I might be a descendent of King Arthur?

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,636
Las Vegas, NV USA
About who could crown him ... the People. He could give a Constitution to the Britons and he could get the Crown by popular acclamation
Good idea. The current dynasty is German (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). Don't be fooled by that fake name Windsor. Windsor is a palace and a place, not a person. The English language is a problem. King Arthur spoke a Britannic dialect probably close to modern Welsh. Fortunately lawmakers can never agree on the wording of legislation even when they agree on the principles. So the law could just require being able to speak "Britannic" in five years. I checked. "Hello." is used in modern Welsh so if you can say that, you can speak "Britannic".
 
Last edited:

kazeuma

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,421
There is another, another problem I thought of as well. In the OP it mentions King Henry took his lands.

Having your titles and lands taken away falls under the rule of ATTAINDER. Once under attainder, nobles were considered commoners, and as such, could be subjected to the same treatments, including torture and methods of execution including hanging and burning at the stake for treason.

Corruption of blood is one of the consequences of attainder. The descendants of an attainted person could not inherit either from the attainted person (whose property had been forfeited by the attainder) or from their other relatives through him. For example, if a person is executed for a crime leaving innocent children, the property of the criminal is forfeited to the crown and will not pass to the children. When the criminal's innocent father outlives his son, the property inherited by the criminal from the father cannot be inherited by the criminal's children either. The right of Attainder and Corruption of Blood was legal until 1814.

Yet if you are going to sue for the right of being called "baron" or higher - it is still part of the common law those under attainder, can at no time past or present sue in any court of law to have your lands and titles restored without the expressed permission of the sitting monarch.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,636
Las Vegas, NV USA
There is another, another problem I thought of as well. In the OP it mentions King Henry took his lands.

Having your titles and lands taken away falls under the rule of ATTAINDER. Once under attainder, nobles were considered commoners, and as such, could be subjected to the same treatments, including torture and methods of execution including hanging and burning at the stake for treason. ....
I think this is different. My conspiracy theory (CP) has the OP challenging the right of succession after Queen Elizabeth II passes. He claims the right based on his direct descent from King Arthur and holding that all subsequent rulers under the the name England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom were and are illegitimate pretenders. He holds no anger toward the current royal family because they were unaware. Nevertheless the time has for the restoration of Celtic Britannia. No seizure of any property will occur. The OP will accept the Civil List income plus any profits from ticket sales to his coronation.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
And don't forget to "hire" a suitable wife: today there are a few candidates ...

* Angelina Jolie
* Nicole Kidman
* Charlize Theron

But ... to give more magical value to the Crown I would suggest to get married with Emma Watson. Harry Potter could give a hand ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,636
Las Vegas, NV USA
And don't forget to "hire" a suitable wife: today there are a few candidates ...

* Angelina Jolie
* Nicole Kidman
* Charlize Theron

But ... to give more magical value to the Crown I would suggest to get married with Emma Watson. Harry Potter could give a hand ...
Emma Watson is 29. We need someone who is a bit younger to establish a new royal family. How about:

She's 22
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,398
Italy, Lago Maggiore
This was old information. She's 27-28 now. We need a consort for the OP 18-22 now; a young woman worthy of a king. Any suggestions?
As for I know the Dutch and Norwegian Princesses are too young. A good option would be the Japanese Princess Toshi, she will be 18 next December 1st ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazeuma

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,671
Westmorland
The Justinian Plague helped a lot in the reduction of population - - Maelgwn was said to have died of the "Yellow Plague of Rhos" around 547.
He's said to have died of yellow plague in his court at Rhos. You're probably right about the demographic impact of the plague, but bear in mind that the sixth century entries for the Annales were slotted in retrospectively by chroniclers at St David's working over two centuries later. What they appear to have done is to synthesise the 547 entry with the extant Irish chronicles to get to their date. As such, the Annales are not a primary or a contemporaneous source for the events of 547. The entry might be accurate but it might just as easily be the result of a chronicler knowing a story about Maelgwn supposedly dying of plague, seeing the plague references in the Irish annals and thinking - "aha - that's where to put it". We just don't know either way and that seriously impacts on the usefulness of the entry for the purposes of writing history. Not that that stops anyone, of course...

