King Arthur - Welsh? English? Scottish?

Question

King Arthur - Welsh? English? Scottish?

Answer 1

Roman

Answer 2

I don't believe the English existed at the time of King Arthur, nor do I think Scotland had been fully settled at that time. I believe that the time when Arthur was said to exist, the inhabitants were supposed to be Welsh. In fact, the earliest texts (if i remember right), used many Welsh words and names were spelled in the Welsh style.



Just my opinion, but I could be wrong

Answer 3

I have read a few books about this subject, however, the most compelling so far is: "The Holy

Kingdom: Quest for the Real King Arthur: by Adrian Geoffrey Gilbert, Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett".



Unlike some other books which had long complicated explanations of how place names had been altered and why - going into the breakdown of languages and words in circuitous paths throughout jumbles of events and invasions and theories - the names of the related places discovered in Wales and described in this book have the same names as they did back at the time when Arthur is thought to have lived, and are the same names that were mentioned in the stories and legends, so there was no need for big explanations for names of towns that seem to have no connection to anything that has come down to us from the time of Arthur.



As well, on the land discovered to have been close to his general home area - the battle mounds still exist, which was not the case in the writings about other areas - prompting again the need for theories and explanations to support the proposed connections.



In a rather sad twist on modern development - the authors were only one step ahead of bulldozers preceding construction of a new townhouse subdivision which was about to remove all of the traces linking the area to Arthur and had to work feverishly to dredge up the funds to purchase the area before it was bulldozed into oblivion.



However, happily, they were that one step ahead although from the book it would seem that no-one really cares much about preserving that place - other than the authors. Hopefully that changed with the publication of "The Holy Kingdom".



This book is a "must read" for anyone who realizes (either through intuition or research) that there are reality-based reasons for the legends and myths that have come down to us.



The dedication, commitment and hard work that went into the research and writing of this book make it a worthwhile investment in time and energy.



Through everything I've read about Arthur - it seems that most of the claims for his connection to different areas was based on the marketing motivation. Once monks discovered how lucrative travellers could be to the financial well-being of their "local" attractions and to their churches and monasteries - there developed a competition for the tourist trade. This spawned great motivation to find all sorts of creative ways to connect to the legend of Arthur - the relics and headstones in their vicinity.



In the location uncovered in "the Holy Kingdom" there was no such fabrication - the land is as it was, perhaps even preserved deliberately by being kept peaceful and hidden - preserving the peace and natural purity of the location.



All the best to you in your investigations.

Answer 4

the name is latin i think



arthur

wasnt a english at all



he was a celts , he was britonnic

a branch of celts people



the first book about him

is a french novels write by a chistian from troyes in france





celts people are people who live in british isles(scotish,irish cornish and britonnic people) and in france (britonnic and gauls 'gaelic" gallic peoples





today

celts languages and the land who are considering like true celts land

are irland,wales,scotland ,cornwall and britanny(in france)



arthur was a real king , he died when saxon and angles invaded england



many , britonnic peoples save themselves and went in britannny (france)the land of their ancestors .

Answer 5

his parents were meant to be Welsh and he was born in Cornwall

Answer 6

The legend continues. Personally I think that Cornwall (Kernow) might have had something to do with it, but who knows what strange mushrooms the Ancients had access to during the dark days of early Albion (the original name for Britain)



Whatever the outcome, it's a good name to be blessed with and he should be proud of his heritage.

Answer 7

Cymro, Brenin Arthur ,



Welhman King arthus most of the scriptures aout him are in welsh o'r brythonic cornish. Therefore he's definetly not Scottish, Irish o'r anglo saxon, So he's either cornish or Welsh

Answer 8

Well, he would have been a Briton,whether he was born in what we now know as England, or in Wales. I have read the Scottish claims,too, but I haven't really seen what I would call strong evidence. When people say 'Roman', they must remember that the romans came to Britain to conquer for the Empire, not to colonise with immigrants from their own country--ie the Romans were relatively few in number and left insignificant effects on the dna genepool of the country. Arthur would have more likely been what we called 'Romano-british'--which means a basically native British person who had become Romanised in dress,style of living etc.

the problem is of course that so much myth & legend has become part of the legend too,blurring the picture.

Answer 9

(All we know is myth, but he certainly could have been real at one time to have such a longstaning impact)



British but of Roman descent!



The first record of his name is by Nennius in c. 826. If he did live it was atleast 300 years before that, according to the known kings and Briton Noblemen. So, he then was certainly of a Roman post, a Roman, probably sent to secure the Roman wall in England after the sack of Rome by Alcuin. His knights were probably Sythians (Russia, Black Sea). He was certainly not Saxon, so we know that the Britons benefited most by his probable or intended deeds. Therefor you could call him English (British) but he was probably of Roman descent.

Answer 10

I agree with you if he actually existed.

Answer 11

I live in Cornwall [but not Cornish], Cornwall has a massive claim to Arthur aswell especially in the area around Tintagel.



I think he is just a myth, and another way people have found of making money

Answer 12

Congraultions on your baby 'Arthur'.



Arthur, the brave and triumphant warrior first mentioned in Welsh poetry.



The Gododdin is one of the earliest surviving poems written in Welsh. It was written by the bard Aneirin around the year 594, and contains the earliest known reference to Arthur.



The penultimate verse reads:



He thrust beyond three hundred, most bold, he cut down the centre and far wing.

He proved worthy, leading noble men; he gave from his herd steeds for winter.

He brought black crows to a fort's wall, though he was not Arthur.

He made his strength a refuge, the front line's bulwark, Gwawrddur.

Answer 13

Roman, you know that his round table represented equality and that idea wasn't exactly the norm. I think that this indicates that he was a real person.

Answer 14

Cornwall.

Answer 15

he was British settle for that its rumoured he was from the lowlands of Scotland but think the Scots just accept he was mostly English ...British covers them all

Answer 16

the new history books that i have read(i am a Arther fan) says he was real and he was part british part roman. it didnt say what part of england it was

Answer 17

Welsh i think. he had toilets built so he could go for a leek(leak). nice chap,next time i get around the table i'll ask him

Answer 18

Fictious, that's why they call it a myth, no evidence, like a centaur, cyclops, Minitaur. All myths.

Answer 19

I think it's roman French that every one wnats to claim as their own

:P

Answer 20

He was a typical Irish.