King Arthur's Burial Cross

The cross existed at one time and may still exist in some dark cellar or dusty attic. If found, it would be the only tangible relic in existence associated with King Arthur and could provide important clues as to whether or not it was his grave that was opened on that day in 1190.

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/cross.html
Discovery of the Cross
he medieval historian, Gerald of Wales, tells us that sometime before he died in 1189, Henry II gave a message to the monks of Glastonbury Abbey regarding the location of the grave of King Arthur. He also tells us that Henry had gotten the information from an unnamed Welsh bard.

Gerald's account goes on to say that the Glastonbury monks, presumably acting on this information, had uncovered a hollowed-out log containing two bodies, while digging between two stone pyramids standing together in the abbey cemetary. The log coffin had been buried quite deep, at around 16 feet down. A stone slab cover had been found at the seven foot level, and attached to its underside was an oddly shaped cross with a latin inscription on it, naming the occupants of the coffin as the renowned King Arthur and his queen, Guinevere.

Beside Gerald's report written in "Liber de Principis instructione" c.1193, there were several other versions of the discovery of the grave and cross which appeared in various chronicles over the years. Each account was a bit different from the others and either included or omitted details which the others did not. At least five different versions of the inscription on the cross have been reported, and this inconsistency in the details of the story has led many scholars to think that a great hoax was being perpetrated by the Glastonbury monks for the purpose of generating pilgrim traffic to their abbey. 

Adding to the suspicions aroused by the above inconsistencies, the case for a "monastic hoax" gains more strength when we consider that there were several obvious motives for it: 

the monks' beloved abbey church, the most glorious in all England and possibly in all of Christendom, had been destroyed by fire in 1184, just a few short years before.

the abbey's greatest pilgrim attraction, the "Old Church," England's oldest Christian structure which dated back many hundreds of years, had been burned up with it.

the abbey's chief benefactor, the recently deceased Henry II, was no longer in a position tofinance their efforts to rebuild and the new king, Richard, was more interested in using his money to go "Crusading."

A popular legend, current among the British people, claimed that King Arthur had never actually died and that he would one day return to his people when their need was great. While it is easy for modern people to discount a story like that, the twelfth century was an age of great credulity, and since no one could point to the location of Arthur's actual burial place, the legend couldn't be so easily discounted. Amazingly enough, no one had ever even claimed to know where the grave was, let alone try to identify it. A verse from the Welsh "Stanzas of the Graves" (aka The Graves of the Warriors of Britain), states:

There is a grave for March, a grave for Gwythur,
a grave for Gwgawn Red-sword;
the world's wonder, a grave for Arthur

The historian, William of Malmesbury, confirms that the whereabouts of Arthur's burial place is unknown, and that silly legends have been created as a result:

. . .tomb of Arthur is nowhere beheld, whence the ancient ditties fable that he is yet to come.

Given the immediate need for cash to rebuild their abbey, the death of their chief benefactor and a willingness to engage in questionable practices to serve what they believed was a noble end, it would take no great leap of the imagination to expect that the Glastonbury monks would come up with some other scheme to raise funds. In King Arthur, it would seem that they had a ready-made solution to their problems: a major legendary figure whose grave could attract all the pilgrims that the Old Church did, and, at the same time, enhance the abbey's reputation for sanctity and prestige as the final resting place of saints and kings.

Having said all that, it must be noted that there are a few difficulties with the "monastic hoax" theory. First of all, if we are going to credit the monks with the imagination and effrontery necessary to perpetrate a hoax of this magnitude, then we should also expect them to be able to manage the public relations campaign that would be needed after the "discovery" of Arthur's body.

