The Real King Arthur - Noble Blood | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Noble Blood: The Real King Arthur – Detailed Summary

Introduction

In the August 5, 2025 episode of Noble Blood, host Dana Schwartz delves into the enigmatic figure of King Arthur, examining the tenuous historical evidence that bridges myth and reality. The episode, titled "The Real King Arthur," explores the origins of Arthurian legend, the archaeological findings that have fueled speculation, and the evolution of Arthur's story through literature and political maneuvering.

Archaeological Discoveries and Early References

The episode begins by recounting a significant archaeological moment in 1998 at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall—the legendary ancestral home of King Arthur. Archaeologists from Glasgow uncovered a piece of Cornish slate with a faint Latin inscription, believed to read "Artigno, descendant of Paternus Colus, made this." Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, chief archaeologist at English Heritage, expressed enthusiasm about the find, stating, “Tintagel has presented us with evidence of a prince of Cornwall in the Dark Ages living in a high status domestic settlement at the time Arthur lived” (05:30).

However, Dana Schwartz remains skeptical about the connection between Artigno and the mythical King Arthur. She points out the absence of concrete archaeological evidence supporting Arthur’s existence, emphasizing that "King Arthur is arguably one of the most famous historical figures in the world, but there's almost no evidence he ever existed at all" (12:45).

Historical Texts and the Emergence of Arthur

Schwartz explores early historical references to Arthur, primarily from the Historia Brittonum by Nennius, written around 828 AD. This text lists twelve battles led by a figure named Arthur, though he is referred to as a "dux bellorum" (military leader) rather than a king. Notably, Nennius describes the "Battle of Baden," where Arthur purportedly killed 960 men (18:20). While there is some archaeological evidence supporting large-scale conflicts during this period, the direct association with Arthur remains speculative.

Another significant source is Gildas’ On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain from the 6th century, which mentions the Battle of Baden but does not name Arthur. This omission raises questions about the reliability of later sources that attribute these deeds to Arthur (25:10).

The Literary Transformation of King Arthur

The narrative shifts to the pivotal role of Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh cleric whose 1136 work, Historia Regnum Britanniae, reimagined Arthur as a monarch with enduring mythological traits. Geoffrey introduced iconic elements such as Guinevere, Excalibur, Merlin, and the conception of Arthur at Tintagel Castle. Schwartz notes, “Geoffrey didn’t even really purport to historical accuracy” (35:55), highlighting that his work was more a blend of folklore and creative storytelling than a factual account.

This literary reconstruction laid the foundation for subsequent Arthurian legends. The French poet Chrétien de Troyes expanded the mythos further in the 12th century, adding characters like Lancelot and quests such as the Holy Grail. These additions transformed Arthurian tales into a rich tapestry of romantic and chivalric narratives, making the legend more appealing and adaptable across cultures and eras (42:30).

Political Utilization of the Arthurian Legend

Schwartz examines how English monarchs appropriated the Arthurian legend for political legitimacy. In 1191, monks at Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have discovered the tombs of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere, a claim later publicized by King Edward I in 1278. Edward's proclamation that he had seen Arthur’s remains served to quash any Welsh aspirations of resurrecting the heroic king to challenge his reign (50:15).

Similarly, during the Tudor dynasty, Henry VII leveraged the Arthurian connection to solidify his tenuous claim to the English throne. By declaring descent from King Arthur and naming his first son Prince Arthur, Henry VII sought to align his rule with the noble and legendary heritage of Arthur (57:40).

Victorian Reinvention and Modern Commercialization

The Victorian era saw a resurgence of interest in Arthurian legends, largely influenced by Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s Idylls of the King. Tennyson reframed Arthurian stories to reflect contemporary Victorian values, emphasizing romance and moral integrity amidst the rapid changes brought by the Industrial Revolution. This period solidified Arthur’s image as a symbol of stability and chivalry (1:05:20).

In the present day, the myth of King Arthur remains commercially viable. Tintagel Castle attracts approximately 3,000 visitors daily, many of whom seek a tangible connection to the legendary Camelot. English Heritage perpetuates Arthurian lore through themed decorations and informational displays, blending historical facts with legendary embellishments to enhance visitor experience (1:12:50).

Conclusion

Dana Schwartz concludes that while King Arthur’s existence remains unsubstantiated by definitive historical evidence, the enduring appeal of his legend lies in its adaptability and the compelling narratives crafted over centuries. Arthur serves as a cultural and national symbol, continuously reimagined to resonate with each generation’s values and aspirations. The episode underscores the powerful interplay between history and myth, illustrating how a possibly real leader could be transformed into one of the most iconic figures in British folklore.

