The Infinite Character of King Arthur:
His History and legend;
His Camelot and Avalon
Jill M Roberts
Jill M Roberts
Using the scanty details available, the romances constructed an entire biography of King Arthur. Beginning with his conception – assisted by Merlin’s magic – they take us through to his death, or removal to the Blessed Isles, a place from which it was said he would one day return to liberate Britain from the invaders’ yoke.
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table
Despite all the efforts that exhausted the search for Arthur through the centuries, he has managed to escape history. Since not only is there lack of evidence to support who he really was, can there be proof of his actual existence? There is some reference to Arthur through archaeology, myths and recorded history, however, there are many inconsistencies throughout them all. Disentangling the truth and reality from the folklore and the myths, and carefully piecing them together, some truths will become evident.
Digging deep within the history and the legends, contradictions and inconsistencies are far and wide. Arthur, through the different authors over the centuries, has been depicted in many contrasting ways. He appears as this great warrior, loving monarch, fool to love and blood- thirsty tyrant, through the romances. The twelfth century authors and poets created the romances that reinforce our present day knowledge of King Arthur. Chretien de Troyes created Sir Lancelot, other knights, and is the first to refer to Camelot. Is this imaginary or historical? Can we separate the two or intertwine them to appear to be fact? King Arthur is looked at in two aspects, a historical monarch, and a popular topic for the romances. In asking the question of King Arthur’s existence, yes or no does not apply. It is not a simple black or white situation. We find ourselves in the gray shaded area. To say he did exist during the time the legends have him set is false. However, to say he is totally fictitious is false as well. The character of Arthur portrayed in the romances are based on some facts. The time period is off, Arthur did not exist in the Middle Ages where the code of chivalry was conducted. Nor did he introduce chivalry. The Arthur talked about in the legends is based on a great warrior, not a knight in shining armor. Finding his geneology and examining it, is quite interesting.
Aside from the legends of Wace, Layamon, Chretein de Troyes, and Sir Thomas Malory, we need to dig deeper within the history. The romances are based on some facts, but are completely fictitious. Arthur has always been a popular source when it comes to myths. The real Arthur is what we are after.
According to Ashe, “From a strange medley of clues, patiently pieced together in the last forty or fifty years, one certainty at least emerges. The Arthurian Legend, however wide-ranging its vagaries, is rooted in an Arthurian Fact. As the legend is unique, so the fact is unique. In essence, it is this. Britain, alone among the lands of the Roman Empire, achieved independence before the northern barbarians poured in, and put up a fight against them – a very long, and at one stage a successful, fight. Between Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England there is an interregnum, which is not a chaos as historians once imagined, but a creative epoch with a character of its own. This rally of a Celtic people in some degree Romanised and Christianised is the reality of Arthur’s Britain. It occurs in a dark age, the mysterious gap in British history. The modern investigator’s problem is to bring light into the darkness – where it may, possibly, reveal the features of Arthur himself” (Ashe 27). The modern Arthurian story was made popular by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century. Arthur was believed to be a British king, who lived six hundred years before. During the twelfth century, many authors created stories reguarding Arthur and his knights, which became known as the Arthurian romances.
Each of the successful writers added to Geoffrey’s account. The first to extend the fact into legend was Wace, a Jersey poet. In 1155, he included the Round Table into King Arthur tales. The French poet, Chretien de Troyes around 1170, not only introduced Sir Lancelot and other knights, chivalry and courtly love, he was the first to refer to Arthur’s court as Camelot. Around the year 1200, Layamon spoke of the sacred isle of Avalon, where King Arthur went to mend his wounds. It is said that one day he will return to rule Britain. Journeying into the thirteenth century, Sir Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte D’arthur. This is all the stories collectively put into one version. This is the first of the legends to be printed. By the time Malory wrote, Arthur had already been “medievalised”. He was portrayed as this knight in shining armor and feudal king. The oldest withstanding Arthurian story was Historia Regum Britanniae, written around 1135 by Geoffrey of Monmouth. “According to Geoffrey, Arthur was born at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, and after many great deeds was finally transported to the mysterious isle of Avalon after being wounded in the battle of Camlann, also in Cornwall” (Phillips 9). Although much of Geoffrey’s story can not be supported by historical evidence, he did not invent King Arthur. William of Malmesbury mentions Arthur in his work, Gesta Regum Anglorum. “William tells us that Arthur aided Ambrosius Aurelianus in holding back the advancing Angles and led the British at the battle of Baddon” (Phillips 11).
