Talk:King Arthur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

British Spelling

Sjc -- What is this change of center --> centre? Does this mean for this article we will be following the norms for spelling observed on Arthur's native island? :-)

More seriously, it looks like it's time to give this article some better structure. What I propose to do is slice & dice this article into the following topics:

• The Arthur of History
• Early Traditions about Arthur (e.g., Welsh, Cornish, Breton traditions, the Wild Hunt).
• The Romance of Arthur (e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Grail Quest, etc.)
• Arthur in Modern Literature

Any objections? llywrch 03:03 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Hi, only just found this talk. Given that there will probably be quotes from (primarily) British sources, I would have thought to centre on a standard British English orthographical standard would make sense in this respect, much as I would defer to say describing Washington as the center of US political process.

But this does need a lot of work. I will try and find some time for it in the days to come. Nice start by the way. user:sjc

I think this is a great idea. It does need more structure. Right now it seems to be somewhat of a mish-mash. More info on when Lancelot and other characters crept into the legend would be great. Also I don't see any mention of the Holy Grail -- isn't that a central theme of the legend? I notice the book section is formatted as a list. Shouldn't the movie section be the same? I thought about changing it myself, but couldn't decide on how to do it and retain the info that some of the movie entries contain. E.g. The Sword in the Stone. Frecklefoot 17:21 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead & did it. I probably left my usual number of typos. Have fun fixing my mistakes. llywrch 22:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Frecklefoot the Holy Grail is not the central theme to the Arthur legend, the central theme is Arthur being able to stop Saxon conquests into Britain for a generation, the Holy Grail, like Lancelot and many of the other characters in the Arthur story were added by some romantic poet who wanted to embellish the story to make it more intresting to read. Arthur was primiarly a Celtic warlord who managed to hold the Saxon onslaught against the odds.

---

Arthur vs. King Arthur

Okay, so should this guy be at "Arthur"...? -- Oliver P. 15:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Another one for us to puzzle over. On balance, I think I favour "King Arthur", because he's a semi-legendary figure (ie. not a "British monarch"). More importantly, "Arthur" can refer to so many different people - it would have to be disambiguated in any case, and you'd end up disambiguating to - guess what? 212.159.41.163 15:41 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Arthur (legendary figure)"? ;) I've redirected "Arthur" to here anyway, and put a disambiguation note at the top of this page telling people about other Arthurs. Was this the wrong thing to do? I think "King Arthur" might be misleading, because if he did exist, he probably wasn't a king as we understand the term. And most people when you say "Arthur" to them out of context would probably think of this chap anyway, wouldn't they? Argh, I shouldn't be thinking about this. I should be doing work... -- Oliver P. 15:46 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

So, I'm three years late on the topic, but most people don't even get it if you say 'King Arthur'. Say just Arthur, and they'll think of the aardvark, or their uncle, or their mailman... DuctapeDaredevil 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It had to happen! Eventually some problem would arise over some 'royal' that wouldn't fit the naming conventions. I suppose as we are dealing with a figure who is a blurred mix of legend and myth, we can't really call him [Arthur of {wherever}]. And [Arthur] is ambiguous, so [King Arthur] is probably the best option, or least worst. I was going to say he is unique case, but that would be tempting fate!!! There are similar 'mythical' figures possibly based on real ones in Irish folklore, like Conor MacNeasa. JTD 15:53 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

When I say "Arthur" out of context, I usually mean the bloke from my old chess club. He would be under "Arthur (chess)", of course. Anyway, I think this is definitely the right place for this article - he wasn't a King, probably, but that doesn't matter; Count Basie wasn't really a count, but it's another case of following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The disambiguation block at the top of this page is probably OK, though I would've probably made Arthur a disambiguation page instead. I might do that later. --Camembert

The problem with this Arthur -- as opposed to the one who plays chess, the one in the movie, et cetera -- is that some evidence suggests that he was not a king, either by birth or force of arms. The Historia Britonum, one of our earliest sources for the Arthur of History, never calls him a king & actually states that he was a dux bellorum or "leader of battles".

However, he is called a king because everyone from Geoffrey of Monmouth onwards calls him one; Western Civilization has assumed he was always of royal blood, & so does everyone who is not a pedant on the topic. My vote is to follow the example of the discussion concerning "Pennsylvania Dutch" vs. "Pennsylvania German", & let that guide us. I, for one, am happy to keep calling him (although it is technically erroneously) King Arthur; I know who we're talking about. And as far as I know, there has never been a king named Arthur -- although a few designated heirs had that name. -- llywrch 23:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Arthur was probably not an actual King but a very powerful warlord of Britain, the problem is though according to legend Arthur was fathered by King Uther Pendragon but Uther used magic to disuise his appearance and so trick a nobleman's wife that he was her husband and then she gave birth to Arthur, so Arthur had royal blood in him, but was a bastard, so would have probably been the protector or champion for one of Uther's children born from his wife.--Rhydd Meddwl 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

dumb asses brian and Miguel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yea y not!!!! Lol =)!!!!!

Removal of Mythical Arthur

Why was the "The Life of the Mythical Arthur" section removed? The comment says "removal of duplicate material," but I found that section much more readable and a tidy summary of the mythical Author. Why can't we leave it in? If the reader wants more detail, they can dig through the rest of the article. —Frecklefoot 17:36, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe because it duplicated material already in the article?

I went over that addition very carefully, afraid that something in it had been left out of the article as it stood -- but everything was already there, including an allusion (with working links) to the Round Table. As the article now stands, it explains the personage of King Arthur from a historical perspective: first there is the matter whether Arthur was a historical person or entirely fictional, then the early traditions about him (circa 11th century), then the later ones (12th & 13th centuries), & then post-Renaissance versions of the Arthur mythos. If this approach doesn't explain who/what Arthur is, then feel free to rewrite the article.

However, please include the information that the Arthur of Culhwch and Olwen is not the Arthur of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historiae Regum Britanniae, nor is the Arthur of Thomas Malory, nor is the Arthur of Mary Stuart. And I'm aware that the reasons why this is so needs to be added to this article. -- llywrch 02:10, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't contend that it had duplicate material—it did. But what I liked about it (and I didn't write it) was that it was a tidy summary. Perhaps we could put it back in (even in an altered format) and call it Summary? —Frecklefoot 15:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My first response, Frecklefoot, is to ask of which part is this a summary?

My second response is to point out that I don't own this article, although I make it a point to monitor changes to it. If you think that this summary could be fitted harmoniously into the Romance of Athur section, then do it. (One of my objections to this paragraph was that it had the section header The Life of the Mythical Arthur: except for the section The Arthur of History, all of this article is about the Mythical or Fictional Arthur. This myth has evolved over the centuries; the wording of the contribution I reverted suggested that there is/was only one correct version.) -- llywrch 20:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1. I know you don't own this article, but when there is a dispute over contents, we generally hash it out over here on the Talk pages instead of getting into an edit war and/or polluting the article with numerous changes. That's why I'm discussing this here in the first place.
2. From your last response above This myth has evolved over the centuries; the wording of the contribution I reverted suggested that there is/was only one correct version. Point well taken. Since there is no one cannonized version of his life/the myth, it doesn't make sense to include the section, since it presents the story as if there is just one authoritative version.
3. Having said that, it would be nice to have a timeline of some sort that shows what the various versions say what happened when. I understand that it could get quite loopy since many versions of the myth have different things happening and contradict each other. However, it would still be nice to see it documented all in one place. I am not suggesting that one person add it now, it's just a thought for future a improvement. :-)

—Frecklefoot 20:55, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's beginning to sound as if our disagreement is analogous to one of us saying "This piece of paper is white" & the other then replying "No, it's not black."

