KING ARTHUR AND HIS SON
The story of King Arthur is well known by many. He is considered as a legendary leader of Britain whose exploits were placed in the 5th or 6th century although popular culture, as seen in recent films and adaptations, often portray him as a later medieval knight. King Arthur is a king, or chieftain, who still invokes great interest and speculation in numerous books of modern literature
An old Welsh text states that Arthur fought against the Saxons along with the kings of the Britons; twelve battles are listed in which he was always the victor. Another source states that Arthur ‘fought twelve notable battles against the Saxons and Picts. In the first of them he was defeated…In the other battles he was victorious’.
Some modern historians still do not accept that King Arthur was an actual historical figure. A number of theories have been put forward regarding his identity. One states that he was a descendant of a Roman general called Lucius Artorius Castus who lived in the second century, another that he was a king, or ruler, of Brittany, yet another that he may have been a king, or a ruler, or a commander of northern Britain with several regions specified, or a king, or ruler, of Cornwall, perhaps a king, or ruler, of Scotland, or possibly a king, or ruler, of Wales.
These theories also contain suggestions that King Arthur was known by other names. A king called Arthwys connected with northern Britain is put forward, as is Artur, a son of King Aidan of Dalriada in Scotland. There are kings of various areas of Wales mentioned as possible King Arthurs; Arthwyr son of King Pedr, and Arthwys son of Meurig, Owain Ddantwyn, Cuneglasus, and in Brittany, Riothamus, a Romano-British military leader who really was recorded in history.
Out of all of these, who was King Arthur really? Was he one of the above, none of the above or even all of the above?
The theories, however well researched and cleverly postulated, are what they are; suppositions, notions, speculations, ideas or beliefs. One fact, however, stands out; King Arthur was obviously an important person to our ancestors who cherished his memory.
Remember that legends originally passed down orally through generations in story form.
Originally, these were meant to be a recording of history passed down as a legacy to future generations and, as already mentioned, it was a long time before any of these stories were presented in a written form.
A first mention of King Arthur is in the writing called the ‘Historia Brittonum’; the ‘History of the Britons’. It is traditionally said to have been written by a Welsh monk called Nennius circa A.D.830, although the authorship is considered debatable, who gives information about a warrior called Arthur and tells of the twelve battles he fought. This would have been around three hundred years after the time of the historical Arthur.
Over the centuries scholars working on the challenge of discovering Arthur and his contemporaries have often disagreed over the derivations of names; the name Arthur being an example.
There is a view that this name was taken from the Roman family name of Artorius, another that it comes from Brittonic ‘Arto-rig-ios’, arto-rig meaning bear king, or a suggestion that Welsh arth and gwr meaning bear and man is the source. A modern theory believes the name Arthur to have come from Arcturus, the brightest star near Ursa Major, the constellation commonly known as the Great Bear.
To date, the derivation of the name Arthur has not been fully agreed on by experts; however, it is generally taken to mean a bear. In the Welsh language the translation of bear is arth; therefore it is understandable that names with a similar appearance are of interest as shown in the theories specifying Arthwys, Artur, Arthwyr and Artorius.
As bear figures strongly in most of the above the odds are in its favour.
His name means the Bear King; however extending upon that it also means the Hero King.
How can bear be substituted for hero?
In these legends a great hero was often symbolically called by the name of a brave and powerful animal. There are examples using comparisons of lion, stallion, stag, bull, boar and bear. The names of Syagrius and Gwallog are two such examples meaning boar/hero. The name Arthur shows that this particular hero was likened to a bear.
Another name that is synonymous with the Bear King is Owain Ddantwyn, also known as Owain Danwyn. He is mentioned in British/Welsh legend.
The name Owain also has a disputed derivation; however it probably stems from the Greek word ευγενιοσ (eugenios) meaning well-born, or noble.
Ddantwyn is Welsh and means white-tooth; it can also mean white-tusk or white-fang.
How can the Bear King be the same as the White-toothed/tusked/fanged noble?
Noble is easily explained as a synonym of king.
White-tooth, tusk or fang are all words which can be related to a bear which has very large canine teeth. A simplified example is the Bear King = the Fanged King.
Therefore King Arthur, the Bear/Hero King, and Owain Ddantwyn, the White-tusked or white-fanged noble have names with similar meanings.