In the British Library, there are two manuscripts that were written in the early twelfth century that contain some “facts” about Arthur and a list of his battles. One is the Annales Cambriae, which states about 518 A.D. Arthur won the battle of Badon. It also states that Arthur was slain in 539 A.D. at the battle of Camlann. It reads, 516. LXXII. Annus. Bellum Badonis, in quo Arthur portavit crucem Domini nostri Jesu Christi tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in humeros suos et Britones victores fuerunt.. The second reference to Arthur reads, 537. XCIII. Annus. Gueith Camlann, in qua Arthur et Medraut corruere; et mortalitas in Brittania et in Hibernia fuit.. The other manuscript, Historia Britonum, gives us more information about Arthur. It contains a list of his battles, placing them directly after the death of Hengist, which helps narrow down his existence to occur around the late fifth and early sixth centuries. However, since this was the Dark Age, no written records survived. This brings us back to relying on Geoffrey for accounts and accuracies of Arthur’s life.
“Artorius Dux Bellorum – The British Arthur, Lord of Battles – was the historical figure around whom the myths and legends of King Arthur whirled” (Day 17). Many questions have been asked of who was this man and where was his lost kingdom? Since written records were weak for almost two centuries after Arthur’s time, we rely on oral tradition. Oral tradition at this time was strong and rich. “History and myth would combine to make him the Alexander the Great of the British people” (Day 17).
“As the commander of the elite British cavalry, Arthur the Dux Bellorum stood out at the head of his forces on a white horse. He was as renowned for his personal fearlessness as for his bold tactics in battle. The Dux Bellorum stood at the head of the army as was his right, and a fluttering banner with the Red Dragon on his right, with none before him but the enemy. …Arthur could not be mistaken for anyone other than the Lord of Battles” (Day 17).
The desire of reading these text legends about Arthur, and exploring the myths and romances comes from within the reader. Is it our curiosity, or do we want to put all the pieces of this puzzle together? To completely understand Arthur, we have to reach within ourselves. We learn more about ourselves through him. Of course this entails collective and individual understanding. We must study these myths and legends to learn what we can about the age of Arthur and the people who surrounded him.
“The Arthurian legend brings together a number of different motifs from folklore, out of which builds a relatively coherent structure. In the figure of Arthur we see a fusion of several traditions and cultural elements: Celtic mythology, the classical heritage, feudalism and the Christian tradition” (Berthelot 67).
There are a number of signs that are in fact reliable to date the period of Arthur’s life. The battle of Badon, which associates itself with Arthur, proves to be a historical event. Bede and Gildas attested to this. Since this was within their living memories, they can be certain that the battle of Badon occurred during the late fifth century. Bede and Gildas refer to the battle forty-four years after the Saxon advent.
From the majority of research, the evidence contracted by the different authors contradict their hypothesis of the historical figure who is “Arthur”. Hence, I have decided to take part with Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman.
“In the list of genealogies, compiled around 955 from earlier records, attached to the Annales Cambriae and contained with manuscript Harley 3859 in the British Library of London, the father of Cuneglasus is identified. He was the son of Ennuaun Girt, and his name was Owain Ddantgwyn.
All the available evidence indicates that Owain Ddantgwyn was the historical figure who assumed the title ‘Arthur’.
Owain Ddantgwyn was ruling in the last decade of the fifth century, precisely the period in which the Historia Brittonum locates ‘Arthur’.
Owain Ddantgwyn was the son of one of the Gwynedd kings, who were known as the ‘head dragons’. ‘Uther Pendragon’, meaning ‘terrible head dragon’, was the father of ‘Arthur’.
Owain Ddantgwyn, as king of both Gwynedd and Powys, was the most powerful ruler in Britain at the time of the battle of Badon, where the British were led to victory by ‘Arthur’.
Owain Ddantgwn was the father of Cuneglasus, whose predecessor was called the ‘Bear’. The ‘Bear’ is almost certainly the origin of the name ‘Arthur’.