Instead, we see several different accounts of the exhumation of the grave and, over the years, we get several versions of what was inscribed on the cross. The varied accounts of the inscriptions are as follows:

Ralph of Coggeshall, "Chronicon Anglicanum," c.1225

"Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"

Margam Abbey (Wales), "Chronicle," some date it early 1190's, others, 14th century

"Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"

John Leland, 1542

"Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"

William Camden, "Britannia," 1607

"Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"

Monks of St. Albans, "Chronica Majora," mid- to late-13th Century

"Here lies the renowned King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"

Adam of Domerham, "Historia de rebus Glastoniensibus," 1291

"Here lies interred in the isle of Avalon, the renowned King Arthur"

Gerald of Wales, "Liber de Principis instructione," c.1193

"Here lies buried the famous King Arthur with Guinevere his second wife in the isle of Avalon"

Gerald of Wales, "Speculum Ecclesiae," c.1216

"Here lies buried the famous King Arthur in the isle of Avalon with his second wife Guinevere"

Shouldn't we expect that if the monks had been willing to risk this deception in the first place, that they would have made sure that everyone was telling the same story? Another troublesome thing is that while the fortuitous timing of the "discovery" of Arthur's grave might seem highly suspicious to us, the monks didn't follow up by doing what we might expect them to have done if they were really trying to pull off a hoax. We would expect them to have launched a major publicity campaign, announcing the discovery to the world. We would expect to find evidence that a major influx of pilgrims had been planned for. We would expect to find documentary and literary evidence that Glastonbury had, in fact, become a more important place of pilgrimage than it had already been.

Surprisingly, we see none of that. Other than a few mentions in monastic chronicles through the years, there is no record of any "advertising blitz." There were no new structures built to enshrine the bodies or to house or otherwise accommodate the pilgrims. And there was nothing written to suggest that the "discovery" at Glastonbury attracted any unusual attention, at all.

Vortigern

..............................................................

image: http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/vortig.html

http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/vortig.html

Estimates of when Vortigern came to power in Britain vary dramatically: possibly around 425, perhaps about 440-5. He may have been a "high-king." It is thought by some that Vortigern is not a name at all, but a title, meaning "over king." Even his origins are disputed. According to the available sources, Vortigern was a weak man of little character, possessing few redeeming personal qualities. If these sources are correct, it is hard to imagine that his ascent to power was by the acclaimation of the members of Britain's ruling council, and is much easier to believe that he gained his throne by treachery and murder.

Some support for this view is lent by Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his 12th century "History of the Kings of Britain." In it, Geoffrey tells us of a King Constantine, who had three sons, Constans, Aurelius Ambrosius (the Ambrosius Aurelianus of actual history) and Uther Pendragon (the legendary future father of Arthur). Geoffrey says that Constantine was killed by a Pictish assassin, leaving the eldest son, Constans, as king.

Vortigern appears to have climbed his way high up the greasy pole by securing an inspired marriage to Severa, the daughter of the Constantine's predecessor and national hero, Magnus Maximus. As Constans was still quite young, Vortigern was able to have himself installed as the king's advisor, and before long, conspired to have the young king killed. With the king out of the way, Vortigern seized the crown for himself, realizing that Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon were mere babes and weren't in a position, at that time, to frustrate his designs. Luckily for the young brothers, they were bundled up and escaped to the court of their cousin, Budic I, in Brittany.

According to the "Historia Brittonum," a ninth century compilation of writings by a Welsh monk called Nennius, Vortigern came to power threatened with three dangers on his mind:

"Vortigern ruled in Britain and during his rule in Britain he was under pressure, from fear of the Picts and the Irish (Scots), and of a Roman invasion, and, not least, from dread of Ambrosius."

The fear of the Picts and Scots was completely natural since the British northern defenses were ineffective and in severe disarray. The fear of a Roman invasion suggests either great paranoia on Vortigern's part (the Romans had had no presence in Britain for years) or that there was very good reason (of which we are ignorant, today) to be concerned about a reappearance of Roman soldiers on the shores of Britain. The final fear, of Ambrosius, was to have fatal consequences. Vortigern dreaded retribution, for the murder of his father and older brother, but Ambrosius was still young and the High-King could afford to defer any action for some years.

It was during Vortigern's reign that St. Germanus appears at the Royal Court. Traditional this is said to have been St. Germanus of Auxerre, who is known to have visited Britain at this time to stamp out the Palagian heresy that had become so popular. His first journey took him from Caer-Rebuti (Richborough) to Caer-Lundein (London) and Caer-Mincip (St.Albans), all in South-East England. However, stories of his leading an army against invading Saxon pirates, probably in Cheshire, may refer to a different man. The saint who spent some time in Vortigern's presence - probably at Caer-Guricon (Wroxeter, Shropshire) where excavation has revealed the residence of a powerful 5th century noble - may have been the Breton St. Garmon who was active across Wales. This saint accused Vortigern of fathering a child by his own daughter. Though disgusted by the British High-King, Garmon - or Germanus - favoured the man's sons, at least two of whom he appears to have blessed.