In legend, Owain Ddantwyn was said to be a king of Rhos in North Wales. One of his sons, Cynlas Goch, also known as Cuneglasus, was derided by the 6th century monk, Gildas, who called him ‘red-butcher’ and described him, according to one translation, as ‘the driver of the chariot of the Bear’s Stronghold.’
Rein Turna has recently shared a paper with interesting concepts regarding interpretations from Latin to English. His understanding is that Cuneglasus was Arthur.
‘What Gildas Meant’-Rein Turna
Regarding ‘urse, multorum sessor aurigaque currus receptaculi ursi’ 2:
A.O. Anderson wrote ‘thou bear, thou rider of many, and charioteer of the car which holds the bear.’3
G.A. Giles translated the sentence as ‘thou bear, thou rider and ruler of many, and guider of the chariot which is the receptacle of the bear.’4
E.W.B. Nicholson weirdly considered the sentence to mean ‘rider of the She-bear’s mules, and driver of the chariot of the He-Bear’s den.’ The two bears represented King Arthur and his widow.5
Hugh Williams translated the sentence as ‘thou bear, rider of many, and driver of a chariot belonging to a bear’s den.’6
Michael Winterbottom translated the sentence as ‘you bear, rider of many and driver of the chariot of the Bear’s Stronghold.’7
These translations by experts are in significant disagreement with each other and some make little sense. Latin cannot be translated into English precisely. A word in one language may not have an exact equivalent in the other. The intention of the original author must to be understood.’
Two additional names that correlate with King Arthur are Brochwel Ysgithrog and Riothamus.
Brochwel Ysgithrog, also named Urochuael Ysgithrog, was said to be a king in Powys in Wales. The little information given in legend portrays him as a hero warrior who ruled over a large area of Wales. He was sometimes confused with a later Brochwel who did not have the added epithet ysgithrog.
The confusion is understandable as Brochwel is not a name but a title.
In Scottish Gaelic it is barrachdail which is pronounced barr-achc-al. It means superiority; barraiche means overlord which is synonymous with king. In Welsh it is uwchraddol.
The Welsh word ysgithrog meaning tusked or fanged, as seen in the case of Ddantwyn, can be related to a bear’s large canine teeth.
Therefore, Brochwel Ysgithrog is also the Noble/tusked/fanged.
The name Riothamus is recorded in history; not in legend.
He is recorded as a Romano-British military leader who allied himself with the Romans during the declining years of the Roman Empire.
Jordanes, an historian who lived during the 6th century, called him ‘King of the Britons’; however it is not established whether he meant Britain, or Armorica which later became known as Brittany.
Jordanes describes the situation:
‘Now Euric, king of the Visigoths, perceived the frequent change of Roman Emperors and strove to hold Gaul by his own right. The Emperor Anthemius heard of it and asked the Brittones for aid. Their king Riotimus came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships. Euric, King of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riotimus, King of the Britons, before the Romans could join him. So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighbouring tribe then allied to the Romans.’
Riothamus seems to disappear from historical records after approximately A.D.470 when this battle is said to have taken place.
Was this the first battle King Arthur was said to have lost?
It is said that Arthur ‘fought twelve notable battles against the Saxons and Picts. In the first of them he was defeated…In the other battles he was victorious’. The comparisons of names such as the Tonantius Ferreolus line, Aegidius, Syagrius, and so on, linked with Arthur in legend, suggest that Arthur (Riothamus)lived on later than A.D.470.
There was sometimes confusion in the records regarding who the enemy was exactly. The historian Jordanes spoke of Euric, king of the Visigoths, fighting Riothamus.
Another source says that King Arthur fought the Saxons and Picts. The Picts were from Britain and the legends tell of much in-fighting within Britain at that time between the Picts, the Scots(i.e. meaning the Irish) and the Romano-Britons, however as Visigoths and Saxons were both Germanic one could easily become substituted for the other.
King Arthur, Owain Ddantwyn and Brochwel Ysgithrog are all synonymous names.
What does Riothamus mean?
The name is taken to be the Latin form of a Brythonic name, Rigotamos, meaning king-most, or highest king.
If taken from the Gaelic language, it could result in Irish rige, Scottish Gaelic righ, which means kingship, king and Scottish Gaelic tarmus which translates as bold, synonymous with heroism.
