> I don't know how many peopel ar elef tot read this, but here goes...

If the author of this cannot even write English language poperly I cannot be bothered to read the rest of this comment.

> The Misst of Avalon was not Pron [er sey, but was very Anti-Christain, and
> before w discuss hwo it eflects the Hisotry accuraclty of how Christainity
> sprrad by deciet and mrider, lets face reality.

> Christainised Rome didnt conwuer Brittain. Pagan ROme did. Teh gaulic
> sieges where lead by None other than Julius Caeser, aroudn 60 BC. So no,
> the CHristain roman Empire did not COnquer Brittain. Hwck, it woidl be
> three centiries after the time of CHrist before Rome became a Christain
> state. By then it had alreayd Largly Withdrawn form Brittain.

> Second off, the "Old Religion". OK, soem of you may rpefer to
> thin the Neo-Pagan crap in the book and movie was actually how the Ancient
> Celtic rleigion worked. They worshipe the great mother Goddess, and
> celebrated Beltain, and you can pracite this religion today in Modenr
> Wicca and the like.

> This is all false.

> The Celtic religion was largley disorginised and not Uniform form region
> to region, and the few connecting strands where a few Universal gods.
> Plural, not singular. Andnot a one fo them an overarchign feminine
> charecter known simpely as "The Goddess".

> The chief Diety was avutlaly male, called "The Dahgda." This
> means the All Father.

> Others where the Morrigan, goddess of deaht and war, and Aridrannah.

> The rest where geenrlaly reigonal deities and tribal cheif gods.

> Likewise, the Ancient celtic rleigion relied on Head Huntign and Himan
> Sacrifice. We find soem victims today inthe Marshes still.

> Theyw here less civilised than the ORman Pagans who conwuered them, and
> the Pagans of ORme didnt even worship a Great Goddess. They used thr
> Latinised Olympian Polytheistic system, headed by Jupiter, and MArs as
> their Patron deity.

> The "Old rleigion" foudn in this book, andmovie, are
> Anachonisms. The prodict of 20th Century wishful thinking, projected onto
> a past that didnt exist.

> Also, the idea that the Christasn treated women as second class citezend,
> where the Pagans treated them fairly and with respect is pure bunk. The
> clets treatedtheir Horses better than women. Christendom was seen as an
> imporvement in their lives. At leastthey wher recognised then as people.

> Don't beleive me? Look it up in real hisotyebooks sometime.

> This brigns us to how Brittian was acutlaly Christainised.

> Not through conwueast, deciet, and murder of the Pagans, and suppresionof
> their ways. THe CHristainfaith wasnt shoved down their throats.

> It acutlaly happened slowly and in two waves. Threeif you count Ireland,
> th last land converted.

> The first wave was when Joseph of Arnimethea took the Grial their int he
> firts palce. He founded the Celtic Chruches which thrived, but didnt
> rellay do much to the surroundign culture.

This is and always has been a folk myth Nothing and nobody has ever prved that Joseph of Arimathea ever came to England in general or to Glastonbury in particular.

> The next wave was from Augustine the Less, first Archbishop pf
> Canterburry. He reconciled the desperate (disparate!) Celtic CHruches to Rome. He also managed to convert mostof th celts. PEacefully.

> Again, look it up on such soruces as Wikipedia, or University hisotry
> courses. DOtn take my word for it.

> Learn hwo the Old Rleigion just didnt exist at the time, and by the time
> Arthur ( who himself if he existed was CHristain) was not a Pagan and did
> not rellay exist to brign abotu a aba;ance between "The Old
> rleigion" and Christendom.

Thst too is an unknown. Arthur Iif he ever existed) was a War Lord, not a King, who was born in the Dark Ages at the end of the Roman occupation and could well have worshipped Mother Nature.

> The book is terrible on the fact htat hisotry alone dispiroves it. then
> the lines they feed Christaisn into, such as blamign the guilt they feel
> on it, and blaming the problems largley on "Patriarchy" and
> Christainisation, is idiocy. Espeiclaly when taken withthe Hisry that
> Brittainwas alreayd a Christain nation at the time.

> Do you peopel even know Hisotry?

> I doubt it.

> Sorry for a sloppy post, byt the last post Ir ead is two years old, so
> didnt feel liek doiugn a proper job. Just expressing outrage here.Outrage
> that many peoepla cutlaly beleive htis drivel is indivcative of anyhting
> rtemotlry hisotrical.

The story of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Camelot, Guinevere and Lancelot and the rest of it is based on early romantic tales from Europe, expanded in the Middle Ages by Mallory and as a good story has become the "Matter of Britain".

I would love to know Arthur had been real but have to know that he probably never existed ans is a storybook figure for us to look up to and the try to emulate in our lives.

Written not in ignorance, but from my studies, as I have an MA in History from Oxford! That degee doe not stop me loving the whole story of King Arthur. Any nation needs to have such a story, real or not.