Either way, Rhos is not on Anglesey (where we are supposed to place Maelgwn). It's the bit to the east of Conway, although that is still Gwynedd. Interestingly, Gildas' pun about Cuneglasus being the charioteer of the bears' stronghold may help us. 'The bear's stronghold' would translate as Dinarth in Welsh. Dinarth is the name of a hill fort in Rhos, just outside modern Llandudno. As such, Rhos was arguably not the court of Maelgwn, notwithstanding that we know too little about the political arrangements of the sixth century to comment on whether Cuneglasus was a client of Maelgwn. We can say that he was Maelgwn's cousin.

If one counts backwards say subtracting 1 from 547 -> 546, then subtracting 1 from 546, etc until you get 10 to 20+ years back you get one of the traditional dates for the 2nd Battle of Badon Hill (538 AD), which some ascribe as a victory for Arthur.
But this sort of dating schema relies on us having one solid date to work from, which unfortunately we don't actually have.

Some have suggested that Arthur was born 25 December Year 479 - under this celestial event, which would be one of the reasons why Gildas would not wish to write of him - being a religious zealot in the time of plague anyone associated with comets meant Satan.
I don't know who these 'some' are, but there is no evidence to say when Arthur was born, even if we allow him to have been real. The whole 'Gildas didn't like to mention him' thing is just a logical fallacy - special pleading to get round the problem of our one near-contemporary source for Badon not mentioning Arthur.

Now addressing the heraldry in my previous post. I did not say that Mordred carried it - I said it was probably authentic to the period of Arthur.
OK - fair enough. But why do you think it 'probably authentic'? What is the evidence for the assertion?

It is the same of post Roman Britannia - the Roman legions are gone and not coming back.
In the context of the late fourth and early fifth century, you need to think in terms of field armies and border troops rather than legions and auxiliaries. There is a growing body of evidence to support the notion that although Stilicho, Constantine et al took the units of the field army with them in pursuit of imperial ambition, the border troops stayed.

Once Arthur is dead and the ravages of the plague would have easily depopulated Britannia - leaving it quite prime for the new Saxon landowners and leadership.
Even if we leave aside the ethnicist assumptions here, the old chestnut that the plague only killed Britons and left Saxons unharmed has been called into question again by the recent dig at Edix Hill in Cambridgeshire. It's an Anglo-Saxon cemetery which has produced the ONLY positive evidence for the Justinian Plague ever found in Britain.
 
Nov 2008
1,427
England
f one counts backwards say subtracting 1 from 547 -> 546, then subtracting 1 from 546, etc until you get 10 to 20+ years back you get one of the traditional dates for the 2nd Battle of Badon Hill (538 AD), which some ascribe as a victory for Arthur.
There is a general consensus amongst historians that the Battle of Badon happened at the end of the fifth century. Now Gildas stated that Badon took place during the year he was born, 44 years before in fact. And in his writing he also strongly criticises King Maglocunus (Maelgwn) which implies the king was still living when Gildas wrote his denunciation. The Welsh annals record that king dying of plague in the year 547. If that is correct, the latest possible date would be 547 minus 44, and that gives us the year 503.
 
Jan 2015
954
England
And in his writing he also strongly criticises King Maglocunus (Maelgwn) which implies the king was still living when Gildas wrote his denunciation. The Welsh annals record that king dying of plague in the year 547. If that is correct, the latest possible date would be 547 minus 44, and that gives us the year 503.
Of course, it is the very same Welsh Annals that records the Battle of Badon being in 516. You could just as validly count forward 44 years to get the earliest possible date for Maelgwn's death. There is no justification for the common practice (not originating with you, Aelfwine) of counting backwards from Maelgwn's death and assuming the entry for Badon is the one that is wrong. Either one could be wrong, or both.