He said Norman the Conqueror at one point. He should learn his lines better.

Knut? They keep changing spellings!

@@therespectedlex9794what’s wrong with that? Nobody can slip up? Obviously he had his mind on the conquest. I doubt he had “line.”

That's nothing to do with intelligence, he simply remembered a GCSE history lesson.

'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..

Absolutely, well said! I was surprised & shocked by the lack of underpinning historical knowledge, by our good public, bar a few...

Spot on! I am not English but am interested in history. The answers don’t come across as ignorant. In fact very insightful.

Iulius Gaius Caesar then His Beloved Son Octavianus Augustus

And the English ‘ruling class’ is still largely made up from the descendants of William 1 and his associates (mainly but not exclusively Norman vikings)

Thank you!

That's the power of accessible knowledge for the masses

@@Lamya65 I am a bit of a self-taught history freak myself but I had the same thoughts. I knew it wasn't Arthur, if he existed at all, he was a Celt fighting to stop the English coming - ironic or what. I really like Winchester, shame I now live on the Scottish border, it's a long way!

He's not a construction worker. Veolia do waste management in the City of London (and many other local authorities), meaning he's either a binman, sorter or a road sweeper. It's kind of interesting as society has long looked down on people with these sorts of jobs are being uneducated and unintelligent. I remember it being a common threat that if you didn't do well at school you would end up as a road sweeper, with characters such as simple-minded Trigger from Only Fools and Horses painting them as not being the brightest bunch. The deacon at my church was a binman, and we used to see him once a week taking our bins. If he had no qualifications and lacked intelligence he would quite simply not be a deacon. The pay isn't amazing, but is usually above minimum wage, and contrary to popular belief you do need qualifications including passes in Maths and English, which is better than a lot of jobs. Private sector pay a lot more and subsequently needs or provides better training.

@@rustledjammies8769 I bet you're real fun at parties.

@@ozarkscarguy540 bruh calm down mate

kinda wonder how many people did answer but werent shown here

Lmao, that's a lot of words for 'he isn't a construction worker'.

The least obviously educated actually knew the most. The story of modern education

@@user-ol8fn2dy8h he might be the most educated. Just did not have daddy's trust fund to depend on.

@@user-ol8fn2dy8h even after having the evidence shoved in your face you confused having a work class accent with being uneducated.

I want to see him on a history themed game show with some high ranking MPs

Probably a CK3 player

Never put down the people you think are below you. People who work for councils are from a very wide range of backgrounds, and knowledge.

@@cohort075. Very well said. Thank you.

​yep, I get this all the time.. i work as a domestic cleaner and spend all my days listening to documentaries, science, history etc whilst I work.. "ooooh you are so intelligent for a cleaner" is not the compliment people think it is.

my brother is also a womble and he knows lots of stuff.

1st king of england is actually prince brutus of troy

@@jmensa9128The time that Brutus Of Troy was supposed to have come to Britain predates the coming of the English. There was no England for him to be king of. He’s also widely regarded as a mythical figure who probably didn’t exist.

But he didn’t rule over a settled nation. It was still very much a fragmented place…..

Athelstan was crowned on the King's Stone in Kingston-upon-Thames. Lots of things in the area named after him. Many Kings were crowned there, until William the Conquerer moved the ceremony to Westminster Abbey.

@@frankieelen7238 Interesting.

'' Brutus( died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''...

​@@Yahweh312obviously just a legend

Skilled tradespeople are usually more intelligent and better informed than modern arts & humanities graduates.

@@drahcirnevarc9152 Oi! Nothing wrong with the humanities! (Archival science graduate here). But I'd say that it varies, very much. Just like in all other areas of life.

Athelstan first king of England and William the conqueror was first norman king of England.

Well done. Everyone in England can name the first president of the USA but hardly anyone knows the name of the first king! I hope there will be a video about the first king of the Scots. That's just as tricky.

Same here!

@@MrBulky992 But that was yesterday by comparison.

Nicely done! You must like history.

Canadian guy here who considers himself well read and I never heard of Aethelstan. You got me beat big time girl. So do you really know who was the first Canadian Prime Minister. NO LOOKIN IT UP.

Hungary was established as a kingdom even before William the conquerer - in 1000, Stephen the Apostolic king of Hungary was crowned with a crown sent by the existing Pope in Rome. (just saying.....)