The submission under discussion, IMHO, just didn't fit in, so I removed it. You feel that something as readable as it was should be substituted into the article, while (I'm assuming) that duplicate material should be pruned out. I feel that this article should be as readable as possible. If that is a fair restatement of where you are coming from, Frecklefoot, then there's not much to discuss; just an invitation to someone (not necessarily you) to make the proper edits. -- llywrch 00:03, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Arthur, & the Welsh Traditions

• (Might want to mention that Arthur's Welsh name was "Arddhir Penddraig" (pronounced "Arthur Penthrieg").

There are some problems in this article that keep coming back, which I feel I have to correct & keep out. These are my reasons:

1. The Date of Arthur Despite centuries of research & scholarship, no decisive & undeniable evidence for the precise dates of Arthur's life have been found. There are a number of respectible scholars (with whom I do not agree, FWIW), who plausibly argue that he never even existed -- a point of view (POV) that is mentioned in this article. Because Arthur's existence is a POV, & Wikipedia is dedicated to being NPOV on these topics, it erodes Wikipedia's credibility if we include specific dates for his existence, dates I doubt even the majority of those who argue for Arthur's existence would endorse. For the purpose of NPOV, I feel it is best to supply an approximate date, & not to insist on specifics that depend on whether one agrees with a particular argument.
2. Arthur in Welsh Saint Lives These writings date from the 11th century or later -- obviously too far removed from the time Arthur may have lived to contain reliable historical material. As a comparison, it would be the same as accepting Homer's epic poem the Illiad as factually accurate evidence for the history of Mycenaean Greece, or the Song of Roland for Carolingian France. They are evidence for the fact that the Welsh had traditions independent of the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth, & prove that Geoffrey did not just rely on his imagination for the narrative of his work.
3. The Spelling of the Name of Saint Illtud I have never seen this name spelled "Illtyd"; that is how, for example, Wendy Davies spells his name in her scholarly history Wales in the Early Middle Ages (Leicester, 1982). She is knowledgable in Old Welsh, & would hardly have misspelled the churchman's name. -- llywrch 02:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your share about POV and NPOV. Hopefully you accept my latest insertion lower down the 'historical Arthur' spiel as a good way to indicate Arthur's actual dates as best they can be deduced from the primary sources, without being dogmatic ("only one POV is right") about them.

I'm not clued up on the Song of Roland:-)..... On the credibility of "facts" from the saints' Vitae, it is worth bearing in mind HOW and WHY these were written. EARLY Vitae, such as Adomnan's of Columba, were sometimes concerned to show the superiority of Christian powers over those of Druids. By the 11th century, the usual purpose was to promote the cult of the particular saint and attract pilgrims to his shrine(s) by demonstrating his/her efficacy at miracles, starting with those in their lifetime. Authors sometimes had reason to doctor, borrow or invent magical or miraculous accomplishments (such as Columba's calming half of a sea while the other half remained stormy) but none to play with FACTS of a purely historical and logistical nature or anecdotes from the saint's youth that were just incidental to the narrative and helped to portray the saint as a real human being. I find charming and thoroughly credible, for example, the story of Sts Gildas and Cadoc each rowing across half of the Severn Estuary to spend Lent together with each other and away from the world on the island of Flat Holm, but abandoning the practice after a few years because of harassment by pirates.

An exception is that facts about a saint's death (day, date, year, cause of)were sometimes doctored to increase the saint's apparent holiness or to associate him/her with a particular event (e.g. St. Bride with Imbolc, St. Columba with Whitsun).

And as for HOW, most of these Vitae drew on records that were kept at an abbey they founded. The underlying sources were a lot older than the compilation now available as a Vita. (Same as with the Historia Britonum; and as with that work, antiquity is not proof of accuracy.....just helpful.)

I bow to you on Illtud. I have Illtyd from Baring-Gould, but I also have Iltud from Lionel Lewis, Illtud from Morris, and Iltuit in a quote from William of Malmesbury. I've not heard of any primary source that gives a definitive answer.

User: Pachiaammos 30-04-04 09.00

Its probably worth noting that "lltud" is the modern Welsh spelling of the name but "Illtyd" and "Illtud" are almost identical sounding in Welsh anyway. Iltuit would be a comical but credible English attempt to render the Welsh "ll" sound and an anglicisation. Welsh spelling is basically phonetic and shifts over time, especially before the bible of William Morgan so you may in fact be arguing over a point the simply isnt a point in Welsh at all 8)

(Just a passing anonymous reader)

On the spelling of Illtud: it seems the name was spelt, and pronounced, differently in different parts of Wales. In the South, Illtud would appear to have been most common (hence Llanilltud Fawr), but in the North, the forms seem to have been Illtyd and even Elltyd were alternative forms (hence Llanelltyd, a village near Dolgellau) - though obviously this geographical division is a little crude. Illtyd and Illtud, it should be added, are only identical sounding in modern Welsh. In Middle Welsh, u sounded rather more like modern French u, as in 'tu'. The name apparently derives from 'alltud' - exile. Garik 01:21 29 April 2006

Some people believe that Arthur, King of Britain, was a real person, but then some people believe that Sherlock Holmes is a real person, and write letters to him. Some small children believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.

There is no contemporary record of such a reign and it is extremely doubtful whether any such person ever existed. Real kings tend to leave some evidence of their existence behind them, but Arthur apparently minted no coins and issued no charters. He is not mentioned by early historians such as Gildas or Bede, nor is there any reference to him in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

The evidence for his existence is exceptionally slight. A recent book (The Anglo-Saxons, by James Campbell, Eric John, & Patrick Wormald) listed it as follows:

1. An early Welsh poem, which mentions that some hero WASN’T Arthur ('he fed black ravens on the ramparts, although he was not Arthur').

2. The historian Nennius, who listed twelve battles supposedly fought by Arthur.

3. The Welsh Annals, which mention some of the same battles, and record his death in 537, in battle with Modred.

Nennius wrote his Historia Britonum around 858, which is about 300 years after the events he describes. That is the equivalent of someone writing today about the reign of Queen Anne. Either he had access to written sources that no-one else has ever seen, or he used his imagination. His book can be read on-line at [1] (he wrote in Latin, of course, but there are translations available: [2]. Nennius did not call Arthur a king, just “dux bellorum” (war leader). The paragraph about Arthur is sandwiched incongruously between a Life of Saint Patrick and a set of Anglo-Saxon genealogies, tracing the ancestry of kings back to the god Woden. The book seems to have been thrown together from scraps, without much care or understanding.

The Welsh Annals were probably composed at an even later date. The earliest surviving manuscript dates from the late tenth or early eleventh century, and lists events up to 977. So, in this form, it must be at least 400 years later than the supposed reign of Arthur. In the annal recording his death, Arthur is referred to as ‘the famous Arthur, King of the Britons’, which looks more like a late interpolation than a contemporary description.

The most elaborate account of his reign was concocted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, writing in the twelfth century. His book contains more fiction than fact, and is altogether too bizarre to take seriously. William of Newburgh, writing around 1190, concluded ‘It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself, and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Welsh’.

