Did King Arthur actually exist?

Question

The fact that his 'grave' is located in Glastonbury Abbey surely proves that he was a real person?

Answer 1

In itself not entirely, because the sceptics argue that the Abbey cooked up the story of the grave as a fund-raising exercise after its Great Fire. But the 10th century cross they found with Arthur's name on it is certainly strong evidence that the tradition of Arthur's existence, kingship, and burial at Glastonbury was established by the time of St. Dunstan. The simplest reason for it to be so believed is that it was true. If the Abbey had wanted to tell lies (in 1184), they could easily have found more politically comfortable ones.



The proof of his existence that satisfies me is (1) the reference to his death in the Annales Cambriae (AC), entry for AD537. AC is unreliable for its first 80 years but is a contemporary record from AD525 (when AD dating was first used in Britain) onwards. (2) sundry references in Lives of Saints that were written before the publication of the famous/infamous History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Note in particular the references in the Life of St. Cadog (Cadog outsmarted Arthur in a dispute over some cattle. The point is not that this tale is historically factual, but that Arthur is represented here as ruler overlapping with Cadog, which is true.) and St. Illtyd, who is described as Arthur's cousin. (3) Taliesin's poem Journey to Deganwy - there's no written version until 1000 years after Taliesin, but the content is consistent with the oral tradition of the great bard and of the purpose of the journey in question and the attested Contention of the Bards in 547. This poem refers to Arthur as "chief giver of feasts", which is exactly what an wledig (leader of Britain) would have been in the 6th century.



All in all the evidence points to Arthur having taken over from Emrys Wledig (the leader known in Latin as Ambrosius Aurelianus) in c485 and ruling (late-Roman) Britain until 537.

Answer 2

Monks at Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have found the remains of Arthur, after the old wooden abbey burned down, and the monks were destitute.



Glastonbury Tor is widely believed to be the original Isle of Avalon. The area surrounding Glastonbury was marsh land, until it was drained in the 13th Century to convert it to arable farm land.



So at the time concerned, Glastonbury would have looked like an island, and its striking Tor has been of religious significance since atleast the Druids, maybe even as far back as the days before Stonehenge was build.



So penniless monks, with no monastery, living on the site believed to be Avalon, would find it very fortuitous to uncover the remains of the most legendary of British kings. Especially during the reign of Edward I whose fascination with the Arthurian legends, was only exceeded among English kings, by Edward III who based the Order of the Garter on the Round Table, and even began building a Round Table building within the grounds of Windsor Castle.



Edward I actually attended the re-burial ceremony of the alleged remains of Arthur, a century after they were first discovered. Needless to say, this discovery turned the fortunes of Glastonbury Abbey around after the fire.



Relics were big business in the middle ages, the vast majority of relics were fakes. John Calvin once commented that if all the relics were assembled "it would be made manifest that each Apostle had more than four bodies, and each Saint had two or three"



Obviously King Arthur was not a Biblical character, but in the Middle Ages, he was as big. Even to this day, people visit Glastonbury Abbey, and put flowers in his alleged grave.



So the grave at Glastonbury Abbey may be the final resting place of King Arthur, or it could be a pious fraud by homeless monks.



Even with this grave, his existence remains a mystery. Maybe its better left that way. For if he was a real historical person, and we find out who it was, then he would be unlikely to have lived up to the legends that he inspired.



The king who came closest to living up to the Arthurian Legend, was Ælfred the Great. The only monarch in the British Isles to ever be called "the Great", and it was a well earned epithet at that. But he never commanded the global fascination, nor had as many stories and books written about him as Arthur, despite him laying the foundations for the unification of England.



The reason for that is simple, their is no mystery behind King Ælfred, we know he existed.



Arthur can't ever be proved to have not existed, because you can't prove a negative, but in such a case, the legend would be in danger of becoming just another fable or fairy tale.

Answer 3

No King Arthur existed. At least there is no clear evidence for a king by that name in any record that has survived down to us. There is evidence that can be taken that a war leader with the name Arthur/Atrorious existed probably in the North of what is now England, but that is based solely upon a spread of an unfamiliar name becoming popular in the 5/6th century. Aside from that and a brief mention in some early histories and religious polemics (Gildas's and Ninian) that is the only evidence that he existed until the lives of the Welsh Saints were written down in the 9th or 10th century. In these Arthur is portrayed as a bully and a Prince who will only do the right thing after he has been chastened by one of the Saints. He disappears from the record until Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, a propaganda piece designed to make the newish Plantagenet regime acceptable to the Celtic peoples that they wished to conquered! The fact that a grave was discovered at Glastonbury has more to do with the need for that monastery to ingratiate itself with the new King at the time than and as a source of revenue. A sword was also found in the grave and identified as Excalibur which was given to King Richard the First he gave it away to Prince of Sicily (a Tancred I believe). Would you give Excalibur away ?



Hope this helps

Answer 4

That grave in Glastonbury seems to be the last resting place of someone other than King Arthur. That being said, there is plenty of evidence that there was a historical person behind the legend of King Arthur.

Answer 5

There may have been a tribal leader or local warlord that formed the basis for the Arthur character in the 5th century AD, maybe even a few of the battles in which he is portrayed in legend occured however most of the stories are simply invented legends invented or interpolated from other peoples and times.

Answer 6

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians



Here is a web site that may help you more about Arthur.

Answer 7

there is a few archaeological info that interior the time of roman occupation there grow to be a camelot form kingdom interior the area of Caevernon that could have accounted for the historic foundation for the mythical thoughts.

Answer 8

It's so far back, it's hard to say. There was a King name Uther way back in like the 7th century (not really a king, but whatever). But, of course, none of the the stories attirbuted to him are real.

Answer 9

I'm not sure why you would doubt his existence? A lot of the "history" surrounding him is debated.. but he did live yes. I believe in the 5th century?

Answer 10

I've read plenty on this and I do think he is real and did exist.



Here's a good site; http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/england/arch/

Answer 11

http://findingyouranswer.dalnet.ca

A very informative website you can also get much information in website