'In the time of Edward I. at Lincolne, where held a Parliament, after much diligent search of Antiquities due examination, as the greatest matter of right of a Kingdom required: Apologitical letters were sent of the Pope of Rome, sealed with an hundred seals and witnesses thus…wherein is declared and justified that in the time of Hely and Samuel the Prophet, Brutus a Trojan landed here, and by his own name called the Country Britannia, before named Albion…and having three Sons, Locrinus Albanactus, and Camber, at his death divided the island into three parts or provinces. Loegria now England, (though Welsh keep the old name) was given to Locrinus the eldest son; Albania Scotland, to Albanact the Second Son. Cambria, now miscalled Wales, to Camber his third Son…this conjecture may suffice for this business, it being testified by so many Domesticall and forrain, private and publick witnesses, that this his tripartite division was here from the beginning, and the first name of Brittain given by Brutus.' (Percy Enderbie’s message ‘To The Gentle Reader’ in his Cambria Triumphans or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre, 1661)

The obliteration of Britain's Trojan heritage from the historical record seems to have begun in the 1600s

'Every Londoner in Shakespeare’s day was familiar with the legends of the old Trojan kings and with the spots associated with them. Such popular knowledge has since been educated away, and children can no longer delight in the tales of Brutus who conquered Britain from the giants, of Bladud the aeronaut, and the rest of the fabulous dynasty. The first important historian to deny their authenticity was William Campden, whose Britannia of 1607 omitted their entire record. Thereby, said one of his critics, he “blew away 60 kings at one blast.” Camden’s skepticism was reasonable in his time because the antiquity of London was then unknown. Since the 1940s, however, when German wartime bombing destroyed much of London’s old City area and allowed archaeologists to investigate beneath the ruins, it has been recognised that many of its churches and monuments were built over sites which go back to Roman and earlier times. This has caused renewed interest in the histories of the old kings and their legendary links with the sacred places of their former capital... Their main attraction to pilgrims is the atmosphere of peace and sanctity which in some cases they have retained from prehistoric times.' (John Michell, The Traveller’s Guide to Sacred England, 1996)

'...Bath, which city, if legend be true, derived its thermal waters from a stream that poured into the Avon at Swineford, lying between Bath and Clifton' (William Comyns Beaumont, The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain, 1946)

Incredulity that hundreds of years BC a British monarch died while trying to fly should be tempered by the record of an event in AD 1010, when a monk called Elmer used fabricated wings to glide about a furlong from a tower at Malmesbury Abbey, breaking both legs in the process; Elmer realised the need for a tailplane, for greater control, a realisation that some eight hundred years later also struck the father of aviation, George Cayley [see Aviation]; Geoffrey of Monmouth (c1100-c1155) mentions Bladud (History of the Kings of Britain, Chapter X) as contemporaneous with the Prophet Elijah in Israel; this would place Bladud in the ninth century (i.e. 800s BC); Bladud is also mentioned by the medieval French chronicler De Wavrin [see Sources], who refers to Bladud as a contemporary of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome; this would place Bladud in the eighth century (i.e. 700s); Bladud’s forebears are described in the Tysilio Chronicle; Ebraucus was succeeded on the throne by his son Brutus II Greenshield, who was succeeded by his own son Leil:

'…And the mighty Leil, his son, came after. A good man was he, and a king who upheld truth and justice. And Leil ruled well over the government of the realm, and he built in the north of Britain the city of Carlisle…
…And after him did Hudibras, his son, reign forty years less one. And he delivered his people from war and brought them into peace, and built Canterbury and Winchester, and the town of Shaftesbury…
…And after Hudibras came Bladud, his son, who ruled for twenty years.'