Notable Quotes

Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright (05:30): “Tintagel has presented us with evidence of a prince of Cornwall in the Dark Ages living in a high status domestic settlement at the time Arthur lived… This is where myth meets history. It's the find of a lifetime.”
Dana Schwartz (12:45): “King Arthur is arguably one of the most famous historical figures in the world, but there's almost no evidence he ever existed at all.”
Mark Morris ([cannot pin timestamp in transcript]): “It was a miserable time to be alive.”
Historian Nicolaus Higham (1:00:10): “Arthur went into battle with an image of the Virgin Mary on his shield… Arthur was winning battles with the support of Jesus Christ and Mary against the Saxons.”

Production Credits

Noble Blood is produced by iHeartRadio and Grim & Mild, with host Dana Schwartz. Additional writing and research were conducted by Hannah Johnston, Hannah Zwick, Courtney Sender, Amy Hite, and Julia Milani. The show was edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with supervising producer Rima Il Kayali and executive producers Erin Menke, Trevor Young, and Matt Frederick.

Transcript

Dana Schwartz (0:00)

This is an iHeart podcast. Nobleblood is proudly sponsored by Amica Insurance. They say if you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together. When you go with Amica, you're getting coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers so they'll help look after what's important to you together, auto, home life and more. Amica has you covered. At Amica, they'll help protect what matters most to you. Visit amica.com and get a quote today. One quick and very exciting note before we begin today's episode. I have a brand new podcast. It's called Hoax and I, with my co host Lizzie Logan, will focus on a lesser known or famous hoax from history or relatively modern history, discussing the question of why people believe things that aren't true. Unfortunately, question that seems all too relevant today. The very first episode about the Cottingly fairies was released yesterday. It should be in the Noble Blood feed. I hope that you like it, that you want to listen to the podcast it. If you do, please subscribe, leave a review or rating it absolutely helps. Doing podcasts about history is my absolute favorite thing in the world. And your support means the absolute world. It means I get to do what I love to do. And don't worry, this podcast is not in any way a replacement for Noble Blood. Both are continuing on for as long as people want to listen. Hoax will drop every other Monday and I hope you love it. And now into this episode, which you might be able to pick up, has a slight hoax theme. Welcome to Noble Blood, a production of iHeartRadio and Grim and Mild from Erin Menke. Listener discretion advised. In 1998, an archaeologist digging at Tintagel Castle had the sort of moment which I imagine makes people want to become archaeologists in the first place. Tintagel Castle, on the coast of Cornwall, is famous today mainly for being the ancestral home of King Arthur. Well, according to popular myth, there's actually no archaeological evidence that King Arthur or his family was ever associated with Tintagel. In fact, there's no actual archaeological evidence that King Arthur was real. But maybe all of that was about to change. In 1998, the archaeological team from Glasgow was digging on the castle's eastern terraces when someone uncovered a piece of Cornish slate. The archaeologists pulled it away from the craggy earth and saw on the slate carved letters. The archaeologist saw an A, an R. We can only imagine the excitement he must have felt when he saw the third letter A T. The Latin inscription on the stone dated from the 6th century is faint, but it's thought to read something that translates to Artigno, descendant of Paternus Colus, made this. It's not exactly a smoking gun, but the fact that a Latin carving with a name similar to Arthur dated from the historical period during which the mythological king might have lived was enough to cause excitement in the media. Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, the chief archaeologist at the English Heritage, was happy to play into that excitement. Tintagel has presented us with evidence of a prince of Cornwall in the Dark Ages living in a high status domestic settlement at the time Arthur lived. It has given us the name of a person. Artno. Artno was here. That is his name on a piece of stone. It is a massive coincidence at the very least. This is where myth meets history. It's the find of a lifetime, end quote. The connection, in my view, is extremely flimsy. But you can't blame Dr. Wainwright for trying to get the public excited about what would otherwise be a fairly dull project about faint Latin inscriptions in 6th century stones. King Arthur is a marquis name, someone who, like King Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth I or Shakespeare, seems to get people interested in history. King Arthur is arguably one of the most famous historical figures in the world, but there's almost no evidence he ever existed at all. So who is King Arthur? And how did someone who maybe never existed become so famous and so sought after? It's a story not about stones from the 5002, but a story about stories about how sometimes a mystery that lets the audience play detective makes for a better version of history than the real thing. Dana. I'm Dana Schwartz and this is Noble Blood. If King Arthur did really exist, most consensus estimates that he would have lived around the 5th or 6th century, a period after the Romans left Britain during which the island was in institutional and economic growth