Thus Riothamus is king and heroic. This results in the Hero King. Thus the four names of similar meaning can be presented as:
King Arthur Owain Ddantwyn Brochwel Ysgithrog Riothamus
noble hero noble fang/bear/hero noble fang/bear/hero king hero
However, linking these four names and concluding that they are all one person is not enough.
In order to reinforce this finding it is necessary to investigate the names of even more family members and associated contemporaries.
Comparing the names in these stories is intricate and the interpretations are obviously debatable.
Despite that, consider now the legendary names of Mordred, the supposed son of King Arthur, and Kei/Kai/Cei, one of his knights, and who they really were in history.
Mordred, sometimes called Medraut or Medrawt, was said to be a nephew of King Arthur. Later stories added the suggestion that he might have been an incestuous son of King Arthur by Anna the sister, or half-sister, of Arthur and wife of Loth. She has already been introduced as Gwyar, Dwywai and Industria, the lady married to Budicius, Dunod Fwr and Tonantius Ferreolus(see my paper on ‘The Tonantius Ferreolus line’).
British/Welsh legendary information about Mordred mentions the battle of Camlann ‘in which Arthur and Medraut fell’. This information is given in a collection of chronicles called the ‘Annales Cambriae’ which is Latin for the Annals of Wales.
The Welsh story called the ‘Dream of Rhonabwy’,tells of a man called Iddawg, the Churn of Britain; so called because he stirred up trouble between Mordred and his uncle, King Arthur(also called his step-father). This dispute apparently led to the battle of Camlann.
It seems to have been Geoffrey of Monmouth who first relates the story that Mordred, a nephew of King Arthur, was a betrayer, the result of which led to the collapse of Camelot and the battle with his uncle.
In this story King Arthur left Britain to fight the Roman general, Lucius, in France. While he was doing this Mordred seized the opportunity to marry his uncle’s wife, Guinevere, thereby laying claim to the throne.
After King Arthur returns there are a number of battles, the last one being at Camlann where Mordred was killed and King Arthur seriously wounded.
The aspiration of Mordred to become king is reflected in a comment by Cassiodorus, a Roman Senator, who refers to Mordred’s synonymous historical counterpart and his ambition to become Emperor.
It has already been suggested that the person, in history, who equates to King Arthur is Riothamus. The historian and author Geoffrey Ashe has written much on this theory.
There is also a point put forward that Mordred was another name for Arvandus who was a Prefect of Gaul-the Praefectus Galliarum, who resided at Treves.
Some years earlier the same rank had been held by Exuperantius. Remember that legend presents Exuperantius as the paternal grandfather of Arthur under various names(see my paper on ‘The Many Names of Exuperantius…’).
At one time there were four kinds of prefects. These prefects were the representatives of the Emperor and they had power over all departments of the State other than the army.
The name Arvandus, if taken from Gaelic, means foolish noble, Old Irish aire meaning lord, and faoin meaning fool-hardy or reckless. Synonyms given are
Mordred has the meaning of reckless noble, Welsh mawr is great, synonymous with majesty, and Welsh drud is reckless, early Irish druth- a fool.
Therefore the names can be seen to correspond.
In recorded history the jailer and friend of Arvandus was Flavius Asellus who was in charge of the Imperial Largesse and distributed gifts at special occasions, such as silver platters, cups etc.
In legend Cai was the dapifer of King Arthur which is explained as handing out cups and plates at special feasts or banquets. The Latin word dapifer signifies a steward or somebody who serves at tables.
( Several people have said that Sir Cai is a Carruthers ancestor, but we have not done the research on that either way)
Geoffrey of Monmouth also calls Cai the dapifer of King Arthur; the position of chief steward which was an esteemed post.
Linked with the Breton connection is the fact that Cai was also said to be a Count of Anjou and fought with King Arthur in France. In addition, he is linked with the town of Chinon(formerly called Caino) which is some thirty miles south-west of Tours.
A man called Flavius Eugenius Asellus is recorded as an urban prefect in A.D.470-471.
When Arvandus was imprisoned by the Roman authorities on a charge of treason his jailer and friend was Flavius Asellus. The Latin flavus means golden coloured or yellow. The Latin asullus means donkey, which the Celts associated with ululation, or animal sounds.
