Thank you Richard, much appreciated.

ha ha -I take that's in a good way....? lol

Hey Kevin, thanks glad u enjoyed it. Your point completely feasible, however if you like super cool stuff: Arthur was indeed named as a king as in the video, but further more, his name is inscribed elsewhere and mentioned on many items, the most striking of which is his tombstone, was found, and bears his title as Rex Artorus fili mavricivs (Athwys ap Meurig) and also a silver memorial cross with his name on, what is even wilder is that the stone was part of the news in the 80s and was shown, but once only never to be shown again. The stone was sold to an american collector as the finders thought it would be stolen/go missing and as museums refused to analyse it or even acknowledge it. Get's more wild: Last week the stone turned up in the US and is being presented for examination by professionals, here's the wildest bit --remember Wendy Davies our friend 'Arthur isn't real he died before being king, and the charter is spurious' The actual Wendy from Wiki, She just turned up on the scene. The reason i did this video and specifically in the way I did was to try to get people to look cleanly and exactly at what is there I really want to get that exact point across, what is there is right there bang, so one sees it, okay yep that's there, then.... someone explains it away with 'this and that', and so then one starts trying to figure it out by using the new data one is told plus the first 'there it is' data. The first look at it made sense right? Then an expert told you how it wasn't (Except the expert was wrong) but u try to work with the truth and the expert's data too and mix it all together trying to make it all fit. Another stone with Arthur's name is stashed away and there's only a tiny percent of people the world that know about it. See the other video on the channel about 'written evidence of Arthur'

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Awesome thank you for the kind reply and yes...all very much so. But are we talking about the same guy on those stones? And a mention in the Black Book of Carmarthen (I think) has a line in one of the poems that says "...as the men of Arthur did (battled) at Longborth...". I have not seen this one line referenced as a piece of evidence sugesting there was at least a guy named Arthur that had men in his service.

@@kevinmurphy65 You're welcome Kevin. Well, Yes, that Arthur, the famous one, one has to put together all the mentions of Arthur and related material and note the locations at which they appear, the persons mentioned on the stone are contemporary with the Arthur we are referring to of the 6th century (also contemporary with Gildas the writer) Arthur-Son of Meurig , father of Morgan, to whom he gave the lands that his son named Glamorgan. Ogmore castle where the stone was found is a short march to Monis Baeden (Hill of the Boar /Hill of the challenge (Welsh baedd) Boar -one of Arthur's nicknames) Mount Baeden is where the famous battle took place. The roads and fields are named, in that area, according to the reports of the battle there, road to the tulmult, field of the battle. The author to study on this is Alan Wilson is research his the most detailed and extensive available, he has far surpassed the scholars and academics who cannot seem to make their minds up, they get stuck and then just cop out by saying 'it's a myth' Very strange bunch. The evidence for Arthur is extensive detailed and all available I have no idea why the utter negligence and laziness of the academics continues, he almost seems to pose some kind of threat, it's bizarre.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Exactly my point. Are there that many mentions outside the standard Arthurian canon that many either do not recognize or factor into the aspect of a "World of Arthur" and in most cases for good reason. History is after all and despite the laypersons opinion, a science, so it is still important to proceed as such, and that's the reason why academics are hung up on just stating what may just be the obvious answer. I would imagine on personal levels and discussions, many would give...mmmm...lets say posits that they think or believe, off the record, of course.

@@kevinmurphy65 I agree a scientific approach must be followed , but the historians keep getting it wrong(and boy are they vicious..)-The historian's 'Correction' of the Wiki article above is incorrect Arthyws is not 'Andres' -this was a different person and is clear in the original historical document, the Historian in the wiki article fails to point this very important fact out. The academics, Historians I find, to be perfectly honest -absolutely nuts. I am a complete beginner in this field yet I find it patently obvious that Arthur was a real historical figure. There is this crazy rule in the academic world that if they can't something clearly written in the records, when I say clear I mean like one would do for a five year old, it doesn't exist. They appear utterly confused and utterly glued into statements in old manuscripts which prove 'nothing really happened' And seem to my eyes very confused -they will not take an expansive look across various fields of data they are trapped in one discipline which is specialised and they go nowhere near any other field so they are denied a wide vista. They refuse outright any data that comes from 'outside' 'non university, curriculum approved' sources, they consider it not valid, just not admissible, only if they themselves find it -an 'approved' scholar finds it is it even partially looked at, and then it takes ten years before anyone of them dares talk about it, they are utterly terrified of ridicule by their own group and come down hard on anyone that speaks out of turn. If you are not part of their group and have peer reviewed papers you are not even remotely worthy of attention, you are considered a pitiful village idiot whose hanging is justified. They are so tied down in rules of how to verify something that they cannot declare a simple decision, they just can't make statements, (except of scathing ridicule)they refuse to take any responsibility for making a conclusion and they are terrified to research independently -what if their peers found out! They go round in circles disclaiming this and disclaiming that and never acknowledging the people that wrote the texts, it's weird, like they don't like people or something. It seems they don't really like history either as they seem so angry about it are constantly denying it and vicious towards the authors of old. I bet this sounds somewhat over the top, but that's what i have personally encountered.

Thanks Ian, 11:34 apologies for my mispronunciation, I'll improve my Welsh as I go along :). Mynydd Baiden. Yes it is all there, I am astounded by the plain as day proof of these historical events. I started looking at this through 'normal channels' and couldn't find a straight answer. Even looking over the actual texts, they were 'not to be taken seriously', said all the experts and articles, so i thought well that's ridiculous then no one knows anything then?? Then I happened to see a tourist guide talk about the gates of London and say Ludgate was 'Flood gate' I informed him about King Llud of London, well all hell broke loose, 'You believe in Giants then too ah ha ha etc etc? !' he asked me. 'Thats all myth mate!' Then when I quoted the records he said let's end off here. From that point I realised what a mess we have and how ancient history is not taught and not really allowed.