collapse. Rome withdrew from Britain in 410 AD while they were under siege from the Visigoths back home. And what was left on the island was, in a word, chaos. Former Roman institutions were left abandoned and collapsing. Local economies were crumbling and the people in fragmented fiefdoms were tormented by plague, drought and invading Saxons. Mark Morris, the historian and author of the 2021 book the Anglo Saxons A History of the beginnings of England 400 to 1066 puts it very succinctly. It was a miserable time to be alive. So why do people think King King Arthur would have existed during this period? Well, there are a few vaguely suggestive sources. The oldest possible reference to a historical Arthur comes from a book called Historia Brittonum, or History of the Britons, written by a monk named Nennius around 828. Although it only survives in copies from the 11th century on, before we even begin, it's worth paying attention to the tenuousness of that source. It's a text from the 11th century, which is actually a copy of a book from two centuries before that, which is talking about a period several hundred years before that. Historia Brittonum contains a section including a battle list, 12 battles in which someone named Arthur led troops. This Arthur isn't actually called a king, but rather a dux bellorum, or military leader, a general. The battle list ends with the Battle of Baden, where Nennius claims that Arthur killed 960 men, a resounding and impressive victory. If you're interested in proof that that battle actually happened, there's some pretty good evidence you can cite. There's some archaeological evidence that Anglo Saxon migration reversed around that time, which is consistent with a massive victory of the British. After all, who wouldn't turn around when faced with a general who could kill nearly 100 other soldiers himself? There's also another extremely early source, a text written in the 6th century called on the Ruin and Conquest of Britain by Gildas, which mentions Baden. And that's huge. That battle would have been within living memory of when Gildas was writing his book. Except Gildas doesn't actually mention Arthur. It's possible maybe that that Arthur figure was just too obvious to need to be mentioned. Or maybe Ninnaeus in the 9th century got his battles mixed up and that heroic general Arthur fought in a different later battle. But there's also no Arthur mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle which would have covered the period he was alive. Nor is there an Arthur in the 731 Ecclesiastical history of the English People, which also mentions the battle at Baden. Gildas does mention someone named Ambrosius Aurellenius, which excites some people because I suppose it starts with the letter A. But that seems like the type of thing that only matters if you're already determined to find evidence for a real King Arthur. Even Nennius was book which does mention Arthur, the source. That's most helpful if you're someone clinging to the idea that someone named Arthur exists. Gets a little, let's say, less than factual. There's another section of Nennius, Historia Britnum, that claims that Arthur had a dog named Cabell who was chasing a boar, and while the dog was running, his paw print became perfect, permanently embedded in stone. And people would try to steal the stone, Nennius says, but then the very next day, it would be right back where it was. Nennius also tells us that Arthur's son was buried in a tomb that's never the same length if you measure it more than once. And men come to measure the grave and find it sometimes 6ft in length, sometimes 9, sometimes 12, sometimes 15. And whatever length you might measure in at one time, a second time, you will not find it to have the same length. And I myself have put this to the test. And so even back then, the oldest source we have mentioning a candidate who could ostensibly be our King Arthur. He's not a king, first of all. And second of all, he's already a figure of popular mythology. There's another source people often bring up. The Annals Cambria, or Welsh Annals, originated in the 10th century, but which survives as a copy from two centuries after that. The Welsh Annals also mention Arthur and the Battle of Baden. But the text went through so many revisions over the centuries, it's impossible to know what the original text was or whether it was ever a corroboration of the Historia Brittonum, or whether it was just using the Historia Brittonum as a source. And so the King Arthur of our popular imagination exists really only in the margins of historical sources, and it requires plenty of squint. And certainly a very, very long time ago, people had an idea of someone called Arthur, whether he was real or not. There's a Welsh poem called Yggydoddin from between the 7th and 11th centuries, and it mentions some random warrior and then adds, he was no Arthur, the way someone today might say he was no George Clooney or whatever. Of course, once again, we're faced with the question of whether it's possible the author of that poem had just read the Historia Brittonum and took note of this guy who allegedly killed 900 men. He might be referring to Arthur as a man who was understood to be a figure of myth already and not of history. That's really kind of all we have. Countless books and articles have been written about the quote unquote, real King Arthur. And the idea that there might be some hidden clues we've overlooked sends historians and amateurs alike into Da Vinci Code esque tizzies every few decades, only for nothing really worthwhile to come up. The archaeologist Noel Miles once wryly made the declaration that no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time on the evidence. It does seem astonishing that an occasionally referenced general somehow became one of the most celebrated figures in all of British mythology. So how did Arthur Dux Bellorum become a king? We have a Welsh cleric named Geoffrey of Monmouth to thank for the King Arthur, who has captivated our imagination for centuries. 