In 1191 the monks of Glastonbury claimed to have found a tomb with the inscription “Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arturius” (‘Here lies buried the famous King Arthur’). No doubt they hoped to boost the tourist trade.

In addition to these, Arthur is mentioned in a Life of Gildas (Vitae Gildae), composed in the thirteenth century. Arthur is said to have killed the brother of Gildas. But Gildas himself criticized five supposedly evil kings [3], but failed to mention the alleged killer of his brother.

Hovite 17:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hovite, your first paragraph is insultingly condescending. But on the chance that you are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue, I'll respond to your points here:

• "no contemporary record" -- true, but there is very little contemporary record for events in Britain between c.410 when the Romans left & c.590 when the Christian missionaries from Pope Gregory arrive. This point does not prove for or against Arthur's existence.
• "minted no coins and issued no charters" -- true, but no king in Britain minted coins until the Anglo-Saxon kings of the 7th century; the Celtic kingdoms of Cornwall, Wales, Cumberland & what is modern Scotland did not mint coins until centuries later. (Michael Dolley, "The Coins" in The Archeology of Anglo-Saxon England [Cambridge: University Press, 1976], pp. 349ff.) As for charters, surviving copies , let alone originals, are extremely rare for this period: there is a collection of Roman charters from Ravenna, some of the Llandaff charters may be as early as this, & then a few Merovingian & Byzantine examples round out what we have from that time. Another inconclusive point.
• "not mentioned by early historians such as Gildas or Bede, nor is there any reference to him in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" -- Bede bases his account heavily on Gildas, who admittedly does not mention Arthur; but then Gildas is very stingy with his use of names. As for the fact he does not mention Arthur in connection with the Battle of Badon, K.H. Jackson, ("The Arthur of History" in Roger S. Loomis [ed.], Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959], p. 3) perhaps explained this silence best with his question, "what English bishop, castigating the vices of his compatriots about 1860, would be so clumsy as to allude to 'the battle of Waterloo, which was won by the Duke of Wellington?'"

As for the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, Harrison, Kenneth has pointed out that there is a lacunae in the entries around AD 500 (in his The framework of Anglo-Saxon history, to A.D. 900, London: Cambridge University Press, 1976); moreover, the ASC in part of the document only lists English victories, & not their defeat. Both considerations would lead us to conclude that an omission there again proves nothing. Arguing from silence is always dangerous, & due to the lack of material even more so for this period.

• You state that the earliest mentions of Arthur are late & few. However, on one hand our earliest records of such historical figures like Hannibal and Alexander the Great were written centuries after they lived, yet no one doubts their existence; on the other, as I have pointed out above, records for this time are few for all of the historical figures; & this is the case both in Britain and outside of it. For example, had Gregory of Tours not written his History of the Franks we would be as ignorant of the events in Gaul as we are for Britain. The 850 surviving letters of Pope Gregory the Great are an exception for this period, not a common ocurrence. So the fact that Arthur is mentioned in only three, late documents is not at face value a critical weakness.

• My own personal belief that Arthur did exist is based on the fact that nowhere else in the tradition is anyone but Arthur given credit for the Battle of Mons Badonicus: had someone else, say Ambrosius Aurelianus, been in reality the leader of the British side, only to have later poets give the credit to Arthur, wouldn't there be some whisper of this fact? While I admit that I am arguing from silence, in this case the silence is significant: Ambrosius reappears in the earliest Welsh tradition as a magician, not a warrior. None of the other early figures the tradition connects to Arthur have any hint that they might have been the victor of this battle.

But I would not push much further beyond this simple statement. Maybe Arthur was a king (even the author of the Historia Brittonum is unsure of this), maybe he was married to Guinever, and maybe Cai and Bedwyr were his lieutenants, & just maybe he died in battle in the Battle of Camlann. Any study of the material around Arthur will show that a lot of myth & legend has accumulated around this personage: the trick in paring it away is not to miss the seed of truth at the center.

And FWIW, I have tried hard to present the opposing view on this matter. I believe David Dumville, who has spent many years studying the primary material, has put forth a thoughtful argument against Arthur's existence (see the bibliography in the article), while being respectful to those who disagree with him. -- llywrch 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hovite, the lack of coins and charters really only calls into question Arthur's kinghood - and not very convincingly. Fair enough, he _might_ not have existed, but I don't think it's unreasonable to take the evidence as suggesting the real existence of some figure who took that name and possessed certain leadership qualities. As Llywrch points out, the point about the scantness of evidence and the lack of contemporary references is not all that convincing either. I'd add that plenty of atheists believe in the existence of Jesus on arguably quite similar levels of evidence - and not unreasonably. Moreover, it's notable that where Arthur _is_ mentioned (as in the three examples you give), the reader seems to be expected to know who he is (this is at least unequivocally true of the mention by Aneirin). Garik 01:36, 29 April 2006

Some of the material quoted by Hovite is not quite right (he is quoting some rather unfair anti-Arthurian material). The Historia Brittonum is indeed late (early 9th century) but it does appear to be based on early sources. Some are quoted (the book of the blessed Germanus), others are inferred - the Genealogies and the life of St Patrick mentioned are examples. It is only with the appended Mirabilia that the author (if he is the same man) gives only contemporary heresay and eyewitness testimony. Elsewhere he seems to use earlier sources. The earliest version of Annales Cambriae does not call Athur a King. The only battle from Historia Brittonum it covers is the Battle of Badon, but uses different words, rather than copying it. These are the first survivors of British Historiography since Gildas, but this does not mean that Arthur was invented in them. he is treated as a character the reader will have heard of.

Modern historians do write about Queen Anne. Historian write about the past. Arthur minted no coins and issued no charters which survive, that is true, but what about the Proud Tyrant ('Vortigern'), Ambrosius, Constantine, Aurelius Caninus, Cuneglassus and Maglocunus, named by Gildas? They haven't left anything either but no-one diputes their existance. Gildas' work teams with unnamed characters too. Only Vortiporius has a surviving monument with his name on. On the other hjand, Constantine III, not referred to by Gildas, who thinks Roman rule in Britain ended with Magnus Maximus, has left coins. This is the darkest of the dark ages and we simply can't expect the sort of evidence which would fix a person's existance beyong reasonable doubt

Chris Gidlow

Links

Is there someone who can restore the deleted links that some unregistered user just deleted? Kuralyov 20:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done, but anyone can revert an edit like this by going to the "history" tab, and editing and saving an older version of the article. -- Arwel 23:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And someone has just deleted them again without comment. Sheesh. Restoring. -- llywrch 18:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Year of death

Llywrch commented that Arthur's year of death is not known. Actually it is traditionaly placed in 537 according to the article about Battle of Camlann. The date comes from the Annales Cambriae.

The historicity of Arthur is debatable and the accuracy of the chronicles has been questioned. But at least they provide us with a traditional placement and context for his death. User: Dimadick

It's also placed in the year 539. DuctapeDaredevil 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Which leads to an intreguing problem: for the purposes of listing a year of death, do we consider Arthur a legendary or historical personage? If legendary, then he did not exist, could not have died, & thus has no year of death. If historical, then we have to deal with the issue that this date is given in only one source (which is suspect), & that a number of scholars & experts reject his existence entirely -- & thus we make the article POV.