Here is the evaluation of ‘Bladudus’, i.e. Bladud, in Holinshed’s Chronicle (Vol I, p297), together with an estimation of a much later king ‘Dunwallon’, i.e. Dunvallo Molmutius:

'Certes [i.e. Certainly], there was neuer prince in Britaine, of whom his subjects conceiued better hope in the beginning, than of Bladudus,and yet I read of none that made so ridiculour an end: in like sort there hath not reigned anie monarch in this Ile, whose waies were more feared at the first, than those of Dunwallon (king Henrie the fift excepted) and yet in the end he prooued such as prince, as after his death there was in maner no subiect, that did not lament his funerals.'

[For more on Bladud, his son Lear and Lear's daughter Cordelia, see More 23]

Dunvallo Molmutius: reigned 439-399 BC; here is how Holinshed describes the circumstances surrounding the succession of this king, who he names 'Dunwallon':

'OF THE KINGS OF BRITAINE...
Brute.
Locrinus.
Gwendolena his widow.
Madan.
Mempricius.
Ebracus. [see above, Ebraucus]
Brutus Iunior.
Leil.
Rudibras.
Bladunus. [see above, Bladud]
Leir.
Cordeil his daughter.
Cunedach and Morgan.
Riuallon.
Gurgustius.
Sisillus.
Iago.
Kimmachus.
Gorbodug.
Ferres and Porrex.
These 2. being slaine, the
     princes of the land straue [strived] 
     for the superioritie and
     regiment of the same, by
     the space of 50. yéeres
     (after the race of Brute
     was decaied) vntill Dunwallon
     king of Cornwall
     subdued them all, &
     brought the whole to his subiection, notwithstanding
     that the aforesaid
     number of kings remained still,
     which were but as vassals & inferiours
     to him, he being their chéefe and onelie souereigne.
Dunwallon reigneth.
Belinus his sonne, in whose time Brennus vsurpeth.'

[For Holinshed's full king list, see Monarchs; for the last-mentioned ruler, see next entry, Belinus & Brennus]

Holinshed goes on to give further information on the succession in the main text:

The name of this king in the Tysilio Chronicle is given as Dyfnal moel myd, which was Latinised by Geoffrey of Monmouth to ‘Dunvallo Molmutius’; Geoffrey moved away from meaningful Welsh versions of names, through his successive editions, and later Latin scribes further moved away from meaning [see Sources]; in this case it is a pity, as 'Dyfnal moel myd' can be rendered as Donald the Bald; Molmutius was the unifying king after Brutus’s direct line ended and civil war erupted; he was from Cornwall and was presumably of the line of Brutus’s kinsmen Corineas, founder of Cornwall; according to the Tysilio Chronicle ‘he restored the land to its ancient dignity and compiled laws that are known as the Molmutine Laws, which even the Saxons obey’ i.e. a thousand years later; the roads were safe ‘for in his day was tolerated neither thief nor footpad’, as the Tysilio Chronicle puts it, and he was in fact a great roadbuilder, a tradition upheld by his son Belinus [see Belinus & Brennus]; Molmutius is regarded as the founder of the ancient seat of Winchester, whose Ancient British name was Winton, according to E O Gordon [see Sources]; yet the Tysilio Chronicle cites Hudibras, father of Bladud (AD 800s), as the founder of the city, so Molmutius should be regarded as its later developer; under Molmutius Winton became the supreme seat of civil government and it was again so under Canute the Great (reigned in England 1016-35), who is buried there; the Molmutine Laws survive for anyone to read [see More 4]; the world portrayed by the laws of the Molmutine Laws was gentler and less capricious than the Roman world that followed; there was provision in his legal code for voting by ordinary folk – men and women – on new laws and even, astoundingly, on whether to get rid of a bad king; Dunvallo Molmutius is Britain’s greatest-ever lawmaker, since his laws, via King Alfred the Great [see Alfred the Great], were the early basis of what became the English common law, which has been globally influential, notably in former British colonies including the United States of America; Holinshed [see Sources] reports that ‘Amongst other of his ordinances, he appointed weights and measures, with which men should buy and sell.’; Molmutius was one of the greatest of all the monarchs of Britain; his line ruled up to the Romans, during the occupation – as native kingship mostly continued – and afterwards; Shakespeare alludes to Donald in Cymbeline, Act III, saying “…Molmutius made our laws;/Who was the first of Britain which did put/His brows within a golden crown, and called/Himself a king.”; Molmutius is reported by E O Gordon [see Sources] as being buried on the White Mound, on which now stands the White Tower of the Tower of London; yet the Tysilio Chronicle reports that Molmutius was buried in London in a famous temple of his own building, specified by Geoffrey of Monmouth as the Temple of Concord