Owain Ddantgwyn may have died in the battle in the valley of Camlan near Dolgellau. Camlann is where the Annales Cambriae recorded the death of ‘Arthur’”. (Phillips 161)
Unfortunately, beside Owain Ddantgwyn’s name, nothing else was
recorded of him. The scholars go on to say that we know nothing of his personality, appearance, his beliefs, nor immediate family. Perhaps the lack of historical information concerning Arthur is what made him so famous. Some scholars feel that it made him free to be everything to everyone. Authors could run with their imaginations.
The following is a summary of what Phillips and Keatman found to be “The Real Arthur”:
“Having traced the life and times of the real King Arthur, we close in on the historical figure himself, piecing together the evidence to reveal the flesh and blood warrior behind the legend.
The most likely date for Arthur’s death coincides precisely with the abandonment of Viroconium about 520. This is the generally accepted date for Cuneglasus becoming king of Powys, and Maglocunus becoming king of Gwynedd, a time when the two kingdoms split apart. Since Viroconium was under no threat from the Saxons for decades to come, the only explanation for the abandonment of the city for a more defendable site is a threat from the adjoining kingdom of Gwynedd. In other words, Cuneglasus was preparing to defend himself against the threat from Maglocunus. Internal feuding breaking out at this time is not only evidence for Arthur’s demise, but also suggests that Cuneglasus and Maglocunus were his rival successors.
Arthur appears to have been the son of the Head Dragon, the leader of the Votadini in the 480s and king of both Gwynedd and Powys. The Head Dragon seems to have been Cunedda’s son, Enniaun Girt, who according to the genealogies is the grandfather of Maglocunus and Cuneglasus, both of whom became kings in their own right. If Enniaun Girt was Arthur’s father, then Arthur must have been the father of either Maglocunus or Cuneglasus.
Since Maglocunus was by far the most powerful of the two kings, then perhaps Arthur was Maglocunus’ father, named in the genealogies as Cadwallon Lawhir. However, on reading Gildas we discover that Maglocunus did not succeed from his father, but from his uncle. From the genealogies we discover that this uncle was Cuneglasus’ father.
The name of this Dark Age warlord survives in a list of genealogies, compiled around 955 from earlier monastic records and now attached to the Annales Cambriae in a manuscript indexed ‘Harley 3859’ in the British Library. The genealogy reveals that Cuneglasus’ father was called Owain Ddantgwyn.
All of the available evidence indicates that Owain Ddantgwyn was the historical figure who assumed the title ‘Arthur’. He ruled in the same place at the same time as our research has located King Arthur. He ruled Gwynedd and Powys simultaneously, and was thus the most powerful ruler in Britain at the time of the battle of Badon, in which Arthur led the British to their most important victory of the era. Arthur almost certainly means the Bear and Owain Ddantgwyn was the father of Cuneglasus, whom Gildas refers to as the ‘charioteer of the Bear’s stronghold’.
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur was mortally wounded at the battle of Camlann while attempting to quash a revolt by his nephew. Although this nephew is called Modred, the legend may have sprung from the real-life Maglocunus who, according to Gildas, acquired his kingdom by overthrowing his uncle. Since Gwynedd and Powys formed a united kingdom prior to the succession of Maglocunus in Gwynedd, the border land between the two kingdoms is the logical site for a battle in which Maglocunus severed his kingdom of Gwynedd from the kingdom of Powys.
A bleak and remote valley about five miles to the east of Dolgellau in Central-West Wales is actually called Camlan, although it is spelt with a single ‘n’. It is surely beyond coincidence that the only location in Great Britain ever known to have been called Camlan is precisely and strategically situated in the border area of the kingdoms of Gwynedd and Powys as they existed in the early sixth century. Not only is Camlann the name given to Arthur’s last battle by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but the Annales Cambriae also record Arthur’s death at the battle of Camlann” (Phillips 163-4).
There has been a lot of disagreements between scholars over the issue of who was the “Real” King Arthur. All have valid points, but the information above seems the most accurate. Included here is the British leadership in the fifth and early sixth centuries.
Don’t let it be forgot
That there once was a spot,
For one brief, shining moment that was known as Camelot.
Medieval Music in RealAudio Format
Edi be thu, heven-queene
From English Songs of the Middle Ages, performed and recorded by Sequentia.
Camelot was the most famous castle in the medieval legends of King Arthur. According to the legend, he reigned over Briton before the Saxon conquest. At Camelot, Arthur established a profound court and seated the most brave and chivalrous knights at his Round Table. Camelot initiated the search for the grail and by the thirteenth century, it became the center of the Arthurian world and legend.
