It’s pretty well established that  if there was a “real King Arthur,” (which is not to say the same thing as “Malory is history,” but that there was in fact a historical personage or two or three upon whom some early medieval writers expounded  – a few hundred years after his or their existence – so that  (yet another few hundred years later yet) Chretien De Troyes and Thomas Malory superimposed all the knights and pennants and Quests and courtly love upon him and we have our beloved King Arthur of Camelot and his Round Table and its Knights), this person or persons bore no resemblance to any of the interpretations we’ve seen over the years.

So forget about gleaming castles and jousts, and Sean Connery and Richard Burton, especially forget about The Holy Grail and all that Disneyfied banana oil.

Or not? Whether traceable to an actual human or not, King Arthur exists for us as a cultural artefact, and all the trappings and folderol that have nothing to do with a “historical Arthur,” are nevertheless foundational to much of modern narrative.

Ya think?