Outside South East Wales, the general consensus of opinion has been that there is little or no evidence to identify the near legendary “King Arthur”. This view actually requires that a substantial quantity of evidence must be set aside and ignored. This is neither an acceptable nor a reasonable approach to the situation.
If we begin as ‘square one’ and go back to basics we find that the “King Arthur” as popularly presented in Histories is an impossible figure. He fights the Romans in the late Fourth Century AD at Sassy and kills the Roman Emperor, and he also does battle with the Saxons, Angles, and others including a civil war with Modred ap Llew in the mid Sixth Century AD. These are the records as presented in the Brut Tyssilio and the Brut Gryffydd ap Arthur (Geoffrey of Monmouth). This would require “King Arthur” to be a man who lived to be around 250 years old, and this was pointed out by Polydore Vergil the Court Historian of King Henry VIII – of the six wives – around 1536. The other difficulty was the allegation that whereas there was a reasonable understanding of ancient British History by the British, of the periods before roughly AD 500, the whole of the 500-600 era was a confused blank, and history restarted again just before AD 600. This second assertion is in fact totally untrue.
There are two alternative views which automatically arise from this historical anomaly. Either “King Arthur” is two persons rolled into one, or otherwise “he” is a fictional non-existent figure. The obvious possibility that “King Arthur” was two quite separate Kings, both of whom were very well recorded was politically and religiously incorrect is the era of Henry VIII Tudor who ancestors came from North West Wales, and neither King Arthur was located there amongst them. John Leland, the King’s Antiquary – a form of recorder responsible for up-dating written geographies of the realm,- was outraged by the suggestion that there was no real life “King Arthur”. John Leland was a Somerset man and he actually believed the fictions of “King Arthur” being exhumed at Glastonbury -an abbey first founded in A.D.942. So Leland forged the place names around Cadbury Hill in Somerset to make them appear to support the invention that Cadbury Hill was the fabled “Camelot”. From this point onwards sanity went out of the window.
The choice was that either Tyssilio who died in AD 684, and Gruffydd ap Arthur (Geoffrey) writing around 1135, were muddled and mixing two great military figures into one Superman heroic monarch, or alternatively they were liars and forgers and were inventing a long detailed falicious history. The English (Anglo-Saxons) who are not British, eagerly embraced the second view of mass forgery, and they have conducted a negative and destructive campaign against all Ancient British History ever since.
The records which we have – including the mediaeval “Awentures of Arthur” clearly state that a British King named Arthur led the British armies over into France where he defeated and killed a Roman Emperor. They further state that he went on into Italy and further afield. This is well know irrefutable Historical truth. In AD 383 the British Wledig-Legate Magnus Maximus-Mascen Wledig invaded France-Gaul and his armies were commanded by his eldest son Arthur alias Arthun Ddu, and Andragathius to the Latins. Arthur-Arthun Ddu besieged and captured Paris which was the fiefdom of the lady St Genevieve – a Queen “Guinevere” figure. This Arthur I fought the Romans at Soissons which the British Historians recorded as “the battle of Sassy”. He defeated the armies of the illegitimate Emperor Gratian, and chased Gratian to south to Lyons where he killed him in 383.
So we do have a factual real life King Arthur who fought and defeated the Romans. Magnus Maximus – the son of Flavius Caesar Crispus who was he eldest son of the British Emperor Constantine the Great- became Emperor of the West. Arthur I -Arthun Ddu went on through Italy and crossed the Adriatic into the Balkans. Then greatly out-numbered he fought two battles against the imported barbarian hordes of Theodosius the Emperor of Constantinople in 388, first at Poetovio and second at Sisica on the Sica river in what is now Yugoslavia. British records title him “King of Greece”. The detail of all this is very well known from the Latin, Frank, and British records, and the facts are irrefutable. All this has been published and is available to anyone interested. British records are that Arthur returned to Britain and lived quietly in Warwickshire where his British title Gwyr Gwrtheulyn – ‘Man of the Military Retinue’ – lived on as the eponymous local folk hero “Guy of Warwick”.
