Skip to comments.Fabled King Arthur ‘was a Scottish warlord’
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 Arthurs 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 ...
No he is wrong. Camelot was the home of an Irish King from Boston. He was a killed by McOswald.
A boggy swamp? That suits the Kennedy Legacy about right.
‘Scots, wha hæ wi Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome tæ yer gory bed,
Or tæ victorie
I never knew Arthur was Druish.
an island in the western seas of England?
isle of mann?
Funny, he didn’t look Druish...
King of Swamp Castle: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
Thanks for the post! What seems clear from all the legends and literature is that the one thing he was NOT was English. I’m guessing the Welsh side was the easiest locale for the English to accept (and later push) because they’d been the least ferocious in their hatred of the Sassenach.
Nearly all the ancient kings are buried at Iona. As for Kilmartin Glen..I dont know, but, that was the area where the ancient kings ruled. These were the Picts, and the Scotty Irish kicked them out, eventually. The Picts simply vanished over a very short time. Lots of grave slabs over there that are really interesting to look at. Especially at Kilmartin.
No the camellot is outside of Riyadh.
Sounds interesting, BUT,
“Ardrey, an amateur historian who works as an advocate in Edinburgh”
If he was from France, Arthur would be French, Italy, he would be Italian - I see some chauvanism here.
I think Arthur was a Romano-British Warlord “Dux Bellorum” (Chief of Battles)who fought the Saxons sometime after the Romans pulled out of Britain.
The name Arthur appears related to a Latin word for “bear”, Prior to his activities in the late 5th and early 6th Century, Arthur was a relatively rare name. After that time, every other Celt in Britain was naming his kids after him. I think the best sources are Nennius and Gildas.
Nevertheless, in my efforts to read as much as possible about the REAL Arthur, not the fantasy of Sir Thomas Mallory, I must read this book.
Somewhere near the girl's dorms, I'll bet.
But he married a woman
who had "huge tracts of land."
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).
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.
Interesting, thanks for the ping.
My pleasure. Coel of Rheged (”Old King Cole”, literally) was roughly contemporary with Arthur, assuming there was an actual Arthur, and ruled the buffer state between the rest of former Roman Britain and Caledonia (Scotland).
I’m currently convinced that “King Arthur — The True Story” by Graham Phillips is basically correct, and that Arthur’s capital was Viroconium (basically, modern Wroxeter). I’m also certain that the Arthurian legends incorporate loads of borrowings, both from medieval France as well as pre-Roman, Roman, and post-Roman Britain.
This huge crag, which rises to a height of 822 feet above sea-level above the city of Edinburgh,
has been known as Arthur's Seat since the fifteenth century. Part of Holyrood Park, it offers a tremendous view of the surrounding country and of the sea to the east. The 'seat' itself is said to be the notch between the highest point of the peak and a secondary point a little way to the south. In fact, it is probably named after a local hero who happened to bear the name Arthur.
Interestingly enough, Edinburgh is identified with the Castle of Maidens in several Arthurian tales, which is probably because one of its medieval names was Castellum Puellarum (Castle of Women). In the stories it is sometimes a place where a number of female prisoners are kept; at other times it seems to be occupied by seductive women who tempt knights passing by. In at least one version, Arthur's half-sister, the renowned 'enchantress' Morgan le Fay, is its mistress.
It has been said that the association of the hill with Arthur may be a matter of its being a base for military action in the 6th century.
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.