|
|
|
| Arthur, King of the Britons Arthur, it seems, is claimed as the King of nearly every Celtic Kingdom known. The 6th century certainly saw many men named Arthur born into the Celtic Royal families of Britain but, despite attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honour. Princes with other names are also sometimes identified with "Arthwyr" which is thought by some to be a title similar to Vortigern. Breton King Geoffrey of Monmouth recorded Arthur as a High-King of
Britain. He was the son of his predecessor, Uther Pendragon and nephew of
King Ambrosius. As a descendant of High-King Eudaf Hen's nephew, Conan
Meriadoc, Arthur's grandfather, had crossed the Channel from Brittany and
established the dynasty at the beginning of the 5th century. The Breton
King Aldrien had been asked to rescue Britain from the turmoil in which it
found itself after the Roman administration had departed. He sent his
brother, Constantine, to help. Constantine appears to have been the
historical self-proclaimed British Emperor who took the last Roman troops
from Britain in a vain attempt to assert his claims on the Continent in
407. Chronologically speaking, it is just possible he was King Arthur's
grandfather. Arthur's Breton Ancestry was recorded by
Gallet. Geoffrey Ashe argues that
King Arthur was an historical King in Brittany known to history as
Riothamus, a title meaning "Greatest-King". His army is recorded as
having crossed the channel to fight the Visigoths in the Loire Valley in
468. Betrayed by the Prefect of Gaul, he later disappeared from history.
Ashe does not discuss Riothamus' ancestry. He, in fact, appears quite
prominently in the pedigree of the Kings of DomnonŽe, dispite attempts to
equate him with a Prince of Cornouaille named Iaun Reith. Riothamus was
probably exiled to Britain during one of the many civil wars that plagued
Brittany. He later returned in triumph to reclaim his inheritance, but was
later killed in an attempt to expel Germanic invaders. The main trouble
with this Arthurian identification is that it pushes King Arthur back
fifty years from his traditional period at the beginning of the sixth
century (See Ashe 1985). Welsh tradition also sees Arthur as High-King of Britain
but tends to follow the genealogies laid down in the Mostyn MS117 and the
Bonedd yr Arwr. These show Arthur as grandson of Constantine but, this
time, he is Constantine Corneu, the King of Dumnonia. Traditional
Arthurian legend records three Kings of Dumnonia during Arthur's reign:
Constantine's son, Erbin; grandson, Gereint and great grandson, Cado.
Nowhere is there any indication that these three were closely related to
Arthur, nor that he had any claim on the Dumnonian Kingdom. Nor is their
any explanation as to why a Dumnonian prince would have been raised to the
High-Kingship of Britain. Arthur's connection with this area of Britain is
purely due to his supposedly being conceived at Tintagel, the residence of
his mother's first husband, and buried at Glastonbury, the most
ancient Christian site in the country. The Clan Campbell trace their tribal pedigree back to one
Arthur ic Uibar: the Arthur son of Uther of tradition. Norma Lorre
Goodrich uses this fact to argue that Arthur was a "Man of the
North". This idea was first proposed by the Victorian Antiquary,
W.F.Skene, and there is some evidence to recommend it, especially the
possible northern location of Nennius' twelve battles. Goodrich places
Arthur's Court at Carlisle. As the capital of the Northern British Kingdom
of Rheged, this seems an unlikely home for Arthur, who was not of this
dynasty. Prof. Goodrich relies heavily on late medieval literary sources
and draws imaginative conclusions. (See Goodrich 1986 & Skene
1868). There was a Northern British King named Arthwys who
lived in the previous generation to the traditional Arthur. He was of the
line of Coel Hen (the Old) and probably ruled over a large Kingdom in the
Pennines. Many of Nennius' Arthurian Battles are often said to have taken
place in the Northern Britain. These and other northern stories associated
with the King Arthur may, in reality, have been relating the
achievements of this near contemporary monarch. Another Northern British Arthwys was the son of Masgwid
Gloff, probably a King of the Elmet region of modern West Yorkshire.