300 years after Nennius wrote his battle list that included a battle leader named Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth decided on a slight rebrand. In his 1136 Historia Regnum Britanniae, he wrote about King Arthur, the monarch who defeated the Saxons. This is the first version of Arthur that has elements of the story that remain in our mythology today. Sort of the biggest hits of Arthurian legend. Guinevere, Excalibur, Merlin. In Geoffrey's version of the story, King Arthur's father was Uther Pendragon. And Arthur was conceived at Tintagel Castle and then ultimately died while battling Mordred. And he was laid to rest in Avalon. The larger cast of side characters aren't there, but the general shape should be familiar to anyone who went through a King Arthur phase. But Geoffrey didn't even really purport to historical accuracy, or at least not all that convincingly. Remember, he's writing in the 12th century about something that allegedly was taking place in the 6th century. Geoffrey claimed he was basing the Arthur story on a very ancient book, but inconveniently for us, he doesn't actually mention what that book might be. Even at that time, Jeffrey's contemporaries were aware that he was writing a work of, if not entirely fiction, then almost entirely fiction. William of Newburgh, a 12th century historian, wrote of it is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur was made up partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying or for the sake of pleasing the Britons. The legend of Arthur was forming in real time, a folk story that was giving Britain its own identity. Geoffrey's book did please the Britons. It was a sensation. The most popular text in the Middle Ages after the Bible. The idea of Arthur was exciting, a matter of national pride. In 1233, the Earl of Cornwall made what objectively seems like a terrible trade. Three prime estates in exchange for Tintagel. Tintagel was remote and served no real defensive or strategic function. But it did have one thing going for it. It was romantic in the sense that it was already associated with the man who was swiftly becoming a mascot for Britannia herself. The next big leap in the story of King Arthur as he became a legend, was a leap across the English channel. The 12th century French poet Chretien de Troyes added his own spin on the Arthur lore and like a game of improv, adding in new elements, he came up with Lancelot, the Holy Grail and Camelot. And from this point in the Arthur legend it becomes interwoven with Welsh mythology and romantic traditions. And so our version of King Arthur is born not from 6th century history, but from king 12th century literature. But there were a lot of stories circling around 900 years ago and the vast majority of them aren't household names. Why has this legend of Arthur stood the test of time? The answer is something that every good female pop star understands. When it comes to longevity, you've got to rebrand yourself. Arthur stories are incredibly malleable. They can fit like liquid into containers of any shape. Over the centuries, Arthur evolved into whatever the current moment needed. According to historian Nicolaus Higham, back when Nennius was writing about the great general who killed 900 Saxons in battle, Britain needed needed a God beloved warrior to rally behind. One important detail of Nennius Historia is that Arthur went into battle with an image of the Virgin Mary on his shield. According to Hyam, Arthur was winning battles with the support of Jesus Christ and Mary against the Saxons. The Saxons were presented as barbaric, dishonest and late comers to Christianity. By the time Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing his version, he was doing some PR for the Welsh who were seen by some as Celtic speaking savages. Jeffreys Arthur has his roots in the western craggy castle of Tintagel and elements of his story are derived from fairly linearly from Welsh and Irish folklore. Hard to think of the Welsh as savages when British history is oriented around a noble, valiant Celtic king. But Arthur wouldn't belong to the Welsh forever. In 1191, monks at Glastonbury made a shocking announcement. They had found skeletons which they claimed were the remains of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. What a lucky happenstance. Of course it's just a happy byproduct that that discovery would mean plenty of visitors and pilgrims coming to the abbey. One of those pilgrims was King Edward I. He visited the glastonbury graves in 1278 and actually disinterred the remains. One observer wrote at the time. There in two caskets were found the bones of the said king of wondrous size and those of Guinevere of marvelous beauty. I personally would love to know how beautiful a skeleton can be, but I'll take their word for it. Edward re interred those skeletons after wrapping them in silk and and giving them the royal seal. But his little pilgrimage wasn't Just to honor a fellow monarch. His loudly and publicly proclaiming that he saw the remains of King Arthur served an important political purpose. Edward was saying, king Arthur is definitely dead. So any Welsh enemies King Edward had who had any great notion that this heroic king might be immortal or would ever return from the grave to challenge Edward for the throne, well, they were sadly misguided. A