Can the English royal family trace their lineage back to king Arthur?

Question

and is it true that king Arthur had some Caesar blood in him from Italy like in that new movie or is that fiction? If not then how did the current family replace the old one? Did some commoners simply take over the throne (like Napoleon’s attempt to take over as king) but lasted longer and their descendents is who sit on it today? I am just trying to figure out how many centuries they have held this post.

Answer 1

King Arthur was Italian, or rather Roman, if P. J. F. Turner's theory is correct.  His candidate for the semi-mythic figure of King Arthur is a 2nd century Dalmatian general stationed in Britain, Lucius Antonius Castus.

Of course, lots of nationalities lay claim to the legend of King Arthur.  Welsh tradition, for example, holds that Arthur is the grandson of Constantine.  David F. Carroll argues that Arthur was the son of King Aidan of Dalriada and that Camelot was located in Stirlingshire, Scotland. Tales of Arthur first surfaced in Historia Britonum, written by the Welsh cleric Nennus, wherein Arthur is mentioned as a "dux bellorum", or a commander of battles.  Geoffrey of Monmouth, in turn, fully established the King Arthur legend in his Historia Regnum Britanniae in 1130 CE.  

Although the English Royal family can trace its ancestry back to 1066 CE when the Duke of Normandy, William I (a. k. a. William the Conqueror)*, invaded England, the current royal family descends from the House of Hanover, distant cousins of the Stuarts.  When Queen Anne died without issue in 1714, the English Parliament invited the the German Duchy of Brunswick and Luneburg's Hanover line to assume the throne.  In the Act of Settlement of 1701, Parliament had ruled that no Roman Catholic could succeed, an act expressly prohibiting any member of the House of Stuart from become king or queen.  

Statistically speaking, probably 80 percent of the inhabitants of England can trace their ancestry back to William the Conqueror.  Similarly, almost all Europeans can trace their ancestry back to Charlemagne.

------

*William believed that he was the rightful heir to Anglo-Saxon England because he was a distant cousin of Ethelred the Unready's widow.

Answer 2

Considering Arthur was made up, I don't think they can.  I just suffered through the movie you were talking about.  The idea is fun and interesting and even entertaining, but the bad acting in the movie was UNBEARABLE!!!!

Answer 3

No . He is mythological.

The present Royal Family came from Germany in the 18th century at the invitation of British traitors who wanted to prevent the throne going to the descendants of the Stuarts who were the rightful heirs.

Answer 4

That would be awfully hard since Arthur wasn't a real person.

Answer 5

No king Arthur is just a legend, well, there may have been a real king named Arthur in some part of Britain who drew a sword out of stone, but that was melted iron, poured into a stone mold, he pulled it out after it cooled off. Does'nt matter though, Queen Elizabeth 2 (and Al Gore) are descendants of the royal family of Hannover Germany, the name on her birth certificate is Battenburg. The government of Britain needed a new King and made a deal with the house of Hannover, where they would han' over the crown if that k***t king would sign on with them.

Answer 6

No. It is not proved that King Arthur really existed.

King Arthur could be a Romano-British chieftain. I don't think he was related to Caesar.

Maybe the English royal family can race their lineage back to the Vikings or, in way, to the Anglo-Saxon kings.

Answer 7

No, the English royal family is not related to king Arthur.

No, king Arthur did not have some Caesar blood in him.

The story of king Arthur is a myth. But if you remember the myth, king Arthur had only one child, a son with his sister, and he was killed, so Arthur left no heirs to the crown.

The current family is on the throne mostly because William the Conqueror conquered England from Harold. There has basically been five different "houses" on throne, but they are all related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mon...

All kings descent from commoners. but the commoners in the beginning of the British royal house existed a VERY LONG time ago... Not even William the Conqueror's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were commoners. So the British throne has not been taken over by some commoner.

Answer 8

The origins of the legend of King Arthur are disputed.  Whether he was based on Celtic, Romano-British, or Welsh, etc. is a matter of debate.  He may have been based on more that one person.  The modern chivilaristic Arthur is pure fabrication (See Thomas Malory).  Here's a good Wikipedia article.

The house of Windsor is as much German as it is English.  Check out another good Wiki entry.

Answer 9

Arthur was a mythological king;no one knows of he really existed. The present monarch can directly trace her lineage back to the 700's. From http://www.royal.gov/uk

"Her Majesty is 38th in direct line of descent from Egbert (c. 775-839), King of Wessex from 802 and of England 827 to 839. "

Answer 10

No, Arthur is a figure in folklore.  He wasn't real.  Therefore, he has no descendants.