[see More 4]

Belinus & Brennus: these were the sons of Dunvallo Molmutius, Belinus being the elder; Belinus the Great reigned, 399-364 BC; their names are given in the Tysilio Chronicle as Beli & Bran, in Geoffrey of Monmouth as Belinus & Brennus [see Sources]; Belinus ruled directly Loegria and Cambria, modern-day England and Wales, as well as Cornwall; his brother Brennus ruled as subordinate to Belinus north of the Humber; Brennus tried to usurp his brother but his rebellion was crushed and he went into exile; during these events the King of Denmark fell into the hands of Belinus; for his release Belinus extracted a great tribute and an oath of fealty; Brennus, with the help of the Senones, probably the modern-day Burgundians, but not the Gauls, invaded Britain, but an impassioned plea by their mother saw Brennus and Belinus reconciled without a fight; instead the Britons and Burgundians invaded and sacked Gaul; they then invaded what is now modern-day Italy and took Rome; the Sack of Rome of 390 BC was one of the most important events in Roman history; Terry Jones in his book Terry Jones’ Barbarians (BBC Books, 2006) said that it ‘was to haunt the Roman psyche for eight centuries’, so it is not surprising that the event was written about at length in the Roman histories; Diodorus Siculus, the first century BC Greek historian describes it, as does Dionysius of Halicarnassus, another Greek historian of a later period; he said that the reason for the attack was the invaders’ love of wine and olive oil; prior to this ‘they used for wine a foul-smelling liquor made from barley rotted in water, and for oil, stale lard, disgusting both in smell and taste’; this was presumably beer which sounds just like an early version of the renowned British real ale - and for a nation that raised pigs and hunted wild boar, lard (unrefined) would have been the natural choice of cooking fat; Plutarch (c46 – 120AD) in his The Life of Camillus said that the day the Roman army was defeated at the nearby river Allia, which battle preceded the Sack of Rome, was one of the unluckiest (darkest) days of Roman history; Plutarch also records that Aristotle mentioned the Sack of Rome and that Heraclides Ponticus, who was born at that time and was another Greek philosopher, reported that the Hyperboreans had invaded Rome; ‘Hyperboreans’ was a name used by the Ancient Greeks for Britain, argue some scholars [see Hyperborea]; Plutarch also mentions Brennus several times, which supports the British history as relayed for example via the Tysilio Chronicle; the Roman historian Livy in his Book 5 mentions Brennus by name as chieftain [see More 20]; Belinus and Brennus were undoubtedly real historical characters; here is Professor L A Waddell’s take on the Sack of Rome:

'Brennus (or Bryan), brother of King Belinus (No.22 on list) is reported in the Chronicles to be the famous Brennus who led the Gauls in the sack of Rome, placed in 390 B.C. But this Briton tradition, along with the rest of the Chronicles has been summarily thrust aside by modern writers… Rome and Roman civilization and traditional history are of so much later origin than London and British civilization and traditional history… The Roman tradition states that the Gauls were led by Brennus in that raid in retaliation for Roman opposition to the Senones, or Seine tribe of the Gauls, in their siege of Clusium in Etruscany of the Tyrrheni, in which country they wished to establish a colonial settlement. The British Chronicles relate…[that] the Briton prince Brennus, who had married the heiress-daughter of the Gallic Duke of the Allobroges, had, upon the death of the latter and with the assistance of his brother King Belinus, conquered Gaul and “brought the whole kingdom of Gaul into subjection.” [Ref: Geoffrey of Monmouth 3, 8]… And the Chronicle account also states that Brennus led the Senones to Rome “in revenge on the Romans for their breach of treaty.” This raid appears to have been analagous to that later one by their kinsmen Goths under Alaric in the fifth century A.D., and, like that, was also for the breach by the Romans of their treaty.' [see Sources: Waddell, p389)