Admittedly, I believe there was a historical Arthur, for reasons that I won't bore anyone here by stating. However, what we can reasonably infer about his existence is so limited that I feel the safest course is to conservatively state that he lived in the late 4th century/early 5th century, rather than to state the years offered by the Annales Cambriae without any qualifications. -- llywrch 20:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually several "legendary" or "mythical" events have a traditional placement in historical timelines. For example the Trojan War (1194 - 1184 BC) . Stating the so-called traditional date and pointing arguments for and against it should make clear both a context for the story and how questionable it appears.

The Annales Cambriae actually state only one thing on Arthur. (Going from memory): "Arthur and Medraut died in the Battle of Camlann". That is it. No other life account of the two figures. Only time and place of death. In our presumably older source for them.

The late 4th century? Making Arthur a contemporary of Theodosius I, Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius? Should not this instead be "5th century births" and "6th century deaths? User: Dimadick

Your correction is what I meant to write. Oops.

However, the Annales Cambriae has 2 entries on Arthur, one corresponding to the year 517, the other to 537. Keep in mind that the original document did not provide the years for its entries, merely a series of "an.", which is usually assumed to be an abbreviation for the Latin word for year. Thus we have no idea if the scribe of this unique document was careful & placed the years where he thought they should go, or was reckless & just wrote out his entries where they looked most attractive on the page, or simply made one or more unavoidable errors in placing them in his chronology (e.g., dating them x years before another event, or entering them onto the wrong line). At least the date for the Sack of Troy has a clear & documented rationale for its date! -- llywrch 23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Annales cambriae don't have AD dates. they are numbered from year 1 forward, with totals given every decade. However the Harleian Manuscript version (the earliest) is still only a copy and has erroneous numbers of years in several of the decades. Historians attempt to anchor the Annales to various 'known' AD ranges. See my 'The reign of Arthur' for the range of possible AD dates to which the death of Arthur could be assigned, of which 537 is just one. A more traditional date would be AD542 from Geoffrey of Monmouth, which was widely known through the Middle Ages when Arthur was generally assumed to have been a historical character.

Chris Gidlow 15 June 2006--Chris.gidlow@hrp.org.uk 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Dimadick is right. The date of Arthur's death is greatly debatable. However, it's also true that it's believed that he died around 530's. Chris Gidlow is also right. A lot of people are right! There's much to do before FA application is even likely to succeed, so let's get to work! Thanks, Meldshal42 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why do Kings only have one name? If the mythical King Arthur was based on a real man named Arthur, what was his last name? bb

Because they are known as such. Being most likely a Romano-British military leader, "Arthur" would probably have a name following Roman naming convention rather than a modern "last name". He has been suggested as a member of the gens Artorius. User:Dimadick

Well, he was probably Welsh (or at least "Welsh" in a broader sense) so he was Arthur ap (son of) someone. People didn't need surnames because there were few enough of them to be distinguished without them. If there were two Dewis in an area, it would be enough to call them Dewi ap Llewellyn and Dewi ap Maelgwn, or whatever. Some people acquired cognomens, like "Bright-haired" or "Clever" or what have you. Surnames are more recent inventions. In olden days, people learned their genealogy by heart (that they were son of X son of Y son of Z) and didn't need a family name to know they were part of that genealogy. Grace Note 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd think that 'Pendragon' was his surname, as he got it from his father, Uther, and it came after his name. DuctapeDaredevil 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, Grace Note, that he'd only have been Arthur ap... if Arthur actually was a first name! As you suggest, it might well have been a cognomen. Of course, if you buy the Owain Ddantwgyn argument (which I think has more going for it than a lot of people grant), you have to accept a character with two such cognomina: Bear and White-Teeth. Ductape: I don't think we can consider Pendragon a 'surname'. As Grace Note points out, they're quite a modern invention. As Pendragon (presumably) derives from Penddraig (or the 6th Century Brythonic equivalent) meaning Head Dragon, it's probably something more like an inherited title. Garik 01:50, 29 April 2006.

I agree with the ap theory. If he followed the old Briton tradition of taking your fathers name as your surname that to the people at the time it would have been irrelevent to call him such if they had all ready mentioned he was son of Pendragon. Catuvellauni (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 17:38 17 January 2008

"Some stories..."

Can we get some precision on this: " Some stories say that Arthur did indeed pull the sword from the stone (Excalibur), giving him the right to be king, but accidentilly killed a fellow knight with it and cast it away. Merlin told him to undertake a quest to find another blade, and it was then that Arthur recieved his sword from the hand in the water, and named it Excalibur, after his original sword. Some people also believe that the first Excalibur was named Caliburn." --Wetman 02:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Caliburn names comes from Geoffrey, as I recall. The story of Arthur getting the sword from the Lady of the Lake is recounted from numerous medieval sources.Kuralyov 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kuralyov! I nailed the Geoffrey of Monmouth quote and entered it. --Wetman 20:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, the name "Caledfwlch" is the name used by the author of "Culhwch and Olwen", which some believe predates Geoffrey of Monmouth's writing (ISTR the date "c.1050" repeated a number of times), & argue that Geoffrey borrowed its name (with his usual license with accuracy) from the oral tradition. -- llywrch 23:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is believed that Excalibur was the latin version, while Calibum or Caledfwlch/Caledwch in Welsh was the celtic (Caledwch meaning hard). Seeing that Arthur grew up in a Latin-Celtic time, probably even he had two names for it. Catuvellauni (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 17:22 17 January 08 (UTC)

Historical Arthur

The historical Arthur, however, is most likely to have been a son of the Scots king Aedan, referred to in the writings of Saint Columba as 'Arturus'. I altered this line as it's a little ridiculous to say THE historical Arthur is MOST LIKELY to have been anyone. I also changed some information that didn't fit with what's on the Historical Arthur page.--Cuchullain 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about NLG's assertion that traditional Arthurian tales are geographically displaced from areas of active saxon-british conflict in 5th to 6th century? I know she is unpopular but that seems to be an easily verifiable claim. Certainly the fact that tintagel and glastonbury are much later sites also argues in favor of her ideas.

Traditional Arthurian tales place him Wales, which isn't far removed from the Saxon border at all. And Tintagel and Glastonbury were both occupied in thr 5th/6th centuries; it's just that the structures that we see there now were built much later.Kuralyov 20:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Any reconstruction of Arthur from the sources would have to make account of his prominence in Welsh tradition. It's possible that the Welsh appropriated him but if they did, they did it early. It's quite notable that they do not have him fighting Saxons. Glasto was an invention of the monks. Hagiographers borrowed stories from anywhere they could get them to legitimate an abbey's claim to lands. Grace Note 01:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Tintagel "connection" with Arthur, on which an essential tourist industry depends, was initiated by Tennyson, as the Tintagel article explains. Glastonbury on the other hand is even older than Arthur as a site of human occupation. --Wetman 07:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was the same for Glastonbury, that the lead cross found there was likely a hoax drummed up by the cash strapped monks of the abbey there (which did not exist early 6th century)

No, the Glastonbury relics can be traced reliably back to c.12th century, & less reliably earlier.

Locating where Arthur's activities lay in Britain is little more than a game anyone can play with a map of Britain, a selection of sources, & enough time. (I remember reading an article published in Brittania about 30 years ago which argued all of Arthur's battles could be identified with places in Sussex!) Any conclusions would be infalsible, because the names of the British landscape drastically changed between c.450 & c.600, so that locating even "Badon Hill" is nothing more than a calculation of probabilities. I feel that the only NPOV way to addressing the problem of where Arthur lived, fought & died would be to report the legends & traditions, & the more reasonable modern theories.