One of King Arthur’s knights was named Sir Kay, or Cai Hir. He was the same person as Kei/Kai/Cai. In The Black Book of Carmarthen he is called Kei guin/Kei win, and in the story of ‘Culhwch and Olwen’, King Arthur calls him Kei wynn.
The Scottish Gaelic word caoidh,(pronounced cuy), denotes a wailing, mournful sound such as howling, or braying = ululation. The Early Irish is coi, cai, Old Celt keio, keo. Scottish Gaelic uaine,(pronounced ua-niu) means pale or green, yellow.
Therefore the name Flavius Asellus equates to the name Kei wynn.
Flavius Asellus Kei wynn
Latin flavus asullus Gaelic caoidh uaine
The tables show a link between:
King Arthur =Riothamus
Mordred =Arvandus
Kei wynn =Flavius Asellus
The time when these events were recorded as taking place in history was around 468 A.D.
Sidonius Apollinaris, the 5th century aristocrat and friend of Tonantius Ferreolus, was a Gallo-Roman who was a poet, letter-writer and bishop. He gives an account of Arvandus (who was Mordred) at the time when Arvandus was supposedly involved in an act of treachery against the Emperor Anthemius.
Arvandus had dictated a letter to his secretary. The letter was meant to be delivered to the Visigothic King Euric, trying to persuade Euric not to conclude peace with Anthemius and ‘ urging that instead he should attack the Brittones north of the Loire, and asserting that the law of nations called for a division of Gaul between Visigoth and Burgundian’. It is not verified if this letter actually reached Euric. The words relating to Sidonius’s description of Arvandus emphasized in bold below are my own pointers to call attention to some instances of this ‘vanity’, or ‘recklessness’.
The letter from Sidonius to Vincentius c. 469/70
The case of Arvandus distresses me, nor do I conceal my distress, for it is our emperor’s crowning praise that a condemned prisoner may have friends who need not hide their friendship. I was more intimate with this man than it was safe to be with one so light and so unstable, witness the odium lately kindled against me on his account, the flame of which has scorched me for this lapse from prudence. But since I had given my friendship, honour bound me fast, though he on his side has no steadfastness at all; I say this because it is the truth and not to strike him when he is down. For he despised friendly advice and made himself throughout the sport of fortune; the marvel to me is, not that he fell at last, but that he ever stood so long. How often he would boast of weathering adversity, when we, with a less superficial sense of things, deplored the sure disaster of his rashness, unable to call happy any man who only sometimes and not always deserves the name.
But now for your question as to his government; I will tell you in few words, and with all the loyalty due to a friend however far brought low. During his first term as prefect his rule was very popular; the second was disastrous. Crushed by debt, and living in dread of creditors, he was jealous of the nobles from among whom his successor must needs be chosen. He would make fun of all his visitors, profess astonishment at advice, and spurn good offices; if people called on him too rarely, he showed suspicion; if too regularly, contempt. At last the general hate encompassed him like a rampart; before he was well divested of his authority, he was invested with guards, and a prisoner bound for Rome. Hardly had he set foot in the city when he was all exultation over his fair passage along the stormy Tuscan coast, as if convinced that the very elements were somehow at his bidding.
At the Capitol, the Count of the Imperial Largess, his friend Flavius Asellus, acted as his host and jailer, showing him deference for his prefect-ship, which seemed, as it were, yet warm, so newly was it stripped from him. Meanwhile, the three envoys from Gaul arrived upon his heels with the provincial decrees empowering them to impeach in the public name. They were Tonantius Ferreolus, the ex-prefect, and grandson, on the mother’s side, of the Consul Afranius Syagrius, Thaumastus, and Petronius, all men practised in affairs and eloquent, all conspicuous ornaments of our country. They brought, with other matters entrusted to them by the province, an intercepted letter, which Arvandus’ secretary, now also under arrest, declared to have been dictated by his master. It was evidently addressed to the King of the Goths, whom it dissuaded from concluding peace with ‘the Greek Emperor’, urging that instead he should attack the Bretons north of the Loire, and asserting that the law of nations called for a division of Gaul between Visigoth and Burgundian.
