We can be certain King Arthur was not a medieval King with a group of knights in suits of armour and a big castle called Camelot. We know very little historically but if he existed, then King A rthur was probably a 5th century warrior chief who protected his peoples from the Saxon invaders for a time. The battle of Camlan is probably connected to King Arthur. But virually everything about King Arthur is conjecture. He could have come from Cornwall, Wales, Southern England, Northern England . Britain abounds with sites which have King Arthur connections.

King Arthur was said to be the son of Uther Pendragon and Ygraine of Cornwall. Arthur is a near mythic figure in Celtic stories such as Culhwch and Olwen. In early chronicles he is presented as a military leader, the dux bellorum. In later romance he is a king and emperor. The Tudor monarchs traced their lineage to King Arthur and used that connection as a justification for their occupation of the English throne.

Irrespective of whether King Arthur was real or mythical, it cannot be denied that King Arthur has been a major influence on literature, from the early Middle Ages to the present day. And although if King Arthur had been a "real" king, he would have lived around the 5th or 6th centuries, it is more as a Middle Ages knight that he is presented in literature. The central story is of a noble kingdom of high ideals, whose ideals are undermined by the adultery of Queen Guinevere with Lancelot, the most noble of all the knights. And eventually brought down by the treachery of Mordred. And in spite of this, Arthur's memory lives on.