This web site attempts to compile a list of sources which mention King Arthur. The sources I have used are, by no means, an extensive resource. It does not aim to prove or disprove the existence but really just places the evidence in front of the reader and asks them to make up their own minds. In this section, I will give some of my own thoughts on the subject after spending some time studying the literature and media.

I approached this topic with an open mind but, in retrospect, I did believe in King Arthur. That is to say, I believed that he once existed. This, I found, is not an uncommon belief. On asking colleagues if they believed in King Arthur's existence they would answer 'Yes' but then a thoughtful look would come over their faces as though they realised what they were saying.

It was this realisation that had hit me. The realisation that the Arthur I believed in was a king in a Golden Age. He ruled from a place called Camelot, had a wife called Guinevere and a marvellous magician named Merlin. He had a magical sword named Excalibur and had undertook a quest to find the Holy Grail. A legend, a fairytale. It is this image that comes into the minds of so many when they think of Arthur and they seem not to question his existence. Of course, many think of the surrounding tales such as Merlin to be a work of fiction but the foundation of this, Arthur, seems rarely to come into question.

The media has a big effect on what we think of when we think of Arthur. There have been many dramatisations of the Arthur story including movies, television programmes, novels and plays. This has coloured our image of this elusive king. When confronted with the task of producing a web site including the sources for the existence of King Arthur, it was interesting to learn just how much fact there was behind the figure and how much proof I would be able to find.

In the end, I found there to be little proof that a historical Arthur existed. Of course, the King Arthur of legend, the story that I have just told, did not exist. He was a work of fiction which originated with Geoffrey of Monmouth. It was Geoffrey who took the Arthur character mentioned in other texts and placed him in this famous story. In later years, other writers would pick up on this story and add to it, adding various characters who we now immediately think of when we think of the Arthur legend.

The question arises, however, 'Was there ever a historical Arthur?' Some believe that there was once an Arthur as such a man was mentioned in some texts. However, it is unlikely that he was ever a king. He was more likely a respected warrior. Some believe that the character of Arthur was based on Riothamus, an actual historical figure. However, this still is inconclusive. There is still the question of the rising popularity of the name at that time and places named after Arthur. Again, however, we are faced with the dilemma, 'Was it a man or a legend which caused these names?'

There have been many attempts to prove the existence of the places named in the Arthur legend. Again, however, these attempts have been inconclusive, including the excavations of Cadbury Castle. The fact is that all of the evidence is inconclusive. It seems that people want so much to believe that this Arthur existed that there have been stories created to make him seem real. However, there are few hard facts that prove Arthur existed.

As one author said, 'there is no smoke without fire' and perhaps this is a fair assumption of the 'Arthur problem'. Surely, there was once an Arthur. It seems incredible to suggest that, even though what we know of Arthur today is vastly fictitious, he never existed in the first place. This would mean that a man who was never alive has been written into our history books. It seems more likely that a man named Arthur did once exist and that he was a warrior. He was well respected and this gave rise to his mention in some texts, only to later be manipulated by Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is ironic that it is this legend that has kept our interest in Arthur alive whilst also clouding our view of what he may have really been like.

Now Arthur is a primarily a literary figure, his story manipulated so much that even the original legend is now distorted. A man named Arthur is likely once to have existed but he was nothing of what we think of now.