Thats basically every country man

@@adampica9815 It really isn't. Read some history of Germany, Italy, Poland, etc etc

I wonder what it would be like to be Egyptian. They remember the first pharaoh of Unified Egypt, Narmer, who lived in 3150 BCE. 5000 years ago. And they have records of even more ancient mythological kings. Kings who ruled smaller disparate parts of Egypt. Going back to literal god kings. And I honestly can't decide which is more romantic. Knowing your kings from 5000 years ago, or letting the mists of history make mythological figures out of them.

Um, Persia/Iran? Cyrus II aka the Great (unified empire 559-530 BCE). China? (Qin Dynasty 221 BCE).

Me, too. I think I actually read that somewhere.

Theyre both good answers.

Aethelstan was King of the English, The question was " who was the first king of England"? That would probably be William 1.

You're stupid. Aethelstan was the first King of England (at the time called Anglaland). He united it and gave it its name. ​@@khankrum1

@@khankrum1 - Athelstan was recognised as the 1st King of England

@@gnasher688 The standard title for monarchs from Æthelstan was "King of the English". In 1016 Cnut the Great, a Dane, was the first to call himself "King of England".

no way!

A unified kingdom. The idea of England was presented by Alfred the great, as he wanted to unify the kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumberland and East Anglia. This wouldn't happen though until his grandson Aethlston took the crown.

@@bubba842 Fully aware. But you also had to Wales, which wasn't suppressed until Edward I, who also, at least for a time suppressed Scottish independence.

WHY is england ?

Yes indeed, or Sweden. A school textbook I inherited from my grandma (who grew up in the 1930s) declares that "the actual age of the Swedish kingdom is unknown, but of the states that are found in Europe today, Sweden is the oldest to have existed continuously". That was slightly fanciful, but only just: there may have been "kings of Sweden" already in the 7th/8th centuries, it's just that we don't know how far beyond the heart of the country their power extended. By the year 1000 at the latest, there was only one king in the country, but it's not as if he was running it like a boss. 😄

Same problem in practically all countries. I know it is for Sweden. It took time for Sweden to get the form it has today. For a very long time, the Northern part of the country (more or less half of the current country) just didn't count.

He is the Stan Mortensen of royalty, he (Mortensen)scored a hat-trick in the 1953 final and it is remembered as the 'Mathews Final'. Athelstan, from Wessex united all of the smaller kingdoms and is the true founder of England, yet he has been ignored by educators.

Just to be made gay in a Netflix show

@@danielkenweisu4682 got to meet those diversity targets

We should bring Aethelstan back as a boys' first name. ; )

@@danielkenweisu4682He may very well have been, he never married and fathered no known children.

You have the opportunity of goggling the answer.

He was A king of many kings in England but not THE king of England.. William was the first to unite the kings under himself and became THE king.

@@helensimmonds5182 What about Canute? He turned the old kingdoms into earldoms. Also you are mistaking the kings of Wales, Ireland and Scotland wih kings in England. There where no kings in England except for the house of Wessex. The vikings killed them all. Athelstans coronation had him rowed down the river Dee by several kings, but they where not English. They where the kings of Ireland, Scotland,etc that I just mentioned.

So, a standard Yank

He was King of the English, not King of England.

If England is defined as the land of the English, being King of the English is King of England.

@@AlunParsons Sort of ironic, because none of the earliest Kings spoke English or ruled people who spoke English and it took a very long time to even call the land itself England. 👍👍🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

He's in Walter Scott isn't he?

The pre-1066 English have been written out of history by the establishment.

I imagine he suffers from having a hard to spell out name. If only his name was something easy, like Alfred or George!

@@mikesaunders4775 They tried, but failed. Anyone who knows English history would have easily answered this question. 😂

​@@mikesaunders4775Tell me about it! My own cousins didn't know we share a surname with the last Saxon King. They know "King Harold" and 1066, but not Earl Godwin, his father

Bingo ! Without looking it up I gave the same answer . But couldn't remember the name of Alfred's Grandson .

@@landsea7332 😍

He was declared King of the Anglo-Saxons, but was not a king of a united England. Aethelstan was also King of the Anglo-Saxons, until crowned King of England

'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..

