What Is King Arthur Real

1747 Words7 Pages
The story of King Arthur is one that has fascinated schoolchildren and adults alike for many years. Children (and, admittedly, many adults as well) adore the action and adventure found in the tales and delight in the sheer romance of it all. The story of an idyllic kingdom with the most glorious king in the world and his noble knights going on adventures is one that has appealed to audiences for a very long time. However, some adults are more interested in the legends not for the storybook aspects of it, but for the historical basis. It isn’t known who the “real” Arthur was, where he came from, or even whether he actually existed or not, but this hasn’t stopped people from looking. This is a subject of discussion because the legend holds such…show more content…
This is an interesting way to look for evidence, but it has the potential to be enlightening, though there is the difficulty of language changing. I was especially interested in this aspect of his argument because of my own attempts to study the language, but I was startled to find what at least appeared to be discrepancies. He discusses his attempt to find the locations of the battle “at the mouth of the Glein” and of the river called Douglas (Ardery 56, 59). For the former, he draws of the words “glan”, “glè”, “glein”, and “abhon”, and lists them as “pure”, “bright”, “glen”, and “river” (56). Most of these are very close, though looking in my own dictionary, the only words I found for “bright” and “river” were “soilleir” and “abhainn” (Reaton 88, 136). The word I found for “glen” was “glean”, which I judged to be close enough to the word he gave to reasonably be connected, and “abhon” looks reasonably similar to “abhainn”, though the pronunciation changes and may make his explanation about “River Rivers” a bit less likely. I also looked up the words he gave in a larger dictionary, to see if possibly they just hadn’t been included in my own, which is admittedly limited, but I only found “very” for “glè” and nothing for “glien” or “abhon” (Lexilogos). Both of these are pretty close to the more familiar words, so accounting for dialect and passage of time, they may still…show more content…
He discusses the Stone of Scone and its theft by Edward I in 1296, but proudly proclaims that the English king was fooled by a fake and that it was returned shortly afterward (116). This was jumped out at me because, unlike the period of time the events of this book cover, I am familiar with this period of history, and I recognize the theory he is discussing. The story goes that when news of Edward’s coming arrived, the monks who had the stone had a replica made while hiding the original, and that the stone that was taken was this replica (Magnusson 192). This is a possibility, as it hasn’t been proven otherwise, but it hasn’t been proven true either. It is just one take on the event, and whatever he may personally believe on the subject, it has not been proven one way or the other. He doesn’t even mention the other take on the subject or bother including anything to back up his claim, he just states it as fact and moves on. Finally, he says that it was returned to Scotland soon after, but while this was supposed to happen, it evidently was not. The Stone has been returned to Scotland since, briefly in 1950 and permanently in 1996, but Ardery makes no mention of either one (Magnusson 192, 674-680, 690). Both of these have happened in very recent history, almost certainly during his

More about What Is King Arthur Real

Get Access