I don't know who NLG is, but if she means that Arthurian tales are found in the parts of Britain with significant Celtic populations (e.g. Welsh, Cornwelsh, & Scots) because that is where the people who told & listened to these stories ended up, then that is plausible. -- llywrch 20:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your conclusion but most identifications involve a great deal of linguistic wishful thinking and do not carefully distinguish between their sources. Clearly, there is a tradition that has some foundation in history (whether about a real man or about events that became ascribed to a legendary figure) and a tradition that has none. Welsh sources connect Arthur with figures such as Cai, Bedwyr and Peredur, and Geoffrey makes clear that he borrowed from Welsh sources to write his work, so that is one tradition that needs to be accounted for (and one must also account for why the Welsh tradition doesn't even mention some of the elements of the story, such as fighting the Saxons at Badon; it's no use either to claim some sort of strong kinship between Celts of different areas, who shared stories so that a Scottish king could have become a legendary hero in Wales -- the notion of a broad Celtic resistance is given the lie by Gildas, who makes it clear they were too busy hacking each other to pieces, and by a recognition that the Saxons were not homogeneous invaders meeting homogeneous defenders (how could they be when they did not have radios, telephones or a common provenance and their command structure was based on personal power, but small parties who gradually pushed back localised resistance). Some of the elements are better attested than others. The other tradition is the more clearly fantasised stories, where we are clearer on their provenance because they didn't exist in earlier works and popped into being in later ones (Lancelot is a good example).

I'd like to note though, Llywrch, that Welsh names did not change in the same way in that period for the obvious reason. The way that they did change, notably, is that landmarks, churches and wells became named after the characters of the traditions, implying that they were real people. So the tradition says that Arthur's foster brother was Cai, and we can find a "Caer Gai". The tradition says Cai's father was called Cynyr, and Caer Gai was sometimes called Caer Gynyr. Of course, the story could have been invented to fit the landmarks. There are plenty of boulders in Cornwall that giants are said to have hurled... So if you can identify Arthurian names in Wales, well, that has to be taken more seriously than suggesting that the Saxons named a place in the same way as the Celts did, when we know that they most often didn't.

BTW, I'm from Cornwall, more or less, and I've never seen the Cornish called "Cornwelsh". Interesting idea. Grace Note 01:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Cornwelsh is a new one on me too, but the -wall in Cornwall is indeed the same as the Wal- in Wales, so I suppose it makes some kind of sense. It's important to add that at the period we're discussing and in the context we're discussing, it's makes much less sense to distinguish between Welsh, Cornish and even Scottish tradition, except geographically. In other words, there's arguably no one for the Welsh to have appropriated the myth from. At the time we're talking about, there was no such thing as 'the Welsh' in the modern sense (kingdoms like Gwynedd and Powys had far more meaning), and what we might call Old Welsh (or Brythonic, depending on where we draw the line) was spoken throughout Wales, Cornwall, England and Southern Scotland. After all, Y Gododdin is considered a Welsh poem (and it's Welsh enough that I can understand a lot of it), but it was written somewhere near Edinburgh. This was the most British Britain's ever been (though how united they all were politically is another matter). Garik 02:10, 29 April 2006

Arthur is most likely to be from North West Wales/Northern England due to the fact that he was protecting the Latin Church from the un-christian Saxons and he would have been pushed westward by their invasion. + I agree that in this period the diffrences between cultures were less but the Welsh word for wall at the time would probably of been the latin Mur, not the Wenglish slang (Welsh/English) wal. Catuvellauni (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 17:25 17 January 2008

Several statements

• " However, a recent translation of newly discovered documents may have referred to him as a king." Not very informative. I moved this mysteriously knowing promise here for some corroborating details, if there are any.
  • Does anyone know what these "new materials" are, and from what tiem period they're from? Kuralyov 19:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "This may be related to legends where Arthur is depicted as the leader of the Wild Hunt, a folk motif that is also recorded in Brittany, France, and Germany." Any authentic connection of Arthur and the Wild Hunt would certainly be worth citing a historical source for. A quote could be convincing. --Wetman 21:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend (ed. Maria Leach; New York, 1972) may not qualify as a "historical source" (although when I was studying at college, it was accepted as a reliable authority), but in the article "Arthur" the following statement appears on page 77:

Long-lived was the belief in the British king as leader of the Wild Hunt, originally the personification of winter and its storms. Gervase and two other 15th century writers assign this role to Arthur, and tell how he and his company of riders may be seen by moonlight in the forests of Britain or Brittany or Savoy; we have a Scottish reference from the 16th century; and at Cadbury Castle, Somerset, and in several parts of France, the belief was still current in the 19th century.

The article was written by Roger S. Loomis, so perhaps you will forsake the usual disdain against citing encyclopedia articles to defend a point. I also remember reading in a translation of Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie an extensive recital of Arthur in this role, but that was about 30 years ago, & it is possible that I have misremembered. In any case, the personage of Arthur has long been a feature of European folklore, as well as medieval literature. -- llywrch 08:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just what was needed! tweak the edit I made of your material! --Wetman 09:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excalibur

Would a better Arthurian than I (that's easy enough to find!) please make sure that all material about Arthur's sword/swords here is actually more fully treated at Excalibur, which is meant to be the main reference. --Wetman 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have put the legend of Macsen Wledig's sword onto excalibur, and mention might be made on Kind Arthur's page, although I don't currently have access to it. Jotto2wonder 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Excalibur and the Sword from the lake??

Please correct me if I’m wrong. But I could have sworn that the Excalibur pulled from the stone and the one that is given to Arthur by the hand in the lake was the same. I recall that though the sword could cut through anything, it could do no wrong. So when used in a duel between Arthur and (I think it was) Lancelot or Galahad, when they first met and his (Lancelot or Galahad) ego provoked Arthur. When Arthur went in for the killing blow the blade broke in two. Merlin took the sword to the lady of the lake to repair it. Following instructions from Merlin Arthur went to the lake and received the blade from the hand in the lake. As far as the sheath goes I don’t remember when he received it. Now that I think about it this might be from the movie Excalibur.

These aren't events, they are parts of the network of narratives that is called a "cycle". By picking and choosing among sources, and adding some fresh detail and interpretations, one can come up with a version to satisfy oneself and one's contemporaries, even today. The task at this entry is to report the versions, and interpret what they signified to their writers and hearers. Just the same with modern retellings. The interpretations give information about the interpreter, as with Christian interpretations of Daniel etc. "Correct" is there none, Master Luke. --Wetman 17:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