I’d no more consider Brutus Of Troy than I would Arthur Pendragon. Both are most likely mythical characters. Alfred was certainly the first king we know of to really push for the idea of a unified English identity. He felt that the best way to defeat an enemy (in this case the Danes) was for the people to unify behind a common religion, language and culture. It appears that the idea of a united English kingdom, as opposed to smaller, more vulnerable, kingdoms, was part of that. It’s a shame he never saw that idea through before he died, but good to know his grandson achieved it.

who said that? I missed that one haha

I know. What happened to Richard the first ?

You say this, but Charles VII of Sweden was, in fact, the first Swedish king of the name Charles, as they had included mythological Kings when counting. More specifically Charles IX of Sweden (really the third) decided that should be his number and so Charles VII received that number posthumously

@@EvieOConnorxoxo thats very interesting! However, Richard I is one of the most famous English monarchs who most people know was not even the first Norman king of England. Therefore, saying “Richard II” must have been meant as a joke. The guy who said it also knew Athelstan (most people do not) which showed that he is probably very aware that Richard II was not the first King of England, hence why it’s an absurd answer (and amusing).

Well I didn't vote for him!

@@joycarlson2492 Strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government.

This is my best comment of the day on any video I've seen ​@@joycarlson2492🔥

@@Hibernicus1968 Best film ever........

"If I walked around, saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

People just don't think!

It could make sense of Richard I was a king of Mercia before England was a united monarchy and they kept up the numbering.

LOL

@@Siegbert85”before England was a united monarchy” meaning not the king

Do you know how many Edwards there were before Edward II came along?

Oh god that guys accent got worse and worse ans worse untill I could no longer watch it. I really enjoyed the show but he sounded like a bag of squirrels by the end.

'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..

Iulius Gaius. Slayer of the Gauls and Celts.

Yes, very funny.

He was being put on the spot and he WAS nervous.

Well I mean the 1st was just a duke

@@SaltyCorpsman he was also King of all England. Despite only ever having been here for 6 months at the time.

@Dimera09 you're thinking of The Lion Heart, Richard I. Richard II reigned over the Peasants' Revolt, was a bad king, was usurped, killed, and later slandered for all time with a story about a really bad date with a hot poker.

Could be Malmesbury abby , but I always thought it was China ?

​@@alanjones3874😂😂😂😂

He prob forgot aboot Iulius Gaius Caesar. First Pope. Conqueror of a sweet chunk of engaland 🌪️🐑

Norman The Conquer though

@@judgeaileencannon9607 which highlights the trickiness of the question. Is the question who was the first monarch to rule of what we now call England or who was the first native born 'English' monarch.

​@@astoriacub Ilius Gaius Caesar wasn't even a monarch though, he was a tyrannical usurper.

@@quintuscrinis8032 The Caesers were very much monarchs, though. The Roman Caesers were the template for the Dark Age and Medieval Kings of England and France.

There was life before that .

Well now you know! 🙂 There are a few Anglo-Saxon heroes and heroines that are worth talking about, such as, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Aethelflaed, Edward Ironside, etc. There wouldn’t be an England at all without them…

'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''...

Me too and I grew up in England

Vortigern, ;)

You are correct.

It is, there's no debate just those who know this fact and those who are misinformed.

Quite right. The hair splitters have no good argument.

How did you do Æ ?

@@sidm3300 Alas I cheated. I copy/pasted it from a document I found online...I wish I could say I was some sort of genius, but I'm not.... Wishing you a good day.

I was a bit disappointed that he didn't remove his hat while talking to a lady, but he seemed pleasant.

@4362mont I attended a graduation ceremony at Methodist Central Hall where A Texan did not remove his cowboy hat upon entering the building. Wore that hat through the ceremony. Tres gauche

@@acustomer7216 Probably all hat & no cattle, aa some of us say.

Cowboy hats are removed when you go inside someone's house, a church (or other place of worship), and inside if it's a formal occassion. Let's say you're eating at a counter, you can keep it on, but a table, you keep it off. If it's casual, you can put it back on. When you put it down, you put it top up, and don't show the inside. Cowboy hats are considered a working hat, and cowgirls wear them, too. No one takes them off outside, but a polite nod, or touching the brim with a nod is a sign of respect or politeness.

@@4362mont That's not how cowboy hats (or hats in general, in the US) work. Outside, you can wear the hat.

