Scientists are doing tests and they have confirmed that King Arthur may have existed even though there is no such thing as Camelot.
It is still debated whether or not he was real. It is for certain that most, (If not all) of English literature that describes him is false. But there may have been a real King Arthur. And we know that his supposed sucessor, Constantine the Third, was real. Meaning we know that Constantine was a king of Britain, but whether or not he followed Arthur is unknown.
not ever person thinks so ,but he might be.people say he is coming to life and is trying to stop moredred.
The relationship between Kay and Arthur can vary depending on the context. In Arthurian legend, Kay is often portrayed as Arthur's foster brother or adoptive brother. In some versions, Kay is the son of Arthur's foster parents and is raised alongside him as a sibling. In other versions, Kay is Arthur's foster brother through his connection to Sir Ector, who raises both Kay and Arthur as his own sons.
No, King Arthur is not believed to have been an Anglo-Saxon. He is a legendary figure from Celtic mythology and is associated with the Britons, who were a Celtic people. The Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain centuries after the time when King Arthur is said to have lived.
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.
Yes, King Arthur was highly influential in Medieval England. He was a legendary figure whose stories, known as the Arthurian legends, played a significant role in shaping the culture, literature, and ideals of chivalry during this period. King Arthur was seen as a symbol of the ideal king and his story served as inspiration for knights, rulers, and writers of the time.
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.
A king typically lives in a palace or a royal residence that is designated for the monarch's use. This can vary depending on the country or culture, but kings often have a dedicated location to live and conduct official business.
The theme in "The Sword in the Stone" is the idea that true strength comes from wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, rather than physical power. The story focuses on the growth and transformation of the young King Arthur, who begins as a powerless and inexperienced boy but ultimately becomes a wise and just ruler due to his ability to learn from his experiences and the guidance of his mentor, Merlin.
People may feel proud when Lancelot defeats them in battle in "The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights" because Lancelot is widely regarded as one of the greatest knights in Arthurian legend. Being defeated by a renowned and formidable opponent can be seen as a validation of one's own skill and courage. Additionally, it may also be seen as an honor to have been tested and bested by someone of Lancelot's caliber.
King Uther Pendragon died from wounds sustained in battle against his enemies. His followers likely met similar fates, as they would have fought alongside him and were subject to the same risks and dangers of warfare.
As of my knowledge, Sir Arthur Foulkes resides in Nassau, Bahamas. Sir Arthur Foulkes served as the Governor-General of the Bahamas from 2010 to 2014.
why do you think some men say in many parts of England that king Arthur is not dead,but carried by the will of our lord jesus into another place;and that he shall come again,and he shall win the holy cross?
Kilgharrah
Quote :
Balinor: What do you want from me?
Merlin: Are you Balinor? The Great Dragon is attacking Camelot.
Balinor: His name is Kilgharrah.
you have to be 15 years old cause i went and asked if i can get an application for my 14 years old sister and they said she has to be at least 15 years old
its in Giruvegan..go inside the great crystal..i cant explain how to get to where it is exactly but its at one of them chests that'll open up.
open it again and you'll get excaliber
to get the excalibur you must at least be at LV40 and have the diamond armlet equiped
A Damsel in Distress
King Arthur himself is the protagonist in the story of King Arthur. Guinevere was the love interest and Lancelot was the conflict.
The medieval Story of Merlin attributed to Robert de Boron first tells of the sword that was magically put in a stone and anvil in a prophecy that whoever pulls the sword out of the stone will be king. Arthur, then still a youth, pulled it out and was made king. It is not explicit here whether this sword is to be identified with Arthur's famous sword Escalibor/Caliburn, which is first named Excalibur by Sir Thomas Malory in his Le Morte d'Arthur.
In an expanded version of the Story of Merlin, generally known as the Vulgate Merlin, an addition covers the first five years of Arthur's reign and the sword is explicitly identified as Excalibur.
In another expanded version of the Story of Merlin, generally known as the Post-Vulgate Merlin, the sword in the stone and Excalibur are two different swords. Arthur breaks his sword, perhaps to be identified with the sword from the stone, in a battle with King Pellinor and Merlin persuades a damsel to give Arthur a new sword which is held by a arm and hand which rises from a lake. (In Malory's retelling this damsel is called the Lady of the Lake.) The sword is later named Escalibor.
In Welsh tales the sword is named Kaletvwlch, usually normalized in translation to Caledflwch. This looks like a Welsh version of the Irish sword name Caledbolg. Caledbolg was the sword of the Irish heroes Fergus mac Leide and Fergus mac Roch.
Escalibor/Caliburn/Kaletvwlch might possibly be a relic of Roman times (the Romans possessed Britain for a couple of centuries). But the name Escalibor or Kaletvwch cannot be a derivative of the Latin phrase incidere chalybs ('cut steel') which supposedly refers to the roman swords being repetitively tempered and therefore harder and capable of notching or even breaking the crude iron swords of the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Linguistically, this supposed derivation does not work. And the phrase is rare or non-existent in Latin texts. Escalibor/Caliburn/Kaletvwlch is never called "the singing sword" in any medieval text.
He wanted to see if they were as tough as he had heard, so he challenged one of them to chop his head off with an axe. Then, in 11 months from now the same man would come to the Green Chapel, and he could strike him once on the neck as he had done to him. Sir Gawain/Gwaine took up the challenge, and set out in 11 months. He stayed in a castle, where the lord struck a deal with him: when the lord went out hunting, he would give everything he caught to Gawain. In return, Gawain must give him everything he comes by at the castle. The lord's wife falls in love with Gawain, and on the first day, kisses him once. Gwaine kisses the lord once, keeping the deal. On the second day, she kissed him twice, so he again returned the kisses. But on the third day, when he was to be on his way to the Green Chapel, she gave him a hand-woven belt as a How_did_green_knight_challenge_arthur_and_his_knightsof her love. It would keep her safe, she said. Completely forgetting the bargain, he left with the belt on underneath his armor. When he reached the Green Chapel, the Green Knight was waiting for him. He swung his axe, but did not touch Gawain. He swung it a second time, and, again did not spill any blood. But on the third time, he cut the neck, just deep enough to spill blood. The Green Knight was really the lord from the castle, and was testing, no only the bravery of the knights, but the nobility, their truthfulness. He struck him only once on the third swing, because that was when he had broken his promise - he had not given him the belt his wife had given him.
MORAL IS TO TELL THE TRUTH :D