Talk:King Arthur

King Arthur Real?

I believe that during the Dark Ages there was a King Arthur. It’s just that the Dark Ages are pretty much lost to history except a record that states a man named Arthur was a great warrior thus showing he was real just during a time where history draws a blank. 75.97.52.227 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ip. Is this a question or a statement? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When the Romans left Britain people were illiterate for several hundred years. There's no written history from this time frame. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Dark Ages never really existed. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731) is our oldest detailed source on Anglo-Saxon history, and the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (c. 530s) gives at least a biased Christian look of political life in Sub-Roman Britain. There is no real indication of a loss of literacy, and nearby Ireland was producing Hiberno-Latin texts by the 6th century. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, and none of these sources mention Arthur.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

King Arthur Dragoon o Noonan was Augustus Ceasar son of Mary mother of Jesus and Julius Ceasar aka Gladius Dragoon hence why he invaded England twice. 2605:B100:B28:4A9D:0:B:24A2:4501 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There are some who think Arthur was a composite of multiple real and/or fictional individuals—the events and actions of all of them attributed to King Arthur. I think that’s likely the most accurate explanation—and the “composite” theory probably goes for Robin Hood too. Of course, if I had 1 or more sources saying so, this would be in the article rather than the talk page! 24.154.117.76 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Robin Hood is different because there are ample sources for the existence of "Robin Hood" — apparently a common peasant name in England of the time. Jurist Edward Coke firmly believed Robin Hood was real and believed his followers were still causing problems in England and Scotland. While Robin was famously associated with Sherwood Forest near Nottingham, there is also a Robin Hood Bay in Yorkshire.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Arthur’s title

A reasonable ninth-century reason for calling Arthur a dux bellorum has been published. Also, non-kings were almost never recorded. Johnson, Flint. “Dux Bellorum”, Studia Celtica Posnaniensia Vol 5 (1), 2020, 61-77. Tallhwch (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2025

There were dozens of recent main stream news articles referring to Arthur, Merlin and the battle of Badon. While only folklore, most of what we know of Arthur is folklore, so I think this new addition is worth to consider for addition to the Wikipedia. I wrote the following

In 2025, a skull bearing a single horn-like protrusion was discovered in St Nectan’s Glen, a Cornish site long associated with Arthurian legend and located near the ruins commonly identified as King Arthur’s Castle. The unusual specimen attracted widespread media coverage, with speculation ranging from cryptozoological curiosity to hoax. While no conclusive scientific identification has been made, the skull became the subject of local folklore, with some referring to it as “Merlin’s unicorn,” a mythical creature said to have been ridden by the wizard during the Battle of Badon. The find has contributed to ongoing popular interest in the merging of archaeology, myth, and modern reinterpretation of Arthurian tales."Mysterious 'unicorn skull' discovered near King Arthur's castle". Daily Mail. 2025-08-01."Unicorn skull found at King Arthur site sparks mystery". The Sun. 2025-08-01."Unicorn skull discovered at St Nectan's Glen in Cornwall". Falmouth Packet. 2025-08-01."Unicorn skull found near Westcountry site linked to King Arthur". Devon Live. 2025-08-01. Gwilson12 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not folklore; it's tabloid clickbait that doesn't belong in the article. Day Creature (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Modern legend section

I think the Arthurian novels of Rosemary Sutcliff should be included in this discussion, although I see that they are included in the linked article. Source for a discussion of Sutcliff's Arthurian novels: https://katemacdonald.net/2024/03/14/rosemary-sutcliff-her-arthurian-novels/ Cschuk (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The source is a blog with no evidence that it is a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Opening verb

The first sentence currently reads "King Arthur [...] was a legendary king of Britain." Phrased like that, it sounds like the legend does not still exist, when of course it does. In the legend, he is now past-tense, but the legend itself is not past-tense. May I suggest "King Arthur [...] is, in legend, an ancient king of Britain."? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I take your point but I do not think that anyone would misunderstand. "was" applies to the phrase "legendary king", not to the legend. Your alternative sounds clumsy to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

We have guidelines to deal with this sort of situation: MOS:FICTENSE. They point to an historical present tense for this. Possible alternate phrasing: In legend, King Arthur is a medieval king of Britain. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC) I just realized that I should technically raise a conflict of interest tag here, as I am a publisher who is about to publish a book related to King Arthur, which is why I was visiting this page at all. However, the matter of the verb tense in no way promotes the work nor provides me with any particular benefit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nat that Arthur is a character of legend and literature, and Wikipedia's standard is to use the historic present for legendary and literary characters, but I also agree with Dudley that starting "In legend" doesn't read well. How about "King Arthur is a legendary medieval king of Britain"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

NIcknack's alternative looks good to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I prefer that to what we have. I still prefer "in legend" to "legendary", in large part because the latter has obtained common usage as just meaning "famous". (I'm also mulling whether "king of medieval Britain" might be better than "medieval king of Britain".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Those guidelines are an essay, not guidelines. They are far from indicative anyway, suggesting both past and present tenses are possible, which is correct: it all depends on how the reader views what is written. We should simply consider this in terms of encyclopedic level common English usage, and again both are possible, present and path. I see nothing wrong or awkward in what is already there so no change is needed. Also, the first sentence relates to the noun 'Arthur', not 'legend'. The adjective 'legendary' has been changed to the noun 'legend', thereby creating a false line of reasoning. IMO, the options suggested are clumsy and unnecessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We switch to present tense with the very next sentence ("He is..."), so that's just plain inconsistent. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't sound strange to me even though I see your point. I think it again comes down to the way the reader sees it. As a king he reigned in the past, legendary or not so in my mind he is in the past as I read. As a folk hero in a book he is in my mind in the present, a character in a book I am now reading. I am not saying either sentence is right or wrong, just that both tenses are possible in each sentence. I have read the two sentences together several times as they are and it does not sound strange to me. Saying he was a folk hero to keep the same tense does sound slightly odd though (because he still is a hero but he is no longer a king.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Within legend, as a king he reigned in the past and will reign in the future. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably best to avoid "legendary king" altogether. King Arthur is a figure of legend... Or, going in the other direction, King Arthur was a ruler in Britain during the Dark Ages, according to legend. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I like the "According to legend" phrasing figure, but would prefer that we front-load the fact that this is a fiction topic. "According to legend, King Arthur was a ruler of Britain during the Dark Ages", perhaps? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)