This Dane agrees. We know him as Harald Hårdråde, and he was never really our king. 😊

Yes. Double take here too.

Yes, and it should also be remarked that, by God, the man did get around! Some of his exploits: 'Harald distinguished himself in the Battle of Stiklestad, a battle between the Danish king Cnut the Great and Harald's half-brother, the later Norwegian king-saint Olav II Haraldsson (Saint Olaf). Being on the losing side, however, Harald had to flee. First he went to Kiev, where he found protection with Prince Jaroslav, a descendant of some of the Vikings who settled there. Then Harald moved on to Constantinople, where he fought in the so-called Varangian Guard. This was an elite unit in the Byzantine army, consisting of Vikings, Englishmen and Normans. As a commander in the Byzantine army, Harald fought in places as far apart as the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Sicily, the Holy Land and in Constantinople proper.' And this is all before he got into the king business...

Just so you know, we called everybody that invaded at that time "Danes" dosnt mean they were nessecarilly Danish ...maybe hes getting mixed up

For England, Harold Hardrada was the Ralph Nader of the 11th century. He invaded England and got himself beaten by King Harold II (Harold Godwinson) who had to march his army straight away down to Hastings and take on Duke William, to whom he lost. By that time the Normans were speaking French, but they were really Vikings too, and William was a descendant of their founder "Rollo" (Hrolfr).

William the conqueror..was the Norman duke who became king in 1066

I want there to be a movie about Norman the Conqueror. Played by a black guy. Better yet, a black woman.

Hey John i could accept a movie where a good black actor played the role of William the Conqueror with lots of action at the Battle if Hastings .But as a woman ?? That is like putting a man in to play the role of Joan of Arc in a history of her life A bridge too far for sensible viewers.

@@JOHN----DOE William the conqueror! who was a Norman and he was not black..

​@LauraRegaldoLiebermann why would you accept a black guy playing William the Conquerer but not a woman? You obviously don't care about historical accuracy, so how are you drawing the line?

So Alfred himself wasnt king? But his grandson was?

@@pheart2381just not king of all of england i think

@@pheart2381 Alfred was King of Wessex he was not King of Mercia or Northumbria

@@pheart2381 King of Wessex, but referred to himself as King of the English. But not king of England. Funny the Sweaty Sock kings were always King of the Scots, not King of Scotland.

@@jcoker423 Alfred was King of Wessex and King of the Anglo-Saxons, but not King of the English. However, from 911 his daughter, Lady Æthelflæd, was Queen of Mercia and a close ally.

😆😆😆

We bow to your magnificence !

My liege 👑

America will want independence one day I reckon.

Sure, but Alfred was GREAT!

Reading The Last Kingdom taught me more about English history than all my teachers 😁

@@colincampbell378 I agree, although I watched the series obviously rather than read the book. Watched Vikings as well which is set similar time but obviously a lot more glamorous. I enjoyed both, but Last Kingdom more.

@@Zippy66 , I have watched, read the books and also listened to the audiobooks... Cornwell is the number one.

If you're relying on Cornwell for historical accuracy you'll remain badly misinformed. He wrote fiction based on historical events.

Thankfully Bernard Cornwell sticks quite close to actual history with his books. So you can be sure that 99% of what you read/see is accurate. In essence it's an historical book with an added character or two to give a narrative/Stirling

Normans weren't true English (Anglo-Saxon), they were French Scandinavian (i.e. Norman = North Men).

I want to put in one protest vote each for Math the Ancient & and for the emperor Claudius.

@@white-dragon4424 Edward the Confessor was half Norman (throught his mother Emma, twice Queen of England), and he Is definitely considered an English King, and even and English saint. During his reign, well before Hastings, Norman influence was quite strong, expecially in the Church. And at that point his subjects were absolutely not only Anglo-Saxons, but also Danes and Britons. So I'm not so sure that Anglo-Saxon Is a synonimous of English. Not in year 1000, at least.

Canute the Great is the first to use the title of King of England. He also used King of the English that his predecessors used alongside a variety of other titles. Nonetheless he is the first to style himself as King of England and this title would be adopted by later rulers as well

That wasn't the question. You don't need to be from somewhere to be king of it.​@@white-dragon4424

First trans statue?

@@user-it7lf7kk8m 🤣

​@@user-it7lf7kk8mCan we just enjoy history.