I'm fairly sure these are diffrent swords - one breaks, so he recives an unbreakable sword. At least, I believe Excalibur was supposed to be unbreakable - one origin of the name is the phrase 'cut steel' in a language I can't remember, and the other is from a Irish (?) sword carried by heroes such as Cu Chulainn, which probably wouldn't be able to break. He recives the sheath with Excalibur, because Merlin asks which he likes better - sword or scabbard, and then advises him to keep the scabbard safe. DuctapeDaredevil 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Another common interpretation is that we are seeing elements from two autonomous traditions that have been knit together in literary retellings, made to "make sense", rather like the two accounts of creation in Genesis or similar awkward "joins" in the New Testament. --Wetman 03:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be common enough. Legendary figures tend to gather in stories that were previously about someone else. They even merge. Greek gods can be understood as accumulations of local traditions reflected back as unitary figures with local manifestations. Grace Note 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The way that I read of it was that the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur were two completely different swords. Excalibur was given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake, and the Sword in the Stone obviously pulled from the stone. However, the Sword in the Stone eventually broke somehow in a later event, and shortly afterwards Arthur obtained Excalibur. -Kyle 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that some of your comments on the Bible could be offensive, Wetman. I don't get offended easily, so I'm not one of those who is offended. But still, I do suggest that you refrain from such comments. Sorry if this is off topic. --Narfil Palùrfalas 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? More than a few people don't consider Genesis to be literally true (i.e. they think it's myth or allegory or something like that designed to teach certain lessons). Or something like that. My point is, something can't be consider "offensive" merely because someone else doesn't like to hear it. Of course, if one were making such a claim in an article about Genesis, some sort of citation would be needed.-Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Y2robylaw (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

In every version I have ever heard or read, the two swords were different. The first only proved that arthur was the true king, the second, excalibur, was the unbreakable sword. I think that this is the interrpretation that is most commonly presented, which would seem to indicate that the entry should be changed.--Helgers7 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Excalibur" was first used for King Arthur's sword by the French Romancers and there, it is not the "Sword in the Stone", which, as is mentioned above broke in battle. Excalibur is acquired by Arthur with the help of Merddyn (Merlin) as he was concerned about the king falling in battle and took Arthur to a magical lake where the Lady of the Lake offered Arthur a magic unbreakable blade, fashioned by an Avalonian elf smith, along with a scabbard which would protect him as long as he wore it. Near the end of Arthur's reign, Excalibur was stolen by Arthur's half-sister, Morgan le Fay and though it was recovered, the scabbard was lost forever. Consequently Arthur was mortally wounded at Camlann and instructed Bedwyr (or Girflet) to return Excalibur to the lake from whence it came, with the usual story of Bedwr not doing as commanded and Arthur knowing it by his repsonses and sends him back to the lake once more. The early Arthurian stories give the name as Caladfwlch (Welsh - Calad-Bolg meaning "Hard Lightning"), and later it become the Caliburn of Geoffrey and Monmouth and finally the Frenchified Excalibur as is in use today.--Alf ^melmac 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the traditional telling that I have heard and I think most people would agree with me. Therefore I'm proposing that we change the part of the article that says "Some stories say that Arthur did indeed pull the sword from the stone (Excalibur)" to remove the part that says excalibur was the sword pulled from the stone. Also it seems worth mentioning the scabbard as it was quite an important piece of the ledgend, so I think we should put a section of the article refering to it in.--Helgers7 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sword from the Stone

Excalibur the sword pulled from a stone and so then the person able to pull that sword from the stone indicates who should be king - all that is allegorical and story of an actual real thing ... the hunt for therealholy grial, and in that hunt you goto the philospher's stone and there also is that sword and when you learn to pull it out, meaning learn how to use it , you are a super star meaning able to defeat anything and anybody as even an army ... as that actual sword in that real place/real philospher's stone is the ability to destroy anything... /s/ willy the stone meister : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.166.166 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"A small proportion of experts?" WTH?

What does that even mean? A small proportion of experts say that Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of Arthur? Every expert says that. Every single one. Arthur as in the Chason de Rose is Geoffrey -> Wace -> Layaman -> various -> Mallory. Merlin is a better documented literary figure, but he is separate from the Arthur stories until later. Lancelot and Guinevere come in from French sources. I.e. the literary history of Arthur is easy as pie to trace and fairly uncontroversial. "Real" Arthur and British Arthurs are far more speculative, with a scrap here and a scrap there, but Monmouth cites a source that few now believe existed and made up a warrior king who was tamed and prettified over time as Romance tradition reshaped the tale. Seriously: find even one "expert" who says that Geoffrey didn't write the first Arthurian Romance (not a mention, not a feature, but an actual gesta of Arthur) or who denies that he wrote it. Geogre 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true. From Geoffrey onwards is pretty straightforward. It's in the realms of a solid written history. Whether Geoffrey made up his source, or was using a lost MS that might have been perhaps a collection of Welsh traditions (many of the names he gives match the names in Welsh oral traditions that were written down around the same time, so it's quite possible; you don't have to look far to find Arthurs in older works than Geoffrey, but obviously we can't know whether he borrowed the tradition or just the name) is another matter. Grace Note 02:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Guenevere was there before Lancelot. Lancelot's relationship with Guenevere (the 'courtly love' bit) is French, as is Lancelot. DuctapeDaredevil 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SOUTHERN SCOTTISH ORIGINS OF ARTHUR

Has anyone ever heard the arguement that Arthur was a cavalry general (or something similar) of one of the brythonic celtic kingdoms of southern scotland after the roman withdrawal, fighting the picts and scots in the north and the angles and saxons in the south. There is a book written on it, called "Arthur and the lost kingdoms". The arguments were very convincing, including points such as 1. Southern Britain (including what is now england and wales) was demilitarised by the Romans and no natives could carry weapons etc. There was no fighting tradition for several centuries in the south, however, in what is now southern scotland the Romanised kingdoms were heavily militarised and trained in cavalry tacticsby the romans to be a buffer state against the war-like picts in the north. It is much easier to envisage a resistance leading warrior in one of the southern scottish kingdoms then in the previously demilitarised south.

2. THe poem, Y Gododdin, which is one of the main sources of Arthur, was written in Brythonic southern scotland. In fact, once the kingdom of Gododdin was conquered by Angles, many fled to what is now Wales and brought their traditions and tales with them. It is highly likely the military and heroic stories of the refugees from southern scotland have been appropriated by the Welsh over time.

3. He also considers various toponomyic reasons, with town, site and river names in southern scotland which point to the existance of Arthur in that region, specifically in the kingdom of Gododdin.

There are several other arguements he puts forth in a thoroughly researched book. I suggest reading this book if you are scepitcal of this theory of Arthurs location. Many people forget the Welsh-speaking history of southern scotland. THere is not much written about it due to the lack of history in the dark ages, however, it was the last beacon of roman civilization and christianity when the north was still barbarian and the south was being lost to the anglo-saxons. (Contributed by anon editor at 138.130.12.90 on 23:08, 26 December 2005)

Yes, it's one theory -- one of many. Had you included full bibliographic information about this book (all you told us was the title), we might have included it as one of the theories about the historical Arthur. -- llywrch 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The book is "Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms", written by Alistair Moffat, published by Trafalgar Square (January 1, 1999). If that is of any help

Perhaps the Arthur that fought with the Saxons was simply trying to capture the imagination by using an older tale as his name. Many traditions did come from southern Scotland to Wales, so perhaps Arthur gained his inspiration from the old tale. Arthur definatley defended the Roman Latin Church from the Saxons, otherwise there wouldn't be such medieval historical intrest in him. Catuvellauni (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 17:3417 January 2008

Actually, Moffat's book presents it quite well and at the right time to be the Real King Arthur. I see no reason to ascribe the legends to another person. ---G.T.N. (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "In the earliest mentions and in Welsh texts, he is never given the title "Queen."

Anything here sounds unusual ? ;)

Well to be fair he probably wasn't was he.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted the changes made to the categories by Smccandlish, which made "King Arthur" appear under K rather than A, which is more appropriate. I also re-added the Cornish people category-- being born at Tintagel, the Arthur of legend can be considered Cornish.--Cuchullain 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Family Tree

I've merged in a "supposed" family tree. It will need looking at. SilkTork 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved it here. It seems like a conglomeration of several versions of the family tree (Guinevak?), and the layout is confusing. Is there a better way to do this?

