingdom of Mann of the historical Arthur of the Knights of the Round Table, the Independent Kingdom of Mann also carries forward the founding sovereign authority from the first Knights Templar, of the original Order of the Temple of Solomon.
A parallel line of ancestry of the Kings of Mann comes from Count Fulk of Anjou (ca. 1090-1143 AD), the King of Jerusalem (succeeding Baldwin II). King Fulk was one of the original founding knights of the Order of the Temple of Solomon in 1118 AD, and was part of its original sovereign patronage of the Order from the Kings of Jerusalem. The descendants of King Fulk flowed through several lines of British Kings, including King Henry II of Anjou (1133-1189 AD), and later King Edward III (ca. 1333 AD), who was succeeded 7 generations later by Prince George Stanley (1460-1503 AD) of the “Stanley Kings” of the Isle of Man. The source of Magistral Succession of the modern Templar Grand Mastery holds direct lineal descent from the Stanley Kings of Mann, and thus carries dynastic succession from King Fulk of Jerusalem.
It is interesting to note that one of the most prominent scholars to establish that “King Arthur”, “Avalon” and “Camelot” were all located on the Isle of Man, the British lawyer Gervase of Tilbury, also served under King Henry II of Anjou (1133-1189 AD) as a royal advisor. King Henry II, through his father Count Geoffrey V of Anjou, was directly related to his grandfather King Fulk of Anjou.
The knowledge that the historical Prince Arthur was based on the Isle of Man was established by research of the prominent Templar Chretiens de Troyes, who authored many of the Arthurian legends starting in 1188 AD. That conclusion was further confirmed by his contemporary Gervase of Tilbury as an advisor to King Henry II of the Templar House of Anjou.
This earlier Templar knowledge (from ca. 1188 AD) that the Isle of Man was the actual headquarters of the real historical Prince Arthur is what motivated King Edward I to acquire the island (102 years later in 1290 AD). After several transfers of the Isle of Man to Celtic nobility, this also motivated King George III to re-acquire the island by conquest (577 years later in 1765 AD), to claim its legendary Arthurian history as part of British Templar heritage.
In 2007, the descendant of King Fulk of Jerusalem re-vested Magistral Succession of the Templar Grand Mastery, and in 2013 granted it full Tutela protection autonomous sovereignty. The modern Knights Templar, of the original Order of the Temple of Solomon, are thereby directly connected with their founding ancestral line of King Fulk, and thus also with the “Arthurian” Royal House from the Isle of Man which preserved that dynastic line.
As a result, the modern Knights Templar are directly connected to the historical location of the real “King Arthur” and the “Knights of the Round Table”, and to the earliest historical foundations of their own Arthurian legends of the “Holy Grail”, which were created and promoted by the original Templar Order throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.