There was more in the same mad vein, calculated to inflame a choleric king, or shame a quiet one into action. Of course the lawyers found here a flagrant case of treason. These tactics did not escape the excellent Auxanius and myself; in whatever way we might have incurred the impeached man’s friendship, we both felt that to evade the consequences at this crisis of his fate would be to brand us as traitors, barbarians, and poltroons. We at once exposed to the unsuspecting victim the whole scheme which a prosecution, no less astute than alert and ardent, intended to keep dark until the trial; their scheme was to noose in some unguarded reply an adversary rash enough to repudiate the advice of all his friends and rely wholly on his own unaided wits. We told him what to us and to more secret friends seemed the one safe course; we begged him not to give the slightest point away which they might try to extract from him on pretence of its insignificance; their dissimulation would be ruinous to him if it drew incautious admissions in answer to their questions. When he grasped our point, he was beside himself; he suddenly broke out into abuse, and cried: ‘Begone, you and your nonsensical fears, degenerate sons of prefectorian fathers; leave this part of the affair to me; it is beyond an intelligence like yours. Arvandus trusts in a clear conscience; the employment of advocates to defend him on the charge of bribery shall be his one concession.’
We came away in low spirits, disturbed less by the insult to ourselves than by a real concern; what right has the doctor to take offence when a man past cure gives way to passion? Meanwhile, our defendant goes off to parade the Capitol square, and in white raiment too; he finds sustenance in the sly greetings which he receives; he listens with a gratified air as the bubbles of flattery burst about him. He casts curious eyes on the gems and silks and precious fabrics of the dealers, inspects, picks up, unrolls, beats down the prices as if he were a likely purchaser, moaning and groaning the whole time over the laws, the age, the senate, the emperor, and all because they would not right him then and there without investigation.
A few days passed, and, as I learned afterwards (I had left Rome in the interim), there was a full house in the senate-hall. Arvandus proceeded thither freshly groomed and barbered, while the accusers waited the decemvirs’ summons unkempt and in half-mourning, snatching from him thus the defendant’s usual right, and securing the advantage of suggestion which the suppliant garb confers. The parties were admitted and, as the custom is, took up positions opposite each other. Before the proceedings began, all of prefectorian rank were allowed to sit; instantly Arvandus, with that unhappy impudence of his, rushed forward and forced himself almost into the very bosoms of the judges, while the ex-prefect gained subsequent credit and respect by placing himself quietly and modestly amidst his colleagues at the lowest end of the benches, to show that his quality of envoy was his first thought, and not his rank as senator. While this was going on, absent members of the house came in; the parties stood up and the envoys set forth their charge. They first produced their mandate from the province, then the already-mentioned letter; this was being read sentence by sentence, when Arvandus admitted the authorship without even waiting to be asked. The envoys rejoined, rather cruelly, that the fact of his dictation was obvious. And when the madman, blind to the depth of his fall, dealt himself a deadly blow by repeating the avowal not once, but twice, the accusers raised a shout, and the judges cried as one man that he stood convicted of treason out of his own mouth. Scores of legal precedents were on record to achieve his ruin. Only at this point, and then not at once, is the wretched man said to have turned white in tardy repentance of his loquacity, recognizing all too late that it is possible to be convicted of high treason for other offences than aspiring to the purple. He was stripped on the spot of all the privileges pertaining to his prefecture, an office which by re-election he had held five years, and consigned to the common jail as one not now first degraded to plebeian rank, but restored to it as his own. Eye-witnesses report, as the most pathetic feature of all, that as a result of his intrusion upon his judges in all that bravery and smartness while his accusers dressed in black, his pitiable plight won him no pity when he was led off to prison a little later. How, indeed, could any one be much moved at his fate, seeing him haled to the quarries or hard labour still all trimmed and pomaded like a fop? Judgement was deferred a bare fortnight. He was then condemned to death, and flung into the island of the Serpent of Epidaurus. There, an object of compassion even to his enemies, his elegance gone, spewed, as it were, by Fortune out of the land of the living, he now drags out by benefit of Tiberius’ law his respite of thirty days after sentence, shuddering through the long hours at the thought of hook and Gemonian stairs, and the noose of the brutal executioner. We, of course, whether in Rome or out of it, are doing all we can; we make daily vows, we redouble prayers and supplications that the imperial clemency may suspend the stroke of the drawn sword, and rather visit a man already half dead with confiscation of property, and exile. But whether Arvandus has only to expect the worst, or must actually undergo it, he is surely the most miserable soul alive if, branded with such marks of shame, he has any other desire than to die. Farewell’
A Roman Senator called Cassiodorus states that Arvandus had wanted to seize the throne. Compare this with the tradition that Mordred wanted to be king.