Back in Britain, Belinus became a famous builder of roads [see Roads], which were made of stone and mortar and which ran the length and breadth of the country; for this reason these roads continued long afterwards to be called the ‘Belinian roads of Britain’ [see References below: R W Morgan], but are usually misattributed to the Romans [see More 7]; the medieval historian Henry of Huntingdon claimed they were built as a defence against invasion and they would certainly suit the British battle tactics, based on war chariots, which could rush to meet a threat at the periphery; in peacetime these road will have fostered trade; a law was passed during the time of Belinus that made the roads open to all, natives and foreigners; Belinus also built a fine gate beside the Thames in London, topped with a great tower; this was Belin’s Gate, corresponding to that part of London now known as Billingsgate; when Belinus died he was cremated and his ashes placed in an urn of gold at the top of the tower.

Belinus & Brennus references:

Diodorus Siculus

Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Plutarch

Livy

R W Morgan

Henry of Huntingdon

Lud, Cassivelaunus & Nennius: Lud (Holinshed's 'Lhoid'), firstborn of these brothers, reigned from 73 BC, Cassivelaunus (Holinshed's 'Casibellane') from 52 BC, after Lud’s death; Nennius died in 55 BC of wounds sustained while fighting Julius Caesar no less in personal combat on a British beach [see Julius Caesar]; Lud rebuilt Brutus’s New Troy, renaming it ‘Caer Lud’ – ‘The Fortified City of Lud’ – to the annoyance of Nennius in particular, according to the Tysilio Chronicle; the name became Caer Lundain, which the Romans took up as Londinium, whence London; that is one derivation of the modern name; another is given by E O Gordon [see Sources], where Landin is an ancient parliamentary assembly point; Brutus was the founder of London, Lud can be regarded as the founder of modern London; Lud constructed a wall around the city long before the Romans; Lud’s London, at 324 acres, was the largest city in Western Europe; referring to Lud, the Tysilio Chronicle reports that ‘within the city he ordered the raising of many fine buildings such as were never seen in any land’; Lud was buried in a vault under Ludgate, the western gate of London; there used to be a statue of King Lud and his two sons at Ludgate Circus, as it is now called; this statue has been moved to a church next to the Law Courts in the Strand, at the top end of Fleet Street; it is in a state of neglect; referring to the Mabinogion, E O Gordon [see Sources] comments ‘From the same source we learn that Lludd caused the Isle of Britain to be measured in its length and in its breadth, and in Oxford he found the central point.’; the Tysilio Chronicle has it thus;

'And straightway Lud commanded that all the island be measured in its length and breadth. And the centre was found in Rydychen' [which is Oxford].

After Lud’s death his brother Cassivelaunus took over, because Lud’s children were thought too young to counter the Roman threat; here is the account of these events in the Tysilio Chronicle:

'And he [i.e. Lud] had two sons, Androgeus and Tenvantius. But because they were too young to rule the kingdon, Casswallon [i.e. Cassivelaunus], the son of Beli [Geoffrey of Monmouth has ‘Heli’], was anointed king. And Casswallon gave himself over to uphold truth and justice, and notwithstanding he was king, he sought no advantage over his nephews, but bestowed upon them large parts of the realm. He gave to Androgeus London and the earldom of Kent. And to Tenvantius he gave the earldom of Cornwall. But he, Casswallon, was king over all.'