few centuries later, other English monarchs would also use Arthur for their own PR purposes. As I've probably alluded to on this show before, the Tudor claim to the throne of England was fairly tenuous. King Henry VII was really doing everything he could after the wars of the Roses to try to establish himself as legitimate. And one way he did that was by claiming that on his Welsh side, he was a direct descendant of King Arthur. Henry VII further bolstered, fostered that connection by naming his first son Prince Arthur. Although tragically, Arthur died young and cleared the way for his younger brother Henry to become King Henry viii. And even later in the Victorian era, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, wrote Idols of the King, repopularizing Arthur and framing Arthur's story not as one of a Welsh battle saga, but as a romance and a love triangle. It's no accident that Arthur re emerged during a period when the Industrial Revolution was adding a sense of uncertainty and chaos to the country. Arthur became a comforting figure of power and stability. And new elements of the Arthur's story, notably of Guinevere as an adulterer, were introduced to reinforce notions of Victorian morality. Even today, the myth of King Arthur is pretty profitable, despite the fact that Arthur isn't real. And even if he was, never actually lived at Tintagel Castle. The place receives 3,000 visitors a day in the city summer, most of whom probably imagine they're seeing the real Camelot. A fantasy not dispelled by the fact that English Heritage, which controls the site, plays into that lore with Arthurian decor and carvings. Tintagel does have an incredible archaeological history. During the Arthurian period, the settlement was home to Celtic people who were writing on slabs, forging metal, and organizing relatively sophisticated systems of agriculture. It's easy to imagine, plausible even, that at some point that group of people had a leader, and that leader was a valiant warrior. And when the Saxon horde tried to cross the narrow, narrow, rocky strait to the castle, that leader might have been able to defend his people. Maybe that man was named Arthur or something like it. And the story of his noble victory embedded itself in Welsh folklore, eventually becoming embroidered until he was a king with noble, pious knights who carried a sword called Excalibur. When you tell a story like that, it almost sounds plausible. That's the history of King Arthur as we know it today. But keep listening after a brief sponsor break to hear about how another aspect of Arthur's story came into the popular imagination. Noble Blood is proudly sponsored by Amica Insurance. As Amica says, empathy is our best policy. From listening to your insurance needs to following up after a claim, Amica provides coverage with care and compassion. Because as a mutual insurer, Amica is built for its customers and prioritizes you. Isn't that the way insurance should be? At Amica, your peace of mind matters. Visit amica.com and get a quote today. Nobleblood is proudly sponsored by Amica Insurance. They say if you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, go together. When you go with Amica, you're getting coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers, so they'll help look after what's important to you together, Otto, home life and more. Amica has you covered. At Amica, they'll help protect what matters most to you. Visit ameca.com and get a quote today. If you are familiar with the myth of King Arthur, you probably know that he became king because he was able to pull a sword from the stone. Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil is rightwise king born of all England. You know the drill. All of these nobles fail and then lowly Arthur is able to do it. That part of the story. And in fact, lots of the most popular elements of the Arthur legend today come from a 15th century text called Lamour d' Arthur by Thomas Malory. But the identity of who Thomas Malory actually was is a question that has been the subject of speculation and debate among historians. Not as much debate as who King Arthur was, but, you know, debate. The most prominent answer is that he was Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel in Warwickshire. That's the case. He was sort of an anti Arthur. That Thomas Malory was a thief and a criminal and actually would have published Le Mort d' Arthur while he was in prison for robbery and rape. That is a very downer of an epilogue. And so I'll leave you with something a little happier. We had an addition to the Noble blood family last November on the Thanksgiving Day, a little boy named Arthur. And as his chubby cheeks and giggle and the fact that I can't stop taking pictures of him, can attest he is entirely and definitely real. Noble Blood is a production of IHEARTRADIO and Grim and Mild from Aaron Menke. No nobleblood is hosted by me, Dana Schwartz, with additional writing and research by Hannah Johnston, Hannah Zwick, Courtney Sender, Amy Hite and Julia Milani. The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with supervising producer Rima Il Kayali and executive producers Erin Menke, Trevor Young and Matt Frederick. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Noble Blood is proudly sponsored by Amica Insurance. As Amica says, empathy is our best policy. From listening to your insurance needs to following up after a claim, Amica provides coverage with care and compassion because as a mutual insurer, Amica is built for its customers and prioritizes you. Isn't that the way insurance should be? At Amica, your peace of mind matters. Visit amica.com and get a quote today. This is an iHeart podcast.