This is one supposed family tree of King Arthur, as presented by .

                Constantine II
 Constans  Ambrosius Aurelianus  Uther Pendragon
                Leodegan        Arthur   m.
      Guinevak       Guinevere  m.       Igraine
          m.                                m.
          Mordred                        Gorlois
                      Morgause  Morgana  Elaine
                         m.        m.       m.
                        Lot     Uriens  Nentress
Gawain Agravaine Gaheris Gareth  Yvain
           m.        m.       m.
         Laurel   Lynette    Lyonesse

--Cuchullain 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Family tree. I haven't got wives of the Orkney brothers because I couldn't find any, but I know at least Gwalchmai had sons... Oh, and here's a key for what the different sorts of lines mean. DuctapeDaredevil 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to disparage your work, but it still has wrong information. Guinevak and the false Guinevere are two different characters, and neither were married to Mordred. Your family tree also implies that Guinevere and Meleagaunt are brother and sister, but they are not... Meleaguant is the son of King Bagdemagus in every telling I've ever seen. And the name of Mordred's wife Cwyllog is speculative. I just don't think we need the genealogy at all, it's bound to be incorrect or based on a mishmash of genealogies from different works.--Cúchullain t / c 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are so many tellings, that no matter what you think, you can find something wrong with all of it. the only solid bit is that Arthur is son of Uther, marries Guinevere, and is somehow related to Mordred. Everything else can be pulled any direction by any source.

Erph. I dunno where I got the Meleagaunt bit, sorry. And:

"he leaves Guinevere in the care of Mordred, who plots to marry the queen himself and take Arthur's throne. In some versions Guinevere assents to Mordred's proposal..." is in Guinevere. Also: "Medraut supposedly had two sons and popular late tradition gives him a second wife, Princess Cwyllog, one of the many daughter of the great Northern King Caw." While it continues to say she may not be real, most of the others involved are fictional as well. I never said that Guinevere and Guinevak are the same - I assume this is just misreading the tree, which I agree is confusing, but that's the only way I could get it to work. (/defensive) And yeah, it really is just going to be a mishmash. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. DuctapeDaredevil 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your family tree implies that Guinevak is the same as the False Guinevere, a character from the Vulgate Cycle who tricks Arthur into thinking she is his real queen. She is not connected to Mordred or Guinevak. Many versions have Mordred marry the real Guinevere (or try to), but I believe the earliest connection between Medrawt and Guinevak is from the 19th century. And I don't know if the supposed "popular late tradition" of Cwyllog is accurate or not, but I've only seen it on the internet and without reference to a source.

That said, you've done good work, but I still don't think a genealogy would add enough to this article to be worth it.--Cúchullain t / c 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. DuctapeDaredevil 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This family tree needs to be streched further to the right to give the names more room so that it looks clearer and is easier to understand. I also disagree with the names on the family tree because it is suggesting that a great Celtic leader who is a symbol for independence is directly related to the Romans oppresers of Celtic Britain who destroyed the Celtic religion The Black Year when the Romans stormed Ynys Mon (Anglesey) and slaghtured the Druids, the Romans also stopped progress in Britain, (when the Romans left Britain farms increased). I don't think that a genelogy past Arthur, his father,mother, wife, children and some of Mordred's family, because anything else will be disputed, and will just add to any possible confusion.--Rhydd Meddwl 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to make a good family tree would be to make it on a word program and take a picture of the computer screen, or something like that. Wrad 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make a tree of the family as mentioned in the article? Or just several? ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sword in the stone

I've moved the text that was recently deleted because it doesn't relate to Arthur to Excalibur. Fastidious editors rarely delete sensible text. --Wetman 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It already was at Excalibur, the same editor put it there too. I'll delete the redundant passage, but I'm not sure it's really "sensible".--Cúchullain t / c 20:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 21:20, 14 February 2006 by 210.8.110.33

The entire "Arthur in Other Media" section was replaced with a huge chunk of un-wikified text, which clearly didn't belong there, and may have been copyrighted. See the history to determine if there's anything of value.

"Personality"?

I've noticed that the articles of the Knights show how they are generally portrayed in stories (i.e., Cai as a braggart and a fool), but here they only talk about how he is portrayed as in his job. Can someone talk about what kind of person he is portrayed as? 64.198.112.210 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Was the stone the stone of scone (the stone of Destiny)?

I seem to remember reading somewhere an article or story that suggested the stone from which Arthur removed the sword was the Stone of Destiny. If nobody can confirm that this is or isn't the case in the legend, I will add a note to a relevant section with the citation tag. --Mal 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard that before, I'm sure it's just someone's modern take on the two legends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know though. We both share names of one of Ulster's greatest heroes, but I don't know if you're aware of the apparent Irish input to the lengend of King Arthur. The Knights of the Round Table are said to have been based on the Red Branch Army of Ulster, and Gawain is said to have been one of those knights - perhaps even based on Setanta himself. We know of the mixing of French, Welsh and English stories into this legend already, and I believe it has been suggested that there is evidence of some Irish influence also. I have heard of this suggestion regarding the stone, which is obviously why I put the question here. I'll give it some more time, and might try to do some research myself at some point. Cheers. --Mal 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Irish input: I've read somewhere that Arthur appears in Irish legend as a raider defeated by and who swears fealty to Fionn mac Cumhaill. Uthanc 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an Artuir, son of Benne Brit the king of Britain, who appears in the Colloquy of the Ancients in the role you describe. He doesn't seem to be the same Arthur, although he may have been a parody of him. --Nicknack009 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

First British colour series?

"The Adventures of Sir Lancelot... was the first British television series ever to be made in colour."

I've always believed that Gerry Anderson's Stingray (TV series) was the first to be shot in colour. Of course both shows were distributed internationally by ITC Entertainment which was after the Yankee bucks. Lee M 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Stingray article explains - "It was also the first British television programme to be filmed entirely in colour (the earlier The Adventures of Sir Lancelot having only been made in colour from halfway through its run)." -- Beardo 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a medieval best-seller

The previous version said that an early version of the Arthurian romance was the medieval version of a best-seller. This is misleading. Printing hadn't been invented yet, and there were no public libraries. Books were hand-copied on parchment and only the very rich could afford them. Bigvalleytim 20:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Riothamus?

Question from a history/mythology novice: I recently read an old (1980's) Geoffrey Ashe book suggesting that Arthur was most likely written into the few historical records of the time as a leader known as Riothamus. There's no mention of that name here...is this just an obscure idea that hasn't crossed anyone's radar, or has it been so thoroughly disproven that it requires no mention? Amarana

See Riothamus, and also Geoffrey Ashe. --Wetman 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Various media

The "various media" section was getting extremely long, so I moved it to its own page here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian?

Is King Arthur a Christian? In some interpretations (e.g The "King Arthur" Movie) emphasis his role as a Christian. Should this information be added to the article?Arthur 07:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, King Arthur is a Christian. So is almost every character from medieval literature. I don't think it needs to be emphasized in the article.

