Talk:List of legendary kings of Britain

message: I don't think it's helpful to describe Nennius and Gildas as "pseudo-historical authors"; indeed, it looks biased. They may not be perfect as historical sources (particularly Gildas), but it would be equal in vice to dismiss them in such scoffing terms as to accept their statements unreservedly. Any competent historian has to deal with imperfect documentary evidence. I, as an Ancient Historian, of course use the works of Herodotus, Plutarch, and Dionysius Siculus, all of which have significant limitations. Accusations of "pseudo-history" are usually far better placed upon the modern interpreters of texts than on the texts themselves. I don't think anyone could reasonably categorise Nennius along such pseudo-historians as Omada Epsilon, Rudbeck, Nazi propaganda movies, and the recent fad for Holocaust "Revisionism". I therefore am revising the text to avoid making such claims that are little more than kneejerk reactions against the purveyors of a Brithonic Heilgeschichte. Phlogistomania 19:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Diodorus Siculus?  At any rate, "pseudo-history" is clearly the wrong term here. john k 20:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-history 

message: Didn't Mordred take the throne from King Arthur?  DuctapeDaredevil 20:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Various Talk

message: Still nobody with more info about the Milton contribution/elaboration? --Francis Schonken 10:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't read the Milton history before, and I haven't actually got far, but from the introduction, Milton seems rather sceptical of the Geoffrey of Monmouthesque material:I have therefore determined to bestow the telling over even of these reputed tales; be it for nothing else but in favour of our English poets and rhetoricians, who by their art will know how to use them judiciously.[and]The principal author is well known to be Geoffrey of Monmouth; what he was, and whence his authority, who in his age, or before him, have delivered the same matter, and such like general discourses, will better stand in a treatise by themselves. That's not exactly unstinting praise and total faith in the sources. Having passed an hour or two today reading a translation of Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia, I'd rate Milton quite highly. He's not shy of polemic, no surprise there, but he is certainly not a peddlar of vivid and misleading detail like good old Geoffrey, and not a credulous recounter of fairy tales. If we have to traduce some long dead author by associating them with Geoffrey, I'd prefer it was someone more deserving. Like Holinshed say, who appears to repeat the same pre-Brutus kings the century before. If I may say so, one point I particularly have problems with is the appearance of "Legendary kings of Britain" succession boxes in "real people" articles like Cadwallon ap Cadfan and Magnus Maximus. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton

message: I've noticed in various articles linked from this page, the succession box sometimes reads "Mythical British Kings" (e.g. Rud Hud Hudibras) and some read "Legendary British Kings" (e.g. Leir of Britain).  I know mythical usually has connotations of the supernatural whereas legendary is usually still plausible if unlikely.  Unless some of the kings are specifically one or the other it should probably be standardized.
Also, I've noticed that while this page mostly does list males, there are several queens listed so I wonder if "List of legendary monarchs of Britain" might be more appropriate?--Lairor 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary or Mythical?

message: Under which mythology there is a Samothes/Dis, fourth son of Japheth? I looked into the biblical Japheth and the greek mythological Iapetus, but they don't have a Samothes or Dis son. Albmont 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the introduction of the article you'll see that these kings are derived from a document falsely attributed to Berossus, which was used by Holinshed, Bale and Milton. --Nicknack009 08:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very belated response, this would make them non-legendary, wouldn't it? dougweller (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samothes, also known as Dis: fourth son of Japheth, son of Noah 

message: His grandsons, Romulus and Remus are the alleged founders of Rome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.129.130 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aeneas not the founder of Rome.  

message: I have been reading both of these primary sources (Annius & Holingshed) and our article seems to have the listings of kings from each source mis-attributed to one another.  First Annius (1498) had the expanded list, that was said to be the kings reigning among the Celts in Gallia.  Holinshed (1577) only listed the first kings from Annius' list up to Bardus, and then he alleges that the Celts ceased to rule in Britain (though their line continued in Gaul), and were expelled by Albion, then Hercules in turn expelled Albion, and then no further inhabitants until Brutus.  I will probably fix this soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has Annius' and Holinshed's lists backwards 

message: Tea Tephi isn't legendary. Iolo's forgeries aren't legendary.
Scota may be mythical but she certainly wasn't claimed to be a king. 05:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes forgeries or made up royalty legendary? 

message: I'm confused by the listing of real Roman emperors as legendary kings. Geoffrey may have mentioned them, but that doesn't make them legendary. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They're legendary as kings of Britain, and the story Geoffrey records about them are legendary. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I assumed, but the reader might be confused - any suggestion as to how to tweak this a bit to clarify? Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kings derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of legendary kings of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102085122/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0233.02 to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0233.02
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of legendary kings of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430234619/http://www.ensignmessage.com/dynastyofdavid.html to http://www.ensignmessage.com/dynastyofdavid.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: do you think these lists I reverted are appropriate? Doug Weller talk 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were absolutely right to revert them. The ones that aren't legendary don't belong on a list of legendary kings of Britain, and the ones that belong are already listed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additional lists