By this stage, one senses that Blake & Lloyd are becoming a bit tired of all this matching names in the Brut y Brenhinedd with places other than the identifications provided by Geoffrey of Monmouth. They devote only one paragraph to the relocation of the Brut’s Dinas Verolam to somewhere in Cheshire (Tattenhall? Peckforton Hill? Beeston Castle?). They seem exasperated that ‘there are no traditions to link Uthyr or anybody else from the Arthurian legends to this site’ but use the link between the town of Verulamium, the modern St Albans, the martyr St Alban and their assertion that he preached in North Wales to relocate the name.
According to their line of reasoning, St Alban was traditionally martyred at Verulamium; however, the name Dinas Verolam in the Brut cannot be identified with St Alban’s, as it must be in Britannia=Wales; therefore, a church dedicated to St Alban (such as that at Tattenhall) must point to a nearby Dinas Verolam; this has to be on a hill, and there are ‘fortified hills’ at Beeston and Peckforton (actually Beeston Castle and Maiden Castle). I cannot find any sense of logical progression here. Perhaps I am missing something, but I suspect not.
Dinas Verolam is clearly a made-up name as the second part does not have a sensible Brittonic etymology. On the other had, it is a clear contraction and Gallicisation of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Verolamium, which he got directly from Bede (HE i.7). It may be that they were so embarrassed by the lack of positive alternative identifications and their inability to explain away the close relationship between the two names that they restrict their discussion to a single paragraph.