Just as the Histories state the well recorded Constantine Coronog (the Crowned) a cousin of this Arthur I son of Magnus was elected King in A.D. 406 when he led the British armies into France again to totally defeat the great Germanic confederation of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, who had completely demolished the Roman forces in the West. Again this is all very well recorded Historical fact and Constantine and his general Geraint-‘Gerontius’ held all Gaul, and Spain until AD 411. The British Histories about “King Arthur” are perfectly correct. He did invade Gaul, he did besiege Paris held by Genevieve “Guinevere”, he did defeat the Romans, he did kill the Roman Emperor. There is no forgery only well known clearly recorded, irrefutable FACTS.
The story now moves onwards and the children of Magnus Maximus by his first wife Ceindrech the daughter of Rheiden, are extensively recorded and so are their descendants. The sons were Arthur (Arthun), Owain Vinddu, and Ednyfed, and they loom large as royal and noble ancestral figures and are peppered through the ancient manuscript records. Magnus Maximus-Mascen Wledig married a second wife and their sons were Victor the Augustus of Gaul, Constantine Lydaw, and Pebiau (Publicus), and a daughter Servilla who married Trahaearn -alias Gwrtheyrn=Vortigern. The focus is upon the line of the senior male descent from Arthur son of Magnus Maximus, son of Crispus, eldest son of the Emperor Constantine the Great, eldest son of the Emperor Constantine Chlorus and Queen Empress Helen of the Cross.
Arthur I son of Magnus had sons and the eldest appears to be Tathal (Theodore), whose son was Teithrin the Subtle, (Theodorus), and his son was King Teithfallt (Theodosius- Tudfwlch), whose son was King Tewdrig (Theoderic), who was father of King Meurig (Maurie) and his eldest son was Arthur II (ak. Arthwyr, Arthrwys, Arthmael=Iron Bear, etc). A regular “rule of thumb” guide to generations is seven per 200 years, and here we have:
- Magnus born AD 324
- Arthur I, born c 346
- Tewdrig, killed 509
- Arthur II, born 503, died 579
It is a credible fit for a 250 year old “King Arthur” muddled together from Arthur son of Mascen, and Arthur son of Meurig. It makes sense of the Histories.
This historical scenario fits and matches with all other records in the Royal Genealogies, Lives of Saints, Cathedral and Abbey Charters, Ancient Epic Poetry, the Triads, other histories, and the contemporary documents of the inscribed stones.
This royal Genealogy appears in a number of Britain’s most venerable and impeccably authentic ancient Manuscripts all of which are well known, and all of which are routinely ignored in the search for the King Arthurs.
As many of these Manuscripts are not available to persons living in rural areas and cities and towns away from the major Museums and Libraries, and in other countries around the world, we will list the relevant extracts from these manuscripts. In Britain the academics have routinely clutched the records closely and have generally regarded the manuscripts as their exclusive private property. Certainly very little attempt has been made to educate the population into their existence and how to go about getting access to them. The Government has promised to put the Records held in Museums and Libraries up onto the Internet to make them accessible to all – and we will believe that when we see it.
Welsh sources have been made particularly difficult to access as the creation of a Welsh National Archive was deliberately avoided by Parliament. There is a National English Archive, and a National, Scottish Archive, but no National Welsh Archive in the united ? kingdom. Records are scattered in British and foreign museums and libraries, in private collections, and everywhere and anywhere, it was not considered necessary to establish a Welsh Archive despite that Nation being present in Britain for 3600 years.
The idea that no one knew anything about “King Arthur” is a total absurdity and Arthur II, son of King Meurig, son of King Tewdrig, etc, etc was being taught as History in South East Wales Schools up until 1924. These Kings appears in cathedral and chapel stained glass windows, and it is not customary to place stained glass windows of Mickey Mouse fantasy figures in Cathedrals and Churches. No less than 140 books published between 1760 and 1920 named Arthur II and his pedigree and some named both Arthur I and Arthur II. There are over 47 million people in England and less than 3 million in Wales, and English eyes have always been turned inwards or else East towards Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews. The existence of these correct accurate histories will puncture the balloon of egos, and dent the sense of racial superiority. The rest of the world might enjoy the battle.