In Welsh legend Mordred is said to have united with a Saxon king called Cheldric in his conspiracies against King Arthur. In history, Cheldric is called Childeric; king of the Salian Franks, who is dated A.D. 457-481. According to the chronicle compiled in 1525 by Philippe de Vigneulles while writing about the Franks in Gaul, Childeric fled from his own people for a while because they disapproved of the lascivious life he was living. The chronicle states:
‘ Childeric, son of Meroveus, held the kingdom and began to reign in the year 470.But according to Gauguin, he had not been reigning long when, by his libidinous conduct, he aroused the indignation and hatred of his princes and nobles, and he fled to Bassine, a friend of his, the wife of the king of Thuringia. In his place was chosen Gillon, the Roman, who was then established at Soissons. And this Gillon, they say, had many dealings with King Arthur of England. But after a while the aforesaid Childeric, by the advice and aid of his friend Guinemalt, who was one of the chief men of his realm, returned home and was restored to his realm and lordship.’
Experts cannot agree on the meaning of the name Childeric; however the Scottish Gaelic word ‘coilltearachd’,pronounced coylteruchc, translates as ‘the state of a fugitive or wanderer’ which fits his condition aptly as it was at that time.
Gillon, the Roman, was the same person as Aegidius. The names are synonymous, French Gil and Giles meaning the same as the Latin aegidius, Greek aigidion, meaning kid or young goat.
Childeric also appears in Welsh legend under another synonym. It is that of Solor with Filur referenced as an additional name.
He was the grandfather of a man called Gwynllwg which is synonymous with restore, repair, heal etc.,(Early Irish leges meaning healing). He was also given the name Restitutus, son of the Lombard,(Latin restituo, repair, restore).
Who exactly was Restitutus, son of the Lombard?
In Welsh legend he is given as Gwynllwg, son of Glywys and Guaul or Gwawr, a daughter of Ceredig. As has already been noted Ceredig was the same person as Salomon of Brittany and Erbin, the uncle of King Arthur.
So who was Glywys?
If he was the same person as the father of Restitutus he must have been ‘the Lombard’. The father of Glywys was Solor, also called Filur who has been mentioned as the same person as Childeric.
Let this be placed in history, rather than legend.
Glywys, also called Gluvius, was Clovis 1, circa A.D.466-511, considered to be the founder of the Merovingian dynasty and the first King of France-hence called the Lombard.
The father of Clovis was Childeric.
The name Childeric may derive from the Gaelic coilltearachd (pronounced coylteruchc) meaning in the state of a fugitive or wanderer.
In British/Welsh legend he is called Solor which actually derives from Irish siulour meaning walker or wanderer. An alternative name for him is Filur which again derives from Irish faoileoir meaning to take-wing or journey.
Clovis had a second wife called Clotilde who was a princess of Burgundy. The name of his first wife or concubine is given as Evochilde. Welsh legend recalls that, as a wife of Glywys, she was Guaul or Gwawr a daughter of Ceredig (Salomon and Erbin).
The mother’s name, Guaul or Gwawr, derives from the Welsh language. The meaning is the same; gwawl translates as light and gwawr as dawn, day-break, or beginning. The name Evo, or Eva, as in Evochilde has the same meaning of dawn or beginning.
Childeric’s father was Merovich.
The name Merovich literally means famed fight, famous fight, or news(fame) of fight. The Gaelic is nuadh (pronounced noo-a).
These names in legend can be seen to be synonymous with the names in history, this line going back as far as Magnus Maximus, the Western Roman Emperor who was executed in A.D.388.
Macsen Wledig = Magnus Maximus – ( CARRUTHERS ANCESTOR)
Owain Finddu = son of Magnus Maximus
Nor(nuadh- news) Merovich(news/fame fight) = a Merovingian
Solor(siulour- wanderer)Childeric(coilltearachd)= wanderer
Filur(faoileoir- traveller)
Glywys(Gluvias) Clovis 1= the Lombard
Gwynllwg, Restitutus = son of the Lombard
To diversify for a moment, Restitutus, son of the Lombard, is mentioned in the Irish Annals as the father of three saints, Secundinus, Iserninus and Auxilius.