Cassivelaunus led the fight against the Roman invasions from Gaul [see Julius Caesar]; the relationship of Cassivelaunus ('Cassibellan') to the later king Cymbeline ('Cunobelin') is described in these terms by Waddell:

'…the Chronicles, in their different versions, are quite clear upon the point that Cassibellan was the uncle, and not the father of Cunobelin…' [Waddell; More 21]

To be precise Cassivelaunus was Cymbeline's great-uncle [see Royal family tree]; yet another brother of Lud, Llefelys, is cited in the Tysilio Chronicle, in a section that is evidently a later interpolation; note though that Llefelys also turns up as Lud’s brother in the Mabinogion

Julius Caesar: his invasion attempt of 55 BC, with 12,000 men at his back, was thwarted by determined British resistance; the Romans got back into their ships and departed after less than a week’s hostilities; Caesar wrote of himself in the third person, saying in his Gallic Wars:

'During the short part of summer which remained, Caesar, although in these countries, as all Gaul lies towards the north, the winters are early, nevertheless resolved to proceed into Britain, because he discovered that in almost all the wars with the Gauls succours had been furnished to our enemy from that country…'

Caesar wrote of the Briton’s terrifying use of war-chariots, which he was to encounter only one other time in his illustrious military career, in the far east of the Roman Empire; the British battle leader Cassivelaunus held a great victory banquet in London in 55 BC, on display at which was Caesar’s sword, a trophy from the fighting, won by his younger brother Nennius (who later died of his wounds) in hand-to-hand fighting with Caesar himself and his 10th Legion; the sword is depicted to this day in the upper left quadrant of the coat of arms of the City of London, other explanations for its provenance being fallacious; Shakespeare alludes to the sword story in Cymbeline, wrongly attributing the exploit to Cassivelaunus (‘Cassibelan’):

'The famed Cassibelan, who was once at point
(O giglot fortune!) to master Caesar’s sword,
Made Lud’s town with rejoicing fires bright,
And Briton’s strut with courage.'

The beach incident is related thus by the Tysilio Chronicle:

'And Nennius and Caesar met [in battle], and Caesar lifted his sword to bring it down on Nennius’ head. But he, Nennius, blocked it with his shield, so that the sword stuck fast in it. And he, Caesar, could not free it by virtue of the press of soldiers about them.'

'And the men of Gaul rebelled against him and gave him battle, and looked to overthrow his tyranny over them, for they supposed that his invastion of the Britons had come to nought because he had fled from them. And they heard also that Casswallon’s ships were upon the sea to give him chase. But he, Caesar, pacified the people with a great sum of money to the princes of Gaul and liberty to all his captives.'

Caesar came back in 54 BC with 30,000 troops; this time he achieved enough military success to satisfy his honour, before sailing away once more, rather hurriedly; Caesar’s military achievement during his second invasion amounted to a subduing rather than a conquest, to stop the Britons helping Gaul (France); Flinders Petrie [see Sources] wrote ‘That there was generally a well-organized peace kept in the country is shown by Caesar's statement that “the number of the people is countless and their buildings exceedingly numerous”.’; a civilised state of affairs thus supervened in Britain before the Romans came on the scene and indeed Britain was wealthy by the standards of the time; it stayed that way; Caesar laid waste Gaul over eight years and at a cost of more than a million lives; the Britons had united under Cassivelaunus, the Pendragon or Battle Sovereign, of whom Winston Churchill remarked ‘the impression remains of a prudent and skilful chief’; they had put up an unexpectedly stern resistance; the Romans were not to return for nearly a century, in the time of the Emperor Clausius [see Claudius]; Caesar famously declared ‘Veni. Vidi. Vici.’, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’, yet he was talking about a real conquest in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) not his excursions to the western edge of the known world, where ‘I came, I saw, I went’ would be closer to the mark; of Caesar’s cross-Channel exploits the Roman poet Lucan wrote, “In haste he turned and showed his back/To the Britons he had attacked”; Caesar’s British exploits were in fact like his incursion into Germany in 55 BC, as much as anything intended to impress the people back home (i.e. Rome); according to the Tysilio Chronicle Julius Caesar believed that Romans and Britons were both of Trojan stock – Aeneas settling in Rome, his great-grandson Brutus in Britain; Caesar claims descent from Aeneas’s son Iulus in his Commentaries, Book IV, XX; meanwhile Tacitus has Nero make this claim about Julius Caesar too (Book XII, LVIII); the British Chronicles provide an independent version of the Roman invasions, as Flinders Petrie pointed out in 1917 [see Sources]; the Tysilio Chronicle relates that during the first of Caesar’s invasions the Britons successfully thwarted his attack; Holinshed’s Scottish Chronicles add that the Britons had been helped in this endeavour by the Picts and Scots, who had gathered in London before the invasion; the Tysilio Chronicle continues the story thus:

