King Arthur Untangling Update

Yay! I love that you're doing this.

Malory is next up.

This will be wonderful. I have a fascination with this material but never enough time to work on it.

It will be the backbones, and then various fleshes can be put in the overviews.

Malory is in now -- the Parsifal isn't in yet; neither is Tennyson. White is pretty much Malory so I'm not too worried about him.
So if you search on
Malory Text
Monmouth Text
Vulgate Text
Early Welsh Text
de Troyes Text

they should come up.

might have to play with the searches -- Oh!

Look up King Arthur -- he's at the center of everything, so all the versions come up.

How come none of you curators mention the fact that King Arthur was based on the real life king Riothamus?

http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/riothdo.html

http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/riothdo.html he is starts at 31:39

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus

It is very plausible that he WAS a real person.. Why is this information not in King Arthurs Bio? And why is Riothamus's not even on Geni?

My findings say he was my 45th great-grandfather

Riothamus (High King) of BRITTANY; aka Riwal (possible) aka King Arthur of CAMELOT ap DEROCH (High King) of BRITTANY ( Prince) of DOMNONEE (435 - 470)

Riwal Mawr Marchou Prince of Domnonée (475 - 520)
son of Riothamus (High King) of BRITTANY; aka Riwal (possible) aka King Arthur of CAMELOT ap DEROCH (High King) of BRITTANY ( Prince) of DOMNONEE
Deroch II ap Riwal Prince of Domnonée (495 - 530)
son of Riwal Mawr Marchou Prince of Domnonée
Jonas ap Deroch Prince of Domnonée (515 - 540)
son of Deroch II ap Riwal Prince of Domnonée
Iudwal (Judhual) ap Jonas (King) of DOMNONEE ( - 590)
son of Jonas ap Deroch Prince of Domnonée
Iudhael ap IUDWA (King) of DOMNONEE (560 - 607)
son of Iudwal (Judhual) ap Jonas (King) of DOMNONEE
Riwallon I of Poher ( - 667)
son of Iudhael ap IUDWA (King) of DOMNONEE
Waroch I of Poher ( - 692)
son of Riwallon I of Poher
Riwallon II of Poher ( - 720)
son of Waroch I of Poher
Daniel of Poher ( - 749)
son of Riwallon II of Poher
Budic III of Poher (King) of BRITTANY
son of Daniel of Poher
Erispoë "the Elder" of Poher King of the Browaroch (760 - 812)
son of Budic III of Poher (King) of BRITTANY

and so on..... That is how it should be all the way to "king Arthur aka Riothamus. I don't understand why Geni is so incomplete regarding King Arthurs origin and history. Yes he was a legendary British king, but many historians agree that his life was based on Riothamus's life. This should be added in his ABOUT ME file don't you agree?

Sorry for got to add the link from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsLaiTrjZh0
Riothamus is mentioned as King Arthur … time...starts at 31:39

There were quite a few possible Arthur’s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur

I think it’s better they be kept separate, but it’s been a massive amount of work to find them in the database and conform their trees to source.

I don’t see that line in Geni. If you can find a descendant or ancestor and post the profile here perhaps we can develop better.

Riotham ap Deroch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus Has him as a different person

Jump to search
Riothamus (also spelled Riutimus or Riotimus)[1] was a Romano-British military leader, who was active circa AD 470. He fought against the Goths in alliance with the declining Roman Empire. He is called "King of the Britons" by the 6th-century historian Jordanes, but the extent of his realm is unclear. Riothamus is a Latinization of the Brythonic personal name *Rigotamos, meaning 'king-most', 'supreme king' or 'highest king'. Though it is still a matter of debate, several scholars consider his life to have been one of the possible sources for the King Arthur legend.[2]

Link to to "king Arthur'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur the SAME King Arthur we are discussing!

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.[2] The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.[3]
Arthur is a central figure in the legends making up the Matter of Britain. The legendary Arthur developed as a figure of international interest largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain).

Or did Geoffrey of Monmouth write about yet another King Arthur? did I miss something?

Again it says "several scholars consider his life to have been one of the possible sources for the King Arthur legend"

Let me try to phrase it as I understand it.

There are “many” “King Arthurs.” There are many stories about the different King Arthurs.

More importantly, perhaps, for Geni, is that they have “differing” genealogies.

So the Riothamus King Arthur would be defined on his own line.

Which I don’t see a profile in Geni for a tree matching your source. Close, but yours is son of Deroch ll, not 1.

(Most of the other Arthurs seem heavily fictionalized so would be separate),

From http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthur.htm

Below can be found the review article ‘The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur’, the first version of which appeared online in 1998. An up-to-date expansion, development and revision of all the material found here is contained in my Concepts of Arthur (Tempus, 2007).

<snip>

One well known dissenter from this is Geoffrey Ashe (1981; 1985; 1995) who argues that Riotamus, a fifth-century 'king' of the Britons who campaigned on the continent, is the actual historical prototype of Arthur and Geoffrey of Monmouth drew on this tradition when writing his magnum opus. While this theory is quite popular it is rightly dismissed by academic commentators as nothing more than 'straws in the wind' (Bromwich et al , 1991: 6. See also Padel, 1994: 31, n. 113; Hanning, 1995; Padel, 1995) on the grounds that, while Riotamus (or Breton traditions about this figure) could be the (partial) inspiration for Geoffrey's portrayal of Arthur, he has nothing at all in common with the insular traditions of Arthur and thus cannot be the prototype for Arthur as a whole (indeed, he doesn't even have the correct name - Ashe explains this by saying that Riotamus was a title and Arthur was his real name but a recent reviewer (Padel, 1995) has shown this to be untenable). The above means that the historical Arthur, if he existed, will be found in the pre-Galfridian texts and it is to these we must now turn.

<end snip>

> How come none of you curators mention the fact that King Arthur was based on the real life king Riothamus?

It's a theory, not a fact. One of many theories. Experts disagree.

This King Arthur should be merged, same guy! clean up the lose ends to make it right, they say stuff like this is knowledge and knowledge is true, lets do the right and merge, ANNE and Erica are the ones that control the isolation chamber, release me, for I am the highest lord of this land to make truth in the words of the past, to fix the past to correct the future

https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000050558932943