Even with the support of his brothers-in-law, who were now powerful rulers in Wales, Vortigern's grip on the country was still shaky; but when Severa died the situation worsened. To aid the Britons in their defense against the increasingly brutal raids from the northern tribes, Vortigern therefore authorized the use of Saxon and Jutish mercenaries, led by Princes Hengist & Horsa. In line with the standard Roman practice of employing one barbarian tribe to defend against another, the Saxons received land to be used for settlement in exchange for their services.

Geoffrey of Monmouth claims that the two brothers asked for all the land they could cover with a single ox-hide. Vortigern eagerly agreed, but found that Hengist cut the hide into a lengthy thong that was able to encompass the whole city of Caer-Correi (Caistor, Lincs)! Vortigern must, however, have found reassurance in the words of the Jutish chief, as recorded in the "Kentish Chronicle":

"Hengest said to Vortigern. . .'Take my advice, and you will never fear conquest by any man or any people, for my people are strong. I will invite my son and his cousin to fight against the Irish, for they are fine warriors.'"

The anti-Pict/Irish strategy that Vortigern chose to employ proved to be successful, since these tribes were never a problem, again, and the arrangement between the Saxons under their leader, Hengest, and Vortigern was agreeable to both parties for some time. Later, however, they tricked the High-King again: this time into handing over to them the Sub-Kingdom of Ceint (Kent). Getting drunk at a celebratory feast, the foolish Vortigern fell deeply in love with Hengist's daughter, Rowena. He promised Hengist anything he wanted, if only he could marry her. Ceint was the Saxon's price.

Sickened by the betrayal of his countrymen, Vortigern's eldest son, Vortimer, declared himself a rival British leader, raised an army and, for a short time, managed to stem the Saxon advance. Wounded in battle, however, he was poisoned by his step-mother. From their secure power-base, the Saxons then demanded more food and clothing to supply their increased numbers and Vortigern refused them, saying, "we cannot give you more food and clothing for your numbers are grown." The Saxons, however, would not accept this answer. Nennius tells us,

"So they took counsel with their elders to break the peace."

They tore through the land, leaving devastation wherever they went. Many were killed during the ensuing battles, amongst them, Horsa & Vortigern's son, Catigern. Hengist eventually called for a peace conference on Salisbury Plain. The British arrived and were promptly cut down where they stood. This decision on the part of the Saxons would result in several generations of war with the Britons.

Vortigern escaped to set up a stronghold in the west. He chose to build a castle on the southern slopes of Yr Aran, above Beddgelert (Gwynedd). Construction began. However, every morning the previous day's work was found demolished. Vortigern's magicians told him to seek a boy with no father, born of the fairies. He would be able to solve the High-King's problem. Vortigern's men searched far and wide and discovered such a boy at what was soon to become Caer-Fyrddin (Carmarthen). His name was Myrddin Emrys, or "Merlin" for short. Merlin revealed that at night the mountain shook so that all buildings collapsed, because beneath it were buried two fighting dragons. One white representing the Saxons and one red representing the British, and the white one was winning! Afraid of such an omen, Vortigern fled.

Disillusioned, the British finally rebelled against their High-King.Ambrosius Aurelianus (Emrys Wledig), of whom Vortigern had previously had no fear, had by now grown into a burly young manand took his place in the events of the time to lead their struggle.Merlin handed over to him the mountain site where Vortigern had failed to build, and it became his fort of Dinas Emrys. Vortigern took refuge in the refortified hillfort of Tre'r Ceiri in Yr Eifl (the Rivals) in Lleyn, but Ambrosius pursued him and drove him south, via Nant Gwetheyrn and the sea to Ergyng and a wooden castle on the old hillfort of Caer-Guorthigirn (Little Doward) above Ganarew. Here, the castle was miraculously struck by lightning and Vortigern burnt to death! He was later buried in a small chapel in Nant Gwrtheyrn (Lleyn).

Thus, it was left to Ambrosius Aurelianus to halt the Saxon advance.