King Arthur of Britain or Scots?
Who was the leader behind the Arthurian legend?
References to King Arthur abound in the British Isles, but some claims may have a stronger case than others.
There are as many theories about who King Arthur was, as there are historians. Some of those theories hold real promise, while others seem to be about legends and possibly tourist dollars.
Welsh tradition lays claim to Arthur as their fellow countryman. Scotland also claims Arthur as their own, and the Round Table as an acutal place near Bannockburn. Where the truth lies is perhaps only to be found within the hearts and minds of those who still seek after this fabled King.
- The Glastonbury legends claim that in the year 1191, a grave was dug up that belonged to King Arthur and Guenivere (or Gwenivere). The monks of Glastonbury claim that they found a cross with Arturius Rex (or King Arthur) on the inscription. The glitch here is that Arthur was never known as a King, just an appointed leader in battle. Even today, the pilgrimage to Glastonbury Abbey, and Winchester Castle is almost a requirement if a tourist finds themselves in Wales. They claim to display the round table and many artifacts connected to Arthur and his Knights.
- Graham Phillips, speaks of Owain Ddantgwyn, or Owain “The White-toothed, as a possible contender. This fifth century king, lived in the traditional setting of Wales, in Gwynedd (pronounced gun-eth). His theory holds that the name is a title, Arth, which translates in Welsh to Bear. So in this case, he would be called “The Battle Bear.” Phillips claims his son Cuneglases was called The Bear, and that he might have inherited it from his father. In his book, “King Arthur: The True Story” he outlines his thoughts painstakingly, and with some persuasion although there are other possiblilites that carry more weight.
- A guantlet has been thrown down by David F. Carroll, who claims that the true Arthur was a King in Scotland by that very name, Arthur McAeden, a Pendragon, or leader in battle. He tells us of the early use of the name Camelot near the Antoine Wall in Scotland. He points out that this Arthur died fighting the Picts, or pagans, as the Roman Catholic Church would have called them, and that he had a sister named Morgan (or Morgain). This Arthur died in battle in 582, leaving the biggest problem between the theories as the timelines, which don't match up as well. None the less, it is a very convincing argument, and will prove to be a thorn in Glastonbuy's side for many years to come.
Each of these ideas, as well as the numerous reasons each author and place has a claim to Arthur is worth examining in full. Perhaps the only way we can ever know the truth, is when tourist attractions cease to be the default home of King Arthur, and archeologists are willing to begin a search that is based on real evidence that has been examined and either proven or disproven.