'…Caesar came a second time to wreak vengence upon the Britons for his defeat. And when Casswallon learned of it, he commanded that iron stakes, as stout as a man’s thigh, should be planted in the Thames where Caesar’s ships should come. And of a sudden then, the Romans, ran [their ships] upon the stakes and the ships were holed, drowning thousands of his men. And those who reached the banks were met by Casswallon and all the host of Loegria [England]. And Caesar fled…'

There is then another victory banquet in London, but this one goes disastrously awry, according to the Tysilio Chronicle; a quarrel arises between two princes whilst they are jousting; this fractures relations between Androgeus, Lud’s son, in charge of London, and his uncle Cassivelaunus; civil war ensues, Androgeus appealing for help from Caesar; Caesar duly lands a fleet in Androgeus’s domain of Kent, unopposed, even as Cassivelaunus is laying seige to London; after a battle between Caesar and Cassivelaunus and a subsequent seige of the latter, holed up in a hillfort, Cassivelaunus sues for peace, via Androgeus; thus the Tysilio Chronicle has two Caesarian incursions to Caesar’s two; the account in the Tysilio Chronicle then proceeds as follows:

'And so Caesar made a pack with Casswallon upon his paying to the Senate of Rome for the island of Britain three thousand pounds each year. And upon this being ratified, they came together to London and made their winter-quarters there. And the summer following, Caesar returned to Rome and Androgeus with him, to come against Pompey who in those days was [seeking to] rule the empire there. And Caswallon continued to rule the land of Britain for [a further’] seven years. And when he died, he was buried at Eboracum. And after Casswallon, Tenvantius, the son of Lud, was made king.
And after Tenvantius, Cymbeline was made king whom Caesar had raised [as his own son].'