Nothing is known of this Prince who was exactly contemporary with the
real King's traditional period. Though it is unlikely that he held
his own kingdom, his exploits may have contributed to King Arthur's
story. The Scots, though fresh from Ireland, also used the name
Arthur for a Royal Prince. Artur, the son of King Aidan of Dalriada, was
probably born in the 550s. David F. Carroll has recently argued that this
man was the real Arthur, ruling Manau Gododdin from Camelon (alias
Camelot) in Stirlingshire. Details can be found on the author's web site.
(Carroll 1996) Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identify Arthur as
Owain Ddantwyn (White-Tooth), a late 5th century Prince of the House of
Cunedda (more specifically of Gwynedd). Their arguments, however, are
wholly unconvincing, and contain many unresolved discrepancies. Owain's
son, Cuneglasus (known from Welsh pedigrees as Cynlas) was among the five
Celtic Kings condemned in the writings of Gildas. Through a
misinterpretation of this account, Keatman & Phillips imply that
Cuneglasus was the son of one Arth, ie. Arthur. They further claim that
he, and therefore his father, Owain, before him, must have ruled Powys, as
this is the only Kingdom un-reconciled with Gildas' Kings. However, Cynlas
lived at Din Arth in Rhos. He was not the son of
Arth. In traditional Welsh manner the Kingdom of Gwynedd had been divided
between his father, Owain, who received Eastern Gwynedd (ie. Rhos) and his
uncle, Cadwallon Lawhir (Long-Hand) who took the major Western portion.
During this period, Cyngen Glodrydd (the Renowned) was ruling Powys. He
was probably the Aurelius Caninus mentioned by Gildas. (See Phillips
& Keatman 1992). A much simpler and thoroughly more convincing thesis from
Mark Devere Davies suggests that Arthur may have been Cuneglasus himself.
I can do no better than recommend you to the author's website. A King Arthwyr ruled in Dyfed in the late 6th
century. He was the son of King Pedr ap Cyngar, but little else is known
of him. Though he was probably merely named after the great man, it is
possible that some of his accomplishments may have become attached to the
traditional legend. Baram Blackett & Alan Wilson have theorised that the
legendary King Arthur was an amalgam of two historical characters: Anwn
(alias Arthun), the British King who conquered Greece and Athrwys (alias
Arthwys) the King of Glywyssing and Gwent. Arthun was a son of the British
Emperor Magnus Maximus, who lived
in the late 4th century. He is better known as Anwn (alias Dynod) and his
title of King of Greece is generally thought to be a misreading of
his Latin name, Antonius Gregorius. He actually ruled much of South Wales.
Arthwys of Glwyssing & Gwent is widely accepted as a seventh century
King who lived in South-East Wales. His home in the traditional Arthurian
region around Caerleon is part of this man's attraction. Blackett &
Wilson argue, not unconvincingly, that he really lived in the early 6th
century and that his father, King Meurig was called "Uther Pendragon", a
title meaning Wonderful Commander. They also make the important
assertion that Arthur lived, not in Cerniw (ie. Cornwall), but in Cernyw
(ie. Glywyssing). (See Blackett & Wilson
1980). Like Blackett & Wilson, Chris Barber & David
Pykitt identify the King Arthur with King Athrwys of Glywyssing
& Gwent. However, here the similarity stops, for there are important
differences in the identification of people, places and events. Their
major addition is the supposition that after Camlann, Arthur/Athrwys
abdicated and retired to Brittany where he became an important
evangeliser. He was known as St. Armel (or Arthmael) and his shrine can
still be seen at St.Armel-des-Boschaux. Their ideas have much to commend
them and make compelling reading. (See Barber & Pykitt
1993). It has been suggested, many times over the years, that King Arthur may have been a descendant of one Lucius Artorius Castus: a theme most recently taken up by P.J.F. Turner. Castus was an historical 2nd century Dalmatian general stationed in Britain who commanded the Roman auxiliary troops, known as Sarmations, on an expedition to crush an uprising in Armorica. It is highly unlikely that the two had any connection with each other. (See Turner 1993). Arthur, General of the Britons Return to Arthurian Biographies Page |
© 2000 Britannia.com, LLC