Somewhere near the girl's dorms, I'll bet.
Posted on 11/25/2013 6:29:25 PM PST by Renfield
Author Adam Ardrey claims that instead of the romantic English king of legend who lived at Camelot – which is often said to be Tintagel in Cornwall or in Wales – Arthur was actually Arthur Mac Aedan, the sixth-century son of an ancient King of Scotland, whose Camelot was a marsh in Argyll.
He also suggests that Arthur pulled the sword Excalibur from a stone at Dunadd near Kilmartin, died near Falkirk and was buried on the Hebridean island of Iona, which he declares to be Avalon.
Ardrey, an amateur historian who works as an advocate in Edinburgh and previously wrote a book claiming Merlin the wizard was actually a politician who lived in the Partick area of Glasgow, spent years investigating his theories and says that they can be proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. The assertions in his book Finding Arthur: The True Origins Of The Once And Future King are strengthened by the discovery in 2011 of what some experts believe is King Arthur’s round table in the grounds of Stirling Castle.
Ardrey says he not only believes Arthur is buried in Iona but would love to see the site excavated to look for proof.
“The legendary Arthur is said to be buried in an island in the western seas – Avalon – but in the south of Britain there are no islands in the western seas,” he says...
(Excerpt) Read more at scotsman.com ...
Somewhere near the girl's dorms, I'll bet.
But he married a woman
who had "huge tracts of land."
Scots ping.
ping for later
I believe that “Arthur” is a conflation of two kings:
When the usurper to the throne, John I, exiled the boy-king Arthur from Island of Great Britain to the Continental half of the Kingdom of Britain, the Continental subjects likened him to a mythical warlord from centuries earlier.
But it is this latter Arthur under whom knights reconquered the City of Barcelona, defeated the Black Knights and reclaimed the Holy Grail. And this is why it is from the French from whom we receive such written stories, such as La Morte d’Artur and de Boron’s Merlin.
This also provides the great ambiguity of Merlin. Geoffrey of Monmouth combined the Byrthonic prophet and madman with the Christian military commander, Ambrosius Aurelianus. Later medieval writers resolved this ambiguity by making him a Christian mystic “of the Order of Melchizadek.” Although the meaning of that has faded from common knowledge, that is the name of the Catholic priesthood.
And yes, the Holy Grail is not lost at all; it is in the Cathedral of Valencia, Spain, where it has been since it was brought there by Saint Laurence in AD 279. It is a red agate hemisphere, which has been adorned in later times with bejeweled stem and handles, and has been confirmed to be roughly 2,000 years old (2,200 +/- 200), and from Palestine. “Graal” is a word, meaning cup, derived from Provencal, the dialect of the part of France which borders Spain. The Moors (”black knights”) misunderstood the appelation “the cup of everlasting life,” and perceived the halo around it as indicating it was magical.
Although the oldest tales of the “Holy Grail” (by Chretien de Troyes and Robert de Boron) are inconsistent with the history of St. Laurence and the rescue of the sacred relics of Rome, in all cases, it is identified with the Chalice of the Last Supper. The ambiguous descriptions (both as a chalice and a bowl) actually fit the Sancta Caliz, in as much as it was very bowl-like, but made more similar to a familiar, later Catholic chalice by the addition of the stem and handles. Likewise, the paintings of the Holy Chalice, found in churches in the Pyrenees, predate de Troyes’ work, but conform with his description.
Isles of Scilly ?
Arcturus = bear in Ancient Greek and into Latin.
He was the son of Ambrosius Aurelianus. He defeated the Saxons at Badon Hill and kept them down until his death. Indeed Geoffery of Monmouth's stuff is fantasy. Morris goes as far as to say he was the last Roman Emperor in Britain.
The main problem is that the time from 400 to 600 AD in Britain was a time of little to no writing or record keeping. There just isn't enough First Hand info to say who Arthur was, or was not. The Romans were gone and the Irish Monasteries hadn't taken root yet.
Geoffrey Ashe's book came to almost the same conclusion, but, his Arthur was called Riothamus. All great speculation on a time that we may never know about.
All the other petty sixth-century kings told him he was daft to build his Camelot in a marsh, but he built it just the same. And it sank into the marsh. He built another one — that sank into the marsh. He built a third one — that one burned down, fell over, then sank into the marsh. But the fourth one stayed up!
Whoops, that’s what I get for not checking first. :’)
THAT sounds like the history of Amsterdam.
Ditto on the “bear” — Ursa is Latin for bear, Arth (Rth) is Welsh (not Scottish, although it might be Pictish, which appears to have been P-Celtic like Welsh and Cornish) for bear, making Arthursa a macaronic name meaning bear.
Geoffrey of Monmouth preserved a load of stuff about Arthur and other old lore. Gildas never once mentions Arthur by name, but does refer to one or more of Arthur’s Twelve (legendary) battles. Apparently there may have been some bad blood for Gildas, who was related to one of Arthur’s rivals (whoever Arthur was).
Hamster dance?
Read all of them. Asch’s Riothamus is interesting as he does give a source that says a British Roman Chieftain led a force into Gaul and was lost in battle there.
This is really a fascinating part of history - Sub Roman Britain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
