In Search of the Arthurian Kings

What the Arthur story that has been uncovered shows is that there were several Arthurs but that the principle Arthur, Paternus was only tentatively remembered as was Eternus, his son. But here we have all the elements. The link to the Roman Imperial family, the link with Lancelot and Galahad, who were in effect half siblings to Paternus. It was the marriage of Grainne to Oengus, which supported the peace of Constans. It has been established that the legend of Ambrose/ Emrys stems from the same dates and are directly linked to the Arthurian legends.  Into this we have to mesh known Roman actions. This is then followed by the Vortigern stories into which, either intentionally or not, Arthur has been placed. Yet the Arthur we are told about is not Arthur but Vortimer even though there was an Arthur existent at the time, Athwys and /or Artmail.

We then get the final part of the cycle which are the Grail stories which loosely start in Arthur’s court and include Lancelot. They really come to fruition with the hopes pinned on Galahad who is coincidentally the last of the line that have the remotest connection with the Constantinian Imperial family. We have also found other things. That, paradoxically, it is the earliest known writer of History and one of the later, Geoffrey of Monmouth, who actually tells us, what happened. Moreover we find by reading other writers such as Gregory of Tours and as importantly Bede a completely different complexion is put on Gildas. Using what has been found about St Patrick and clues found within Gildas it is established that Gildas was writing at least a century earlier. Other calculations show that Angles and “Saxons” were in fact here  at least a century earlier reinforcing the reason for the earlier known Roman fortifications, which in part set me off on this quest.

The period between 450 AD and 460 AD remains confused as does the context of the battle of Crayford, where it is believed that Galahad fought. All that can be said is that it is an accepted fact that the battle was fought between 452AD and 457AD and that possibly there had been a previous battle there in 425AD. That these dates are still confused is part of the process. The reason for this lack of acceptance on the author’s part is that other dates appear to have been shifted, partially by accident such as transposition and by interpretation. Nothing is hard and fast and the author is aware that some weaknesses in the argument will become apparent. Part of this problem is to do with the lack of hard evidence. But we do end with the great abandonment of Britain in 460AD. It is not even certain if the Grail quest ends with the death of Galahad. But the story of the fisher king is symbolic of the passing of the crown from Maelgwyn whom it is now believed died around 452AD to Galahad and for which there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that there is a correlation with the plague of 452AD, just as historians accept the plague of 552AD, as recorded in Byzantine histories. But it is intriguing that the Grail story, with it’s acceptance of fate should surface within the period of early Roman Christian faith.