So the Tysilio Chronicle has three Caesarian invasions to the two in Caesar’s own account, though Caesar has a withdrawal to his base campe to repair storm-damaged vessels, probably accounting for the discrepancy; an account by The Venerable Bede has two invasions, with details (e.g. river stakes) that are found in the Tysilio Chronicle but not in Caesar’s account; Bede’s recounting is reproduced below this notice after the references; legend has it that Caesar stayed at the Tower of London in what is now part of the Tower complex - ‘Caesar’s Tower’; Androgeus, because he had betrayed his country, departed with the Romans; the Welsh knew him as the Black Traitor or ‘Mandubrad’, which is also what the Romans knew him as; the Welsh are said to have called Julius Caesar ‘Iolo the Bald’ (pronounced ‘Yolo’), because the vain Roman was known to be dismayed by his hair loss; by a twist of fate Androgeus’s family went on to prosper in Rome, Emperor Severus (ruled AD 193-211) being purportedly of the same family and hence of British blood [see Severus];  Julius Caesar pushed through calendar reform in Rome in 46 BC, expanding ten months to twelve; Caesar named the seventh month, July, after himself; he may have been given a harder than expected time by the western islanders, but the British honour him to this day via the Roman calendar that they and the world still use; it is usually assumed that Caesar only visited southeastern England getting not much further north than the Thames, but this is based partly on the false assumption that there were no fast roads in Britain at the time, when there most certainly were [see Belinus & Brennus]; the Caesarian descriptions of people further north was thought to have been due to his receiving reports from traders, but this was not Caesar’s style at all, as he usually reported what he had seen at first-hand; Holinshed’s Scottish Chronicles claim that Julius Caesar got as far as southern Scotland; there would appear to be physical evidence for this; until the eighteenth century, there stood a Roman ‘temple’ at Stenhousemuir (‘stone house moor’), until it was demolished to repair a dam in the nearby river Carron,; an engraving of 1726 exists of this and it matches a description supplied by the Tudor-era historian Hector Boethius, who reported that ‘it is round, having no windows or opening at the top. It resembles those ancient shrines one can see at Rome, having stone benches within set in a circle, with an ashlar floor once covered by a mosaic, as its few remaining fragments reveal. The eagles engraved into the stones are now all but worn away by the passage time, and within it is a great stone at its south, which the pagans are thought to have used as an altar’; that it is Roman there can be little doubt; it is said that Julius Caesar used it as a forward headquarters; the possibility that it may have been built much later by Vespasian can be discounted as Tacitus described the typical Roman temple as being like a citadel whereas Julian’s Hoff (hall), as it was known tellingly, was more like a pepper pot of a building; Julius Caesar described the Britons as licentious, but this seems to be a reference to the Scots in the period; Holinshed’s Scottish Chronicles relate how the Scot’s King Edwin - the next monarch after Caesar’s time – was known for polygamy and other activities aligning with Caesar’s description, so it is likely that this licentiousness was already occurring in Caesar’s time; Edwin was eventually assasinated by his own people; the charge that the British rather than the Scots were promiscuous may have dented British pride and perhaps helps to explain why the British have been so keen to disclaim and discredit their own ancient history; in Britain the hereditary principle was paramount; any son thought to be illegitimate could be sold into slavery, indicating a robust moral stance, not the reverse

Julius Caesar references:

Tacitus
Chapter 58

Hector Boethius
Chapter 14

Bede

Here is Bede’s account of Julius Caesar’s invasion, taken from Bede’s Book 2 entitled ‘CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, THE FIRST ROMAN THAT CAME INTO BRITAIN’:

'Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar…[he] having provided about eighty ships of burden and vessels with oars, he sailed over into Britain; where, being first roughly handled in a battle, and then meeting with a violent storm, he lost a considerable part of his fleet, no small number of soldiers, and almost all his horses. Returning into Gaul, he put his legions into winter quarters, and gave orders for building six hundred sail of both sorts. With these he again passed over early in spring into Britain, but, whilst he was marching with a large army towards the enemy, the ships, riding at anchor, were, by a tempest either dashed one against another, or driven upon the sands and wrecked. Forty of them perished, the rest were, with much difficulty, repaired. Caesar's cavalry was, at the first charge, defeated by the Britons, and Labienus, the tribune, slain. In the second engagement, he, with great hazard to his men, put the Britons to flight. Thence he proceeded to the river Thames, where an immense multitude of the enemy had posted themselves on the farthest side of the river, under the command of Cassibellaun, and fenced the bank of the river and almost all the ford under water with sharp stakes: the remains of these are to be seen to this day, apparently about the thickness of a man's thigh, and being cased with lead, remain fixed immovably in the bottom of the river. This, being perceived and avoided by the Romans, the barbarians not able to stand the shock of the legions, hid themselves in the woods, whence they grievously galled the Romans with repeated sallies. In the meantime, the strong city of Trinovantum [London], with its commander Androgeus, surrendered to Caesar, giving him forty hostags. Many other cities followed their example, made a treaty with the Romans. By their assistance, Caesar at length, with much difficulty, took Cassibellaun's town, situated between two marshes, fortified by the adjacent woods, and plentifully furnished with all necessaries. After this, Caesar returned into Gaul, but he had no sooner put his legions into winter quarters, than he was suddenly beset and distracted with wars and tumults raised against him on every side.'