The early stories do not refer to Camelot by name. It was first mention by Chretien de Troyes in Lancelot or The Knight of the Cart. Many authors throughout the ages have placed Camelot in different locations. Malory placed the castle in Winchester, Geoffrey of Monmouth placed it in Wales, and some theories even place it near Tintagel.
According to the romance writers, Camelot was named after a pagan king called Camaalis. In the 1960s, excavations at Cadbury Castle sought to place Camelot’s ruins there. There is a lot of tradition to support this belief. Cadbury is an earthwork fort of the Iron Age. Also, it looks over the Vale of Avalon to Glastonbury.
“Cadbury Castle, and Iron Age hill fort beside the village of South Cadbury in Somerset, has three features of Arthurian interest: first, its longstanding designation by the name Camelot; second, a miscellany of local folklore related to this; and third, its proved reoccupation and refortification during the period within which Arthur supposedly lived” (Lacy 63).
As Lacy states, there was never a ‘castle’ in the medieval sense. He seems to think that the hill itself was the ‘castle’. John Leland, in his Itinerary (1542), wrote: “At the very south end of the church of South-Cadbyri standeth Camallate, sometime a famous town or castle. . . . The people can tell nothing there but that they have heard say Arthur much resorted to Camalat”.
In Camelot no man shall take to battle in a wrongful quarrel for no law, nor for world’s goods. Unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round.
Le Morte d’Arthur – Malory
King Arthur had the ultimate kingdom, Camelot. It was said to be a ‘medieval Utopia’ governed by Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Camelot was shaped by the ideals of courtly love and chivalry. Tennyson writes in the Idylls of the King, that it is symbolic of “the gradual growth of human beliefs and institutions, and of the spiritual development of man.”
According to Day, if Camelot was a medieval Utopia, then we must remember that the word utopia is Greek for ‘no place’. It is a fairy-tale city with no true archaelogical historical evidence. As Lacy and Ashe put it, it was Arthur’s personal capital. No one after him held court there. It is and always will be identified with Arthur. Camelot had a religious sense as well. It is here where the knights were baptised and it was the departure point for the grail search. As said before, the Camelot we know was the invention of the French poets. The real Camelot seems to have been agreed upon to be at Winchester Castle in Wessex. It was here that they found the Round Table. Today it still hangs there.
Even though the table was found, it was dated back to Edward I (1239-1307). Edward was one of the Arthurian supporters. He paralled his kingdom after Arthur. He arranged to have his son, Edward II wear the ‘crown of Arthur’ which he claimed in 1282. Edward II became the first Prince of Wales.
“After Edward I, the connection between the royal family and King Arthur via the Round Table was continually reinforced. In 1344, Edward III vowed to establish a new Order of the Round Table. He commissioned a huge stone Round Table Hall, but unfortunately, both the hall and the order were cancelled when Edward III heard the French king had already embarked on a similar project. (In its place, Edward established the Order of the Garter and this exclusive knighthood – its membership is set at twenty-six – continues to this day.) Following the War of the Roses (1450-85), the Tudor royal family seized on the Round Table tradition as a means of drawing together the many political factions of the country under one ruler. In 1516 the Round Table at Winchester was painted and indeed we can see the downfall of the Stuart kings, the rise of Cromwell and the return of the monarchy directly reflected in its physical condition” (Day 97).
Arthur had a huge influence on Britain, as well as other countries in Europe. This, from legends, myths and facts that are intergraded to affect people thereafter.
Yet some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of Our Lord Jesu into another place; and men say that he shall come again, and he shall win the holy cross. I will not say that it shall be so, but rather I will say, here in this world he changed his life. But many men say that there is written upon his tomb this verse: HIC IACET ARTHURUS, REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS
Excerpt form Le Morte d’Arthur – Malory
Geoffrey of Monmouth refers to the Isle of Avalon as the place Arthur escaped to to mend his wounds. The word Avalon itself has a Celtic root meaning the “apple” place. In Geoffrey’s History of the Kings of Britain, he speaks of Arthur’s sword forged in Avalon and it being his last destination. In Geoffrey’s Vita Merlini, he claims the island to be Insula Pomorum. He also adds that it is called Fortunate.
