An English archaeologist has claimed that the mythological King Arthur, of the Knights of the Round Table fame, was Irish rather than British.
The royal debunking has been suggested by Prof Dai Morgan- Evans of the University of Chester, who said his research indicated that although generally hailed "as the ideal British bastion of kingship", Arthur was an Irish war leader more at home on the battlefield than the throne.
"Based on the evidence at our disposal, it appears that Arthur was effectively a senior military figure as opposed to a king," said Prof Morgan-Evans.
"Early sources award him the title of Dux Bellorum - Duke of Battles - which is a Roman title traditionally associated with great war leaders. The image of the knights might not be strictly accurate. Horses would have been used to ride into battle, but stirrups were a Viking tradition, so the traditional depiction of the knights jousting on horseback is probably mythical. The evidence certainly suggests Arthur was a figure in the mould of a General Montgomery, not a king."
King Arthur is a significant figure in British mythology and is said to have been born in the fifth century. The professor said Arthur could have been part of the Irish colonies brought to Britain by the Romans to help defend the Welsh coast.
He suggested that the Irish enjoyed political control over large areas of western Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries.
