there was a grave found that had a cross on it that said it was the grave of king arthur and guinivere. the cross was later lost
There is no concrete historical evidence to prove that King Arthur was a real living person. The stories of King Arthur are largely based on folklore, legends, and myths rather than documented historical accounts.
There is no conclusive historical evidence to prove if King Arthur was a real historical figure or a legendary character. The stories of King Arthur and his knights are primarily found in medieval folklore and literature. Some historians believe that King Arthur may have been based on a real person or amalgamation of multiple historical figures, but this remains a subject of debate and speculation.
There is no concrete historical evidence that proves King Arthur was a real person. The stories of King Arthur are largely based on myth and legend, with some scholars suggesting that he may have been a composite of multiple historical figures. The lack of reliable contemporary records and the fantastical elements of the Arthurian legend make it difficult to establish the existence of a historical King Arthur.
No, King Arthur was not the King of Texas. King Arthur is a legendary figure in British folklore, associated with the medieval Arthurian legends about the Knights of the Round Table. Texas, on the other hand, is a state in the United States with its own government and leaders.
There is no historical evidence to suggest a direct connection between King Arthur and the king of Scotland. King Arthur is a legendary figure in British mythology, while the king of Scotland has been a real monarch with a line of succession. The two figures belong to different realms of history and folklore.
He had to pull the sword from the stone, then Arthur had to keep doing it again and again to proves to other leaders that he was the King.
There is no concrete historical evidence to prove that King Arthur was a real living person. The stories of King Arthur are largely based on folklore, legends, and myths rather than documented historical accounts.
King Arthur is a legendary king and did not exist.
There is no anvil in Athurian myth, nor were there any anvils in Medeval period. You may be thinking of the Stone. King Arthur extracted the sword from the stone to prove he was the true king of England.
King Arthur was king of Britain
king arthur was nice and overprotective
There is no historical evidence to definitively prove that King Arthur existed. The stories and legends of King Arthur are believed to be based on a mixture of historical figures and folklore. While some scholars argue that there may have been a King Arthur-like figure in early medieval Britain, his existence remains a subject of debate and uncertainty.
Test of holy kingdom Knight.
No. There are no records of a King Arthur in England, certainly not in Anglo-Saxon England.
king arthur
There is no conclusive historical evidence to prove if King Arthur was a real historical figure or a legendary character. The stories of King Arthur and his knights are primarily found in medieval folklore and literature. Some historians believe that King Arthur may have been based on a real person or amalgamation of multiple historical figures, but this remains a subject of debate and speculation.
king