“It lies vaguely over western waters and is the home of Morgan – i.e., Morgan le Fay – here dipicted as a kindly enchantress heading a sisterhood of nine. In Geoffrey’s poem, the bard Talicsin tells how Arthur was taken there after Camlann in a boat piloted by Barinthus, an authority on seafaring who also figures in the Irish tale of St. Brendan’s Voyage. Morgan placed Arthur on a bed made of gold, examined his major wound, and undertook to heal him if he would stay in Avalon for a long time under her care” (Lacy 25).
According to Lacy and Ashe, “The only challenge to this mythical view of Avalon came in 1191 at Glastonbury, with its ancient monastery in a Somerset hill cluster, once almost encircled by water. A pre-Christian eeriness that clung to the highest of its hills, the Tor, helped to sustain a claim by the monks that Glastonbury was the true Avalon, Arthur’s last earthly destination. They said so because they had found what they asserted to be his grave, with an inscribed cross bearing his name and the island’s. The equation passed into some of the Grail literature that drew on the legends of Glastonbury’s Christian antiquity.
Avalon thus has two meanings: as Glastonbury, and as the otherworldly isle. Malory hesitates between them. In both cases, it is Arthur’s last destination, but at Glastonbury it is his resting place in death, whereas the island is the scene of his retreat from the world, his healing, and his immortality” (Lacy & Ashe 285).
The medieval historian, Gerald of Wales, tells us that sometime before he died in 1189, Henry II gave a message to the monks of Glastonbury concerning the grave of Arthur. He also tells us that he got the information from an unnamed Welsh bard. Gerald goes on to say that the monks acted on this information and uncovered a hollowed out log containing the two bodies. It was said that the log coffin was buried sixteen feet deep. Under the log, an odd shaped cross was found with a latin inscription. It named the bodies as King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. Beside Gerald’s account, other accounts of the grave and cross appeared over the years. It is said that at least five different versions of the inscription of the cross have been reported.
Adding to the suspicions due to the inconsistencies, the “monastic hoax” is strenghtened by motives. According to scholars, three apparent motives are obvious:
The monks’ abbey church was destroyed by a fire in 1184, just a few years before.
The abbey’s greatest attraction, the “Old Church” had been burned up with it.
Henry II who was their chief benefactor, had recently died, therefore he could not finance their efforts to rebuild.
A verse from the Welsh Stanzas of the Graves states:
There is a grave for March, a grave for Gwythur,
A grave for Gwgawn Red –sword;
The world’s wonder, a grave for Arthur
The historian, William of Malmesbury, confirms that the whereabouts of Arthur’s burial place is unknown, and that silly legends have been created as a result:
. . . tomb of Arthur is nowhere beheld, whence the ancient ditties fable that he is yet to come.
Given the immediate need for cash to rebuild their abbey, the death of benefactor, many feel this was a scheme they came up with to raise funds. At the same time, it gave the church sanctity and prestige to be a resting place for saints and kings.
The varied accounts of the incriptions on Arthur’s Cross are as follows:
Ralph of Coggeshall – Chronicon Anglicanum 1225
“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”
Margam Abbey (Wales) – Chronicle some date it early 1190s, others, fourteenth century.
“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”
John Leland, 1542
“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”
William Camden, Britannia 1607
“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”
Monks of St. Albans, Chronica Majora mid to late thirteenth century.
“Here lies the renowned King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”
Adam of Domerham – Historia de rebus Glastoniensibus 1291
“Here lies interred in the isle of Avalon, the renowned King Arthur”
Gerald of Wales – Liber de Principis instructione 1193
“Here lies buried the famous King Arthur with Guinevere his second wife in the isle of Avalon”
Gerald of Wales – Speculum Ecclesiae 1216
“Here lies buried the famous King Arthur in the isle of Avalon with his second wife Guinevere.
We then ask ourselves, if the monks were trying to deceive us,
would they not have made sure everyone was telling the same story? If this was a hoax, there would have been major publicity and expressing the finding to the world. They could have turned the abbey into an attraction. Especially being that King Arthur was ever so popular at that time. Oddly enough, none of that occurred. There was no advertisement except for a few mentions of it in monastic chronicles over the years.
According to the scholars, here are a few facts we know about the cross:
A cross was found during the excavation of a grave site next to the Lady Chapel at Glastonbury Abbey.