The name of Secundinus, Latin secundus = going after, second, is synonymous with that of the famous saint called Illtud, Welsh ail, eiliad= second, in Wales. He was a cousin of King Arthur and was said to have been a disciple of Saint Germanus. His name is often linked with those of the Saints Gildas and Cadog who are also included in the Arthurian stories. Illtud’s parents’ names match up with those of Secundinus. The stories of the saints really need to be elaborated upon in another book as there are so many of them; however, just for now, consider that when Saint Illtud was dying he was attended by the two holy men Isanus and Atoclius.
Placing these sets of three men’s names together gives the following:
Secundinus Iserninus Auxilius
Illtud Isanus Atoclius
Illtud Gildas Cadog
Iserninus derives from the Latin iusiurandum meaning to swear an oath. It is tempting to assume that the name Gildas has something to do with gold, or gilding, however, these translations are seldom as obvious as that. The Gaelic geall, Old Celtic geldo means to pledge, or vow. The Latin auxiliaris means helping. Welsh ategol means auxiliary, or help and Gaelic cuidich means the same.
King Arthur was said to have fought against Lucius, Emperor of the Romans.
Who was Lucius?
One suggestion, by the historian and author Geoffrey Ashe, is that he was a man called Glycerius who was the Western Roman Emperor, Flavius Glycerius Augustus, between 473 and 474 A.D.
In some earlier texts the name of Glycerius was misspelled as Lucerius and even presented as Lucius Tiberius/Hiberius by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
At one time in his career Glycerius was the Comes Domesticorum, (Count of the Domestics).
He lived during the same era as Riothamus(King Arthur, Owain Ddantwyn, Brochwel Ysgithrog) and Arvandus(Mordred) and Flavius Asellus(Kei/Kai/Cei) and Cheldric(Childeric) and Gillon(Aegidius).
Arvandus (Mordred) is presented under other names in legend. As the son of Owain Ddantwyn he is Cynlas Goch. Gildas, the monk, described him as a ‘red butcher’ and ‘a driver of a chariot of the Bear’s stronghold’, the ‘Bear’ taken as referring to Arthur. His name can be interpreted as red, or bloody, deceitful chief (see ‘What Gildas Meant’-Rein Turna, ‘While calling Cynglas Goch a ‘tawny butcher’ Gildas had bloody red butcher in mind;’). Remember that Mordred was considered a traitor, a word which equates with deceiver and fox.
A son of Brochwel Ysgithrog bears the name of Cynon Garwyn. The name Cynon means the same as Constantine. Garwyn is Welsh for white chariot.
A named son of King Arthur is given as Amr, which also derives from unworthiness, or deceit.
Amr, son of Arthur, was killed by his father.
Mordred, deceitful son of Arthur, was killed by his father.
Cynlas Goch, bloody deceitful chief, son of Owain Ddantwyn, was a driver of a chariot.
Cynon Garwyn, son of Brochwel Ysgithrog, had a white chariot.
Therefore similarities can be seen.
OFFICIAL AND OLDEST SCOTTISH CLAN CARRUTHERS
SINCE 1983-CLAN OF OUR ANCESTORS
MERITED TO CHIEF CAROTACUS 10 AD
CURRENT : CHIEF PAT E CARROTHERS USA
BRONWEN HOSIE
ACADEMIA
PATRICIA L CARROTHERS CHS
CLAN CARRUTHERS HISTORIAN AND GENEALOGIST
Preserving Our Past, Recording Our Present, Informing Our Future
Ancient and Honorable CLAN CARRUTHERS
carruthersclan1@gmail.com clancarruthers1@gmail.com
You can find us on our main facebook pages at :
SILVER WINGS-https://www.facebook.com/CarruthersClanLLC/
GOLD WINGS – https://www.facebook.com/carrutherscarrothers.pat.9
CLAN CARRUTHERS FAMILY HISTORY – https://www.facebook.com/CarruthersClan
CLAN CARRUTHERS CCIS – https://www.facebook.com/groups/3878691252182714
CLAN CARRUTHERS INT SOCIETY- https://www.facebook.com/groups/394653845137709
CLAN CARRUTHERS – BORDER REIVERS – https://www.facebook.com/groups/434959914239094
Disclaimer Ancient and Honorable Carruthers Clan International Soci
CLAN CARRUTHERS - FAMILY HISTORY AND GENEALOGY 
You must be logged in to post a comment.