Queen Elizabeth II died today at Balmoral
(www.bbc.co.uk)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (98)
sorted by:
There’s never been an Arthur since 1066, yes…
But if we’re talking Anglo-Saxon..?
Pretty sure there’s at least one or two with the Olde English version of that name, not just in fiction, though I could be wrong, lol…
I thought there wasn't any before either. Unless we count Ambrosius Aurelianus. Why would Anglo-Saxons name themselves after a mythical ruler who fought against them?
Yeah, you have a point there, I guess…
Though I thought Arthurian “legend” didn’t really settle until the early Medieval period, no..?
We really don’t know that much before Malory, do we, re Arthur..??
That was my impression, at least…
Unlike, say, the actual Macbeth…
High Middle Ages (1000-1300), I believe.
Arthur himself supposedly lived in the 6th century, during the Anglo-Saxon invasions. There's also the anachronism that he defeats the 'Roman Emperor' long after there was no Roman Emperor except in Constantinople.
Actually, Malory was just a compiler. All of what he wrote about, which is not really knowledge as much as it is mythology, was just take from earlier sources and put it in a new form.
Macbeth was an actual king, and supposedly a very good one - and the Duncan he killed was a young and incompetent ruler, not an old and saintly one.
Turns out it was King Charles after all. In England as well as France, monarchs named Charles were generally unsuccessful - with the notable exception of Charles VII.
REGIS QUONDAM REGISQUE FUTURI
No, he can't be King Arthur.