Council budget cuts, you reckon?

Good question. The Scandinavian countries elected their kings much of the time too. I wonder if it was the basis for the parliamentary system, in which the leader of the majority becomes PM.

We kind of still do this, but it’s only observed for formality reasons. I remember watching the privy council last year on TV, basically the new king had to watch the lords give their approval. Just as the Witan had before 1066, but of course then it wasn’t a mere formality.

It wasn't an election in the modern sense though, was it? All the kings of the House of Wessex were close relatives of one another: Egbert Ethelwulf - son of Egbert Ethelbald - son of Ethelwulf Ethelbert - son of Ethelwulf Ethelred - son of Ethelwulf Alfred - son of Ethelwulf Edward the Elder - son of Alfred Aethelstan - illegitimate son of Edward Edmund - son of Edward Edred - son of Edward Edwig - son of Edmund Edgar - son of Edmund Edward the Martyr - son of Edgar Ethelred II - son of Edgar Edmund Ironside - son of Ethelred ... Edward the Confessor - son of Ethelred Harold II - no relation, the exception proving the rule Edgar the Aetheling - grandson of Edmund Ironside, great nephew of Edward So essentially the "election" was to decide whether to pass over the next in line by exclusive male primogeniture on grounds of age and instead to hand the kingship to a brother of the deceased king orelse confirming tge obvious successor in which case it was a mere formality. I doubt there were ballot papers or a show of hands. I would say it was more akin to the modern Privy Council's accession proclamation at St James's Palace. Of course, the Witangemot were the king's advisors after the reign began.

It wasn't a democratic election, though, it was more akin to the way the pope is elected. And often the field of candidates was one person.

@@MrBulky992 Yeah, basically just a way for the Nobility to feel like they have a say. But essentially all it did was confirm what would have happened under primogeniture anyways in almost all cases. It was actually really bugging me that he made it sound as if it was akin to what we think of when we think of democracy. It was nothing of the sorts really.

It's unnecessary. Knowing how to source and evaluate information and detect disinformation is far more important.

I think they all got pretty good answers showcasing that it is indeed a question with(depending on definition) several answers.

Steady on, 279, it's made by a TV production company. They need this sort of thing to boost viewership. It's not particularily important to know such stuff a thousand years later, is it ?

It's not taught anymore but lgbt rubbish is 😂

Most people don't retain knowledge that poses no use for many decades - that's an inefficient use of brain-space. Having said that, it's also a trick question - because it depends on your definition of literally every word in the sentence. "who was the first king of England" 1st, define what you mean by England. Second, define what you mean by King.

I learned more religious history as a kid than secular history in school. They didn't have many history lessons in school back in the 60s and 70s. I took an interest as an adult, so I am familiar with the topic of 1st king of England. I hope education has improved in California since my wild west experience.

But not Cumberand which remained part of the kingdom of Strathclyde.

Claudius , after kicking butts in AD 95 .

'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..

I am an Aethelstan Stan. I am also a Matt Lewis Stan. 😁

Always have been.

Yep...Son of Alfred... I'm a history guy; Military, American and European Medieval, Dracul-a, conflict w Islam, Richard the Lion Heart... Arthur was Welsh, likely 5th - 8th century, wore chain and not plate armor. He has been co-opted by English/British and the French. Merlin was also real, given the title of "General of General" before he was a Wizard. There is a book written by two historians, one named Wilson. You can see their interviews on KZfaq. I'd love a copy of this book if you can find it. I'm sure you would enjoy the investigation of "the other history" of Arthur and Merlin. If you find two copies of Wilson's book, I'd gladly reimburse you. Thanks for doing the video. Blessings upon you, in the Holy name of Jesus the Christ. Amen.

Thank you it was very interesting. and well done.

But he would be the King of Mercia. Similar to the kings of Wessex and Northumbria at the same time.

Of course we should all know these things, it was only a thousand years ago, although all the photo's have disappeared.

Yep, pure propaganda that persists to the present day. First history lesson at my secondary school- The Norman Conquest, i.e. the worst thing that ever happened to 'the English'.

Lots of people said Alfred the Great though…who was a pre-1066 king.

You're just butthurt over the battle of Hastings when William gave Harold and ass whooping. Not like anglo-saxons didn't use propaganda when they took over. They got a taste of their own medicine.