The date of the discovery was 1190 (Adam of Domerham) and 1192 (Ralph of Coggeshall). This discrepency can be accounted for due to the calendar they used.
Adam of Domerham said that Arthur’s grave was discovered 648 years after his death.
The cross was said to be “leaden”.
The cross was found directly underneath a stone slab.
There are five different versions of how the cross was inscribed (see above).
Gerald states that the inscription was on one side of the cross. He also states that it included Guinevere. Camden’s illustration of the cross shows the inscribed side, but no mention of Guinevere.
The letters used in the inscription are not consistent with fifth or sixth century script.
The earliest and most contemporary account of the dig is by Gerald of Wales.
Ralph of Coggeshall’s account states that Arthur’s grave was located accidentally. He states that a monk was digging so he could be buried between the pyramids.
Gerald’s account said that the grave site was given to the monks by Henry II, after it being revealed to him by a Welsh bard. He also states that there was only one coffin (the log), and that the cross specifically mentions Guinevere by name.
Adam of Domerham, writing in 1290, and John of Glastonbury, around 1350, tell us that there were two tombs and add the interesting detail that surrounded by white draperies or curtains.
The Margam account stated that there were three separate coffins (one for Arthur, Guinevere and Modred) and that the wording on the cross did not mention Guinevere.
Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to use the term Isle of Avalon, but he did not equate it with any geographic place. The first equation of Glastonbury and Avalon came in Gerald of Wales account.
There are three common elements in the five inscriptions: King Arthur, burial or interrment and Avalon. The following syllogism can be constructed using those common elements: Arthur’s last resting place is the isle of Avalon, Arthur lies in Glastonbury, therefore Glastonbury is the isle of Avalon.
The only drawing of the cross (that we know of ) were done by William Camden for the 1607 and 1608 editions of his historical work, Britannia. There was some variation in the shapes of the letters between the two editions.
The usually reliable John Leland, writing in Assertio Inclytissimi Arturii, having held the cross in his hands during a visit to the abbey around 1542, said that it measured nearly a foot in length.
The cross was attached to the top of the marble coffin in which Arthur and Guinevere’s bones were reinterred in 1278 by Edward I.
The cross remained there until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1539, after which it spent the next hundred years or so in the Reverstry of the parish church or St. John Baptist, Glastonbury (Bodleian Rawlinson B. 416a, folio 10v)
The Cross disappeared from view and wound up, in the early eighteenth century, in the possession of a certain Mr. William Hughs, Chancellor of Wells
“Actually, of course, the literary Arthur is a shape-shifter who has taken different forms over the centuries. But all version presumably derive from a source or prototype earlier than any. There have been numerous attempts to work back to this point, and , more specifically, to pin down a ‘historical Arthur’ as the starting-point, so that the question of existence can be affirmatively answered. . . on the understanding that this is the Arthur who is meant” (Ashe, Arthuriana)
Arthur was the king of all kings. He reigned his kingdom with an iron fist and a gentle heart. He was the warrior of all warriors, and his perfection led his knights. Arthur was the rightful king of England, pulling the sword from the stone. He took a wife, against Merlin’s consent, and loved her with all his heart. He led his troops unconditionally into battle and gave loyalty and respect to them. He trusted his knights and kinsmen with all that he had.
Arthur is a legend and a hero. The Arthur perceived through the legends is somewhat based on fact and he did, through many ways exist. He lives on immortally now, in our faith, hearts, minds, and writings. So, if his bones were discovered, and he will not return to rule as the legends states, he still remains alive through us.
Copyright 2013 Jill M Roberts
“Arthur’s Cross.” Britannia Online 20 November 1999. .
Ashe, Geoffrey. The Quest for Arthur’s Britain. London: Pall Mall Press,
—. “Origins of the Arthurian Legend”. Arthuriana Fall (1995).
Berthelot, Anne. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. New
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc, 1997.
Day, David. The Search for King Arthur. London: De Agostini Editions Ltd,
Lacy, Norris. The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc, 1996.
Lacy, Norris and Geoffrey Ashe. The Arthurian Handbook. New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc, 1997.
Phillips, Graham and Martin Keatman. King Arthur: The True Story.
London: Century Random House, 1992.
Copyright 2013 Jill M Roberts