Some say that Avalon was an isle and others a dimension, if it really was an isle what happened to the body? Was the body consumed by animals or what and do you think he will really return in some manner as the 'once and future king' unless some of those parts just constructed?

The legend goes that he killed 'Mordred' but was heavily or mortally wounded and became unconscious where he was then put on a boat that got sent to 'Avalon' where he is now currently resting or sleeping at. So it says that he is still alive but in another realm now or something.

Its also possible in the true story the legends are based off that he was originally not from Britain at all nor a Christian or European-Polytheist according to some sources but followed something else.

There’s strong support for the argument that he was not a historic human. From that perspective, who can know? He may be closer to an immortal incorporeal being.

Wizard wrote:Some say that Avalon was an isle and others a dimension, if it really was an isle what happened to the body? Was the body consumed by animals or what and do you think he will really return in some manner as the 'once and future king' unless some of those parts just constructed?

The legend goes that he killed 'Mordred' but was heavily or mortally wounded and became unconscious where he was then put on a boat that got sent to 'Avalon' where he is now currently resting or sleeping at. So it says that he is still alive but in another realm now or something.

Its also possible in the true story the legends are based off that he was originally not from Britain at all nor a Christian or European-Polytheist according to some sources but followed something else.

Geoffrey of Monmouth does not tell us the answer to that question. It is good, mysterious ending, story-wise but I don't take it literally.

He was writing in the 1100s what has been called an imaginative and fanciful account of the lives of various kings of Britain. I agree with Alys R basically.

The earlier folktales that mention Arthur seem to have been embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Geoffrey's inventive story then became very popular in medieval Europe.

It does have strong resonance for me. Maybe because the old tales of otherworldly heroes that it drew on do. Arthur is now a strong archetype but I find it hard to see GoM's story as historically accurate.

The remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere found in Glastonbury Abbey in 1191. Their resting place was inscribed
"Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arthurus in insula Avalonia."
Meaning:
“Here lies interred the famous King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon.”

King Henry III gave the remains a Royal funeral. They were interred in a black marble tomb. The Abbey thrived as people came to pay respects etc...

In 1536, King Henry VIII began the dissolution of the Catholic Church and all it's asset and wealth got siezed by the crown.
In 1539,the Abbey was mostly distroyed. The tomb, remains and all embellishments of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere, were taken and lost to us, for now.

There is always hope that someone will find the stolen remains etc...

Wisdom Seaker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:54 pm The remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere found in Glastonbury Abbey in 1191. Their resting place was inscribed
"Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arthurus in insula Avalonia."
Meaning:
“Here lies interred the famous King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon.”

King Henry III gave the remains a Royal funeral. They were interred in a black marble tomb. The Abbey thrived as people came to pay respects etc...

In 1536, King Henry VIII began the dissolution of the Catholic Church and all it's asset and wealth got siezed by the crown.
In 1539,the Abbey was mostly distroyed. The tomb, remains and all embellishments of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere, were taken and lost to us, for now.

There is always hope that someone will find the stolen remains etc...

Archeologists and historians general consider the allegation that Arthur’s remains were at Glastonbury to be an elaborate publicity ploy for the abbey.

https://www.damninteresting.com/king-arthurs-grave/

Alys-RaccoonReadings wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:10 am

Wisdom Seaker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:54 pm The remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere found in Glastonbury Abbey in 1191. Their resting place was inscribed
"Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arthurus in insula Avalonia."
Meaning:
“Here lies interred the famous King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon.”

King Henry III gave the remains a Royal funeral. They were interred in a black marble tomb. The Abbey thrived as people came to pay respects etc...

In 1536, King Henry VIII began the dissolution of the Catholic Church and all it's asset and wealth got siezed by the crown.
In 1539,the Abbey was mostly distroyed. The tomb, remains and all embellishments of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere, were taken and lost to us, for now.

There is always hope that someone will find the stolen remains etc...

Archeologists and historians general consider the allegation that Arthur’s remains were at Glastonbury to be an elaborate publicity ploy for the abbey.

https://www.damninteresting.com/king-arthurs-grave/

Yes, I'd thought that too.

The orginal mythos seems to have drawn on british / 'celtic' myths and themes then we had the later embellishments. By the time we get to that ploy by the Abbey to draw in lucrative pilgrim trade, we're several steps and centuries away from the original stuff.

First we had kings and nobility inspired by the tales then we had authors and film directors. I quite enjoyed John Boorman's Excalibur (1981), although it was clearly yet another re-imagining.

Surely at some point we have to draw a line and say that all the re-tellings are re-imaginings and are by no means historically true, although they may resonate with archetypal truths that are embedded within the myth?

Lewk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:06 amSurely at some point we have to draw a line and say that all the re-tellings are re-imaginings and are by no means historically true, although they may resonate with archetypal truths that are embedded within the myth?

Yes. Historical, archeological, scholarly, and mundane considerations aside, I personally like to think that the Arthur in the stories reflects something else--perhaps an archetype, perhaps something deeper or Immortal. That just seems to click into place for me comfortably.

There are historians that belive that Arthur was a Roman legate that showed the people kindness during their occupation of Britain. After his death, the legend of Arthur began...

In the dawn of the first millennium, people's and kingdoms believed in all sorts of sorcery and omens etc... Camelot may have been a small kingdom for a bit or all just stories to give people hope and something to dream about and provide escape.

Wisdom Seaker wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:59 pm There are historians that belive that Arthur was a Roman legate that showed the people kindness during their occupation of Britain. After his death, the legend of Arthur began...

In the dawn of the first millennium, people's and kingdoms believed in all sorts of sorcery and omens etc... Camelot may have been a small kingdom for a bit or all just stories to give people hope and something to dream about and provide escape.

There’s also theories about Ossetia and Chechnya being ‘Camelot’ once before they became Abrahamic I guess.

A country that existed within both of these places?

Wizard wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:49 pmThere’s also theories about Ossetia and Chechnya being ‘Camelot’ once before they became Abrahamic I guess.

A country that existed within both of these places?

Perhaps. Though one would have to look at how the story found itself in England in the 5th century. The century when the supposed tales began. The Dark Ages if I am not mistaken.

The way I see it that if a King of a city in Eastern Europe/Middle East, lived an amazing life and did great things and even called a city Camelot. Why would a nation 4000 miles away claim him as thiers with the city, nobility and a divine duty to return from Avalon to protect England in her greatest hour of need. In a century and millennium that was mostly governed buy wealthy self proclaimed Kings and chiefs is lands the Roman Empire were absent?

History fascinates me.