The Real King Arthur (An AI Production)

Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett are British historians who have conducted extensive research on King Arthur, presenting controversial theories that challenge mainstream historical narratives. According to their work, King Arthur II, also known as Arthur II son of King Meurig, himself the son of King Tewdrig, from a long line of Kings going back to Maximus Magus, Emperor Constantine, all the way to King Bruts. King Arthur II was a historical figure who ruled in Britain during the 6th century, their research is based on Welsh genealogies, ancient manuscripts, and archaeological evidence, which they interpret differently from conventional historians.

Key Points from Wilson and Blackett's Research:

1. Arthur II ap Meurig ap Tewdrig: They identify King Arthur II as Arthur ap Meurig ap Tewdrig, a ruler of the Silurian dynasty in South Wales. They argue that this Arthur was a real historical figure, not a mythical or legendary one.

2. Genealogies and Manuscripts: Wilson and Blackett rely heavily on Welsh genealogies and ancient texts, such as the *Brut Tysilio* and *Annales Cambriae*, to trace Arthur's lineage and deeds. They claim these sources provide evidence of Arthur's existence and his role in defending Britain against Saxon invasions.

3. Archaeological Evidence: They link Arthur to specific archaeological sites in Wales, such as the stone fort at Caerleon and other locations in Glamorgan, suggesting these were centers of his power.

4. Historical Context: According to their research, Arthur II lived in the 6th century and was a successor to an earlier King Arthur (Arthur I), who they believe lived in the late 5th century. They argue that the two Arthurs were conflated into one figure in later legends.

5. Controversial Claims: Their work challenges the traditional view of King Arthur as a figure of folklore or romance. They assert that Arthur was a significant historical leader who played a crucial role in the resistance against Saxon expansion.

Criticism and Reception:
Wilson and Blackett's theories have been met with scepticism by mainstream historians, who argue that their interpretations of sources are speculative and lack sufficient evidence. Many scholars view King Arthur as a legendary figure whose historicity cannot be confirmed.

In Conclusion:
While Wilson and Blackett's research offers an intriguing perspective on King Arthur, it remains outside the mainstream historical consensus. Their identification of King Arthur II as Arthur ap Meurig ap Tewdrig and their reinterpretation of ancient sources provide an alternative narrative, but their claims are not widely accepted in academic circles. If you're interested in their work, their books, such as *The Holy Kingdom* “King Arthur The War King” and *Artorius Rex Discovered*, delve deeper into their theories.