@@SorceressWitch Because the Normans resorted to the cowardly “feigned retreat” tactic, they would have lost the battle otherwise despite having greater numbers than the English and being fully rested. Furthermore, I don’t see why we would be “butt hurt” over a battle that happened nearly 1000 years ago, that’s just daft! 😂 An account from Orderic Vitalis himself about the English at Hastings: “The ferocious resolution of the English struck terror into the foot-soldiers and knights of the Bretons and other auxiliaries on the left wing; they turned to flee and almost the whole of the Duke's battle line fell back, for the rumour spread that he had been killed. But the Duke, seeing a great part of the opposing army springing forwards to pursue his men, met them as they fled, threatening and striking them with his spear.”

That was the best response by far... Genius.

Exactly.. best answer. We should skip everything named..The 1st.

Having a blast , got my two cents worth in . Don`t know anything about the subject , but , expressed my views anyway .

@@alanjones3874 Yes. it is fun to learn new things, and it is great to show interest and enjoyment in learning. It is also very good to say thank you to those who took the trouble and provided the knowledge in an interesting way. it is not easy to achieve. I am a teacher. In the very first day I tell my students never to denigrate someone who asks a question or shows curiosity. Lack of knowledge is easily fixed. but lack of manners or lack of character ....

No? But we can find Brits sticking their noses everywhere else while eating bland food.

​@@SorceressWitchhave fun speaking English

😂😂😂

I thought king Arthur was just a story

Arthur appears to have been real. Arthur means ‘The Bear’ which was the name given to Cuneglas, Prince of Rhos in Gwynedd. Gildas mentions him disparagingly ( probably because he killed Gildas’ brother. ) Gildas calls him a Tyrant then Quote ‘ You bear, you rider and ruler of many, and guider of the chariot which is the receptacle of the bear" Cuneglas fought in many battles apparently in Rheged (what became The Old North) and further south too probably against the Saxons invading from the South Coast. Camulodunum near the East Coast would have been well known to him and would have been one of the most important Hill Fort cities of the time with Roman Walls for good defence. The area around Caer Camulod was formed after the Romans left. So Cuneglas would have considered this the British capital and defended it well. He started off as Prince of Rhos but his fighting ability was what the Romano British needed for protection. Camulodunum was almost certainly the fabled Camalot due to its overwhelming importance to the Romans snd British before. His Hill Fort can be visited on the hill behind Rhos-on-Sea! And it is in Dinerth which means Hill-fort of the Bear.

@@janyb1907 IMH and totally non scholarly O... Arthur is a melding of myth, legend and history. I'm not sure how far back the proto Arthur and Merlin goes into Celtic lore, but it's possible that legends arose around a historical leader who fought the Saxons in the 5th/6th century, and earlier myths were added to the pot.

Only a thousand years difference historically too!

Compared to the books, the show is a travesty! What they did to the source material is so disappointing. Maybe if I hadn’t read it, I could see the awesome that everyone else does, but to me it’s just painful. (Also… the costuming!!!’ So so so so bad… but I digress) If you like the show, you should check out the books by Bernard Cornwell. Really great. He like single handedly transformed historical fiction. The Winter King is another popular (similarly butchered) show based on his books.

​@@roastedpepperThe Winter King is good.

@@roastedpepper The first book is not that well written though. I have no problem with the history, characters or story, but the style and prose is simplistic. Consequently I didn't read the series because the writing itself is so clumsy.

@@roastedpepper Agreed, the costuming is awful. I can see why they gave the Anglo-Saxons rectangular shields to distinguish them from the Vikings, (though their testudo-style shield walls look unlikely to me as a re-enactor,) but there's no excuse for the costumes! Despite that, I enjoyed the TV series, even if they're not quite as good as the books.

The show and books aren’t really 100% historically accurate, they’re historical fiction novels after all. But if they make people more aware of Alfred, Athelstan, Edward, Athelflaed, etc, then I can’t complain. They were much more badass and fascinating in real life by the way.

There has always been polish names in uk army thru generations

@@joprocter4573 are you sure? A few individuals after 1945. Several hundred thousand in the Polish Armed Forces in the West (Polskie Sily Zbrojne na Zachodzie) during WW2, under British operational command. None earlier .

I heard that he did the plumbing in his castle?