Historians accept primary sources as the best evidence–and sometimes the only evidence–of historical events. (https://about.jstor.org/blog/digitally-archived-primary-sources-are-imperative-to-higher-education/)
When it comes to King Arthur, the only sources for his existence that have survived date to the 12th century, begining with Geoffrey of Monmouth, author of The History of the Kings of Britain. To many historians, this is the first acceptable evidence that King Arthur existed. And it, of course, is a fantastical story, which can’t be taken seriously as a historical document.
From an anthropological perspective, history is far more compelling if we think of it as the anthropology of the past. The job is to translate the past for a modern audience, and look for meaning rather than truth. That doesn’t mean data is not important. It’s just that it is possible to include a far broader definition of evidence, encompassing how people actually lived, behaved, and believed. To take this approach can tell us far more about Arthur than a narrowly-defined historical approach.
Some historians postulate that King Arthur was not a real person. They claim this because no definitive written records of his life dating to the time he was supposed to have lived have survived. But with this move, these historians preference the documentation of the conquerors (the Normans/English) over Welsh indigenous knowledge: prose counts but poetry doesn’t; written evidence trumps oral history; and absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy. (For a discussion of the Welsh sources of Arthur see my article: https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/the-lion-of-wales-series/the-fictive-and-historical-king-arthur/ )
And yet, it is clear from the behavior of the Normans of the medieval period that King Arthur was a very important figure to them. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his History in the first place at the behest of Robert of Gloucester, the illegitimate son of Henry I, to justify the Norman conquest of Britain. Furthermore, as one article states, “Richard, Earl of Cornwall, was so convinced Arthur was real that, in May 1233, he traded three prime estates for this treeless headland, which is separated from the mainland by an isthmus, and built a castle on it. It had no function … It’s in a remote part of Cornwall that had no use to him. But he wanted to anchor his position in legend and history. He was the Earl of Cornwall—but he was also the successor of Arthur.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/king-arthur-real-person-180980466/
Similarly, King Edward I of England claimed to have located the bones of Arthur and Guinevere and had them reburied in Glastonbury. He claimed to have found the bones of Macsen Wledic (a key figure in the Welsh Arthurian legend) and reburied them in Caernarfon. For his 45th birthday, he visited the lake Llyn Cwm Dulyn, where Arthur supposedly met the Lady of the Lake and recieved his sword. He even held a tournament in Nefyn, in far western Wales, where Merlin’s writings were said to have been discovered, and cosplayed as Arthur himself. Richard and Edward weren’t trying to convince their own countrymen of their right to rule. The Normans they led were already on board. Their intent was to co-opt the people from whose culture Arthur had arisen–namely, the native descendents of the Britons.
The power intrinsic in the Arthurian stories comes from what Arthur meant to the Welsh. He was one of their greatest heros, harking back to a bygone age of independence and autonomy. Some Welsh legends have it that he is buried in a cave in Snowdonia, ready to rise at the hour of their greatest need and lead them to victory against their enemies.
And in the medieval period who were their enemies? By the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth, it was the Normans/English, who were set on conquering all of Wales.
Arthur’s very existence was a threat to the Norman conquerors, which is what made the Norman rulers so determined to insert themsleves into the legend. For a discussion of all the ways Edward tried to make that happen, see: https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/king-edward-and-king-arthur/
That most people the world over believe Arthur was an English king is a triumph of medieval propaganda. Edward so strongly believed that Arthur existed that he devoted enormous energy not only to adopting the mantle of Arthur, but to making himself into a ruler who was good enough to be integral to the Arthurian story. And, in so doing, he turned a Welsh hero into an English king.
For modern historians to deny Arthur’s existence based upon the absence of documents that the Normans themselves deliberately destroyed in the course of their conquest and cultural appropriation of the Arthurian story is more than misguided. It is willful ignorance.