‘Celts’: the word is said to derive from the Greek Keltoi, meaning ‘strangers’; the Celts were understood by classical authors to be a mix of peoples in what is now southern France, going into Switzerland; the Ancient Britons were separate; nineteenth century historians concocted the theory of central European Celts, with an influx into Iron Age Britain in the first millenium BC, but present-day academic researchers for the most part distance themselves from such a view, which is unsupported by the archaeological record; in short, no part of the British Isles was ever ‘Celtic’, so the use of this word and ‘Celts’ to describe the peoples of Britain and Ireland is inappropriate; this view is supported by observations such as this:

'…Strabo, like Caesar and all other Greco-Roman writers without exception, expressly excludes Britain from Keltica or “The Land of the Celts”… neither Caesar, nor Tacitus, nor any other of the Greek or Roman historians or writers ever refer to the Celts or Kelts as inhabitants of Britain or of Hibernia… The confusion arose through the popular misconception that because a people spoke a dialect of the same group of languages they were necessarily of the same race… the “die-hard” Celtists…keep alive the old mental confusion and mislead the public and popular writers… No traditional or historical references or records whatever exist of the migration of any people called “Celts” into Early Britain.' [See Sources: Waddell, pp129-38]

Waddell adds ‘…nor is the word “Celt” even known in the “British Celtic” languages.’ [p176]; the erroneous idea of a Celtic British Isles is traced by Waddell to a book of 1703 written by Abbé Pezron, a Frenchman; a different view entirely is that articulated by Holinshed [see Sources], who cites with cool detachment the ancient historian Berossus; Holinshed describes Celts over a thousand years prior to the Arrival of Brutus (which was somewhat before 1100 BC); in this alternative telling, a Europe-wide empire is envisaged at an early date, under a king called Samothes

'…and (as Berosus and divers othr authors agrée) Samothes was the founder of Celtica, which conteined in it…a great part of Europe, but speciallie those countries which now are called by the names of Gallia and Britannia.' (Hollinshed’s Chronicles, Vol I, p428)

Samothes in Holinshed is noted as being the sixth son of Japhet, himself the third son of Noah, placing this material in the legendary category; Samothes's coming to Britain can be computed from Holinshed's remarks as being 2056 BC [Holinshed, Vol 1, pp 8-9]; a separate take on Samothes and the Celts is that of David Hughes (p30; see Sources):

'The first king of the Celts is called Samothes, who flourished around 2025BC. He was a contemporary of the Bible figure Abraham. The Celts in Europe fought their rivals, the Germans…and the Slavs in a series of wars which kept them in check. The conquests of the indigenous peoples of Europe by the Celts made them a great power…Their conquests drove…the Picts from Britain to Ireland. Legend says that the Celtic high-king/or emperor Albiorix subdued most of Europe and found[ed] the first European empire about 1175/1150BC.'

Hughes’s Albiorix is presumably Holinshed’s Allobrox, the sixth generation descendant of a king called Celtes, himself an eighth generation descendant of Samothes; Celtes is pivotal as he reigned over Britain immediately before and after Albion - who is described as crossing to Gaul and having been overthrown there by Hercules; the founding king Samothes is said to have given Britain its name before it was known as Albion; so in this scheme the name sequence for the island would be Samothea-Albion-Britain; note that the name did not revert to Samothea after Albion met his end in Gaul; to cite Holinshed’s Chronicles once more (Vol I, p50):

'…the regiment [rule] of Albion continued by seauen yeares, and then was the souereingtie of this Ile restored againe by Hercules vnto the Celts.'

Summarising, the notion that there was a Celtic influx into Britain in the first millenium BC is a fantasy; the notion of there having been a Celtic empire in the late third millenium BC is an intriguing legend

Ancient Celts reference:

http://www.annomundi.com/history/samotheans.htm