It's useful to those who knows nothing about medieval literature. (e.g. me) Arthur 07:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But earlier versions may well not have been Christian. -- Beardo 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This begs the question of 'where' Arthur comes from. All of the sources we have for King Arthur are Christian sources. There's no real reason to suppose there ever was an 'earlier' version, although, naturally, the creators of the Arthur legends will have picked bits up from all over the place, as commonly happens in folklore. Martin Turner 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He was a Christian. That is why he defended Western Britain from the Saxon invasion. The Saxons weren't Christian, and so Arthur was trying to defend the old latin church from the invaders. That is why it is more likely he was from Western Britain, or Wales, as Latin was strong there and the Saxons invaeded from the South East. The Welsh word for 'English-person' after all does atcually mean Saxon (Saeson)Catuvellauni (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

About the sword artworks

Are they really useful? They look too much like "fantasy" designs to me. Maybe it would be better if they were historically accurate, relative to the time period of the tales (Caledflwch a Celtic sword with serpents for hilts, as it is actually described - see Excalibur, and Excalibur/the Sword in the Stone a medieval sword). Uthanc 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

Origins of Arthur

Is there any reason why there is not (published) any discussion of a possible Scottish origin for Arthur? See the following sites: http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/ for a free download of the book by David F. Carroll ( http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/order.htm ) http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/kings.html http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/arthur.htm

I freely admit that I have no data to support either viewpoint - just looking for what is said in the discussion.

Sammy Dyck 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...and where is the Norwegian origin of Arthur discussed? --Wetman 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of Arthur by English nobility and royalty until the Normans?

Though Saint Gildas and others have mentioned or eluded to such a heroic person, what I tend to notice is the lack of any desire to emulate Arthur's greatness by the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Dane royalty. It's not until King William I that I am noticing any attempt to emulate Arthur in the royal court, whether he's for real or not. Maybe he left such a long lasting impression of failure to the Anglo-Saxons who eventually defeated Arthur allegedly in the 6th Century On the other hand, he may have been somebody they wanted to forget about that caused so much devastation to their advancement and settling. Then perhaps seen as a rebel in some sort of way for a noble reason or cause; he's protecting his homeland from the invaders and this light perhaps King William I did not see himself as an invader, but a justifiable retribution in taking what he was led to believe or had believed what was rightfully his based on the claim that he allied or was related to the Breton peoples. It was the exiled Bretons during the Saxon invasion that took the heoric storys and deeds of Arthur to the continent and then it reach Normandy after it had swept Britanny. Whether or not King William I was related to King Arthur, he used Arthur as a part of his "just cause" to the conquest of England. yeomanrycavalry 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism clean-up

I'm removing some obvious vandalism, but I'm not familiar with how to do a revert and unfortunately do not have time to research that now. I'd ask someone to compare the version (of ~3:25am? gmt oct 28) to ensure that nothing was removed as part of the vandalism. Thanks Jebbo 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(Someone beat me to it - all's well) Jebbo 03:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Arthurs?

Maybe there were two King Arthurs, one a general much time before the other, who was a medieval king.

71.34.243.96 02:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Jon Armor Mode

Vandalism again

I've reverted to an older version as the page just showed an irrelevant line of vandalism. I've removed the reference to Saddam killing all of Arthur's men. It might be useful for someone to review this page and see if there's any vandlaism still in there that I've missed. 164.36.142.217 13:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was placed by the same IP who removed it. see: 164.36.142.217 (talk · contribs) . Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps they were caught doing it and made to revert it - maybe by a teacher. Totnesmartin 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite common - more likely people seeing if they really can change an article. -- Beardo 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Teachers hate wikipedia... Slayerofangels 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Text moved here

"Recent archaeological studies show that during Arthur's alleged lifetime, the Anglo-Saxon expansions were halted until the next generation." Since Arthur's "lifetime" is not securely established, these unsourced "studies" must be part of the contention, rather than part of a solution. Sub-Roman archaeology in England, at its present state, could not detect a "pause" in A-S "expansions", themselves mooted, could it? --Wetman 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Text edit

"Though some theories suggest he was a Roman Britain or pre-Roman character, by most theories, and in line with the traditional cycle of legends, he was a Romano-British leader..." A theory that a historical Arthur pre-dated the Roman conquest would be unusual enough to require identifying in a footnote. A "Roman Briton" is identical to a "Romano-British leader". I have streamlined this text that startsa paragraph in the "Historicity" section. --Wetman 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture

Some-one included a note by the picture, querying whether that is the right Arthur. From the German wikipedia - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artus - they seem to be making the connection, too - "Artus (engl. Arthur), ist ein sagenhafter britischer König, der um 500 gegen die eindringenden Angeln und Sachsen gekämpft haben soll, auch wenn wohl auch ältere und jüngere Elemente Spuren in der Sage hinterlassen haben."

Though is that the best picture to illustrate the article ? -- Beardo 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Giant doughnuts?

As I read this article, it begins as follows:

"King Jerad Zidanic of somerset P,A is an important figure in the mythology of Giant doughnuts, where he appears as the ideal of kingship both in war and peace. He is the central character in the cycle..."

Surely this is incorrect. Someone with adequete knowledge should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2007

Note: Searching thru the history of this article, I was unable to find the vandalism this comment refers to. -- llywrch 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance

The article could use some info about his appearance in the legends (discounting modern fiction, of course). In Malory ("Arthur and Lucius"?) he is said to have grey eyes. The red hair article claims that he is traditionally a redhead. Uthanc 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When was he alive?

Yes, I know that it's disputed whether King Arthur was real or not, but what year would it have been likely for him to be king? Janet6 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If he ever lived (and I don't believe he did), it would have been at the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries. --Nicknack009 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Does any one think (as I do) that there is a need for a King Arthur Wikiproject? I was just looking at Morte D'Arthur, and it needs some help. I also have been working on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which was a bit sad when I first saw it. I think there's plenty of work to do, we just need to organize ourselves. Wrad 00:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've thought we could use one for years now. Your right, Le Morte d'Arthur is in serious need of help, and articles like Lancelot-Grail really need expansion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in if one is made! Wrad 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I put up a project proposal on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#King Arthur. Anyone interested in this project is invited to join! We need at least 5-10 in order to begin the project. Wrad 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Said proposal seems to have become official: Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival Bot?

This talk page is getting long. Any objections to getting a bot to archive old discussions for us? Wrad 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a very good idea, Wrad. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Tudor

Arthur Tudor, named after Arthur with a hope that he would restore English greatness, he never did I personally think that does not sound right. I think that: 'Arthur Tudor, named after Arthur with the hope that he would restore English greatness, though never did because of his early death.' Anyone agree with me?

I do. Wrad 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Tudor was named so in order to try to please the people of Wales and prove he had not forgotten his roots. Yet at the same time it did not Provoke the English, thus I think it was quite a clever name to call him. Catuvellauni (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dux Bellorum

The given translation for this in the article is "Duke of battles". While this is sourced, I think it is wrong. The literal Latin translation (from collins dictionary and Latin class) is "Leader of battles". This is a subtle change, but as "Duke" can be used as a title, I think it should be changed. Storeye 11:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Cornish Legend about King Arthur

Cornish legend had it that the Cornish chough symbolised the soul of King Arthur, who would one day come to the rescue of Cornishmen. The chough has returned to the cliffs of Cornwall. This magnificent crow, with its distinctive orange-red beak and legs, is Cornwall's national symbol and was once widespread but had vanished from Cornwall by the 1970s. The Cornish chough symbolised the soul of King Arthur

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4