Was Uther Pendragon a real person?

Question

I am new to this community, but I come from a long line of serious family history people. I'm still trying to get my feet wet here at wikitree, and what first attracted me was I thought it would be a community of serious genealogists. To a large degree, I think this is true.

However, we recently discovered in our "family tree" on WikiTree that we are "descended" from Uther Pendragon, the "father" of King Arthur.

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/DeBritain-8

This is rather fanciful.

I do note the "disputed historicity" disclaimer on the page. However, I would think that disputed notices might be better used for alleged individuals of lesser prominence where generations of historians had not already done exhaustive work and come up dry.

Here is how I understand the historical record. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong?

No text produced within four centuries of Arthur's presumed dates mention him - at all. Bede says nothing, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle has nothing to say, Gildas writes De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae in the 6th century (and even writes about a battle later associated with Arthur), and also says nothing. 
 

But all of that misses the point - it is probable that some proto-Arthur and his, one assumes, his father (or combination of Arthurs and fathers) existed - but it's an extra long walk from even that far off place to proving lines of descent. How can we possibly have a "line of descent" from the father of a figure who exists, if at all, if the fog of legend?

Does Wikitree have a way of containing this kind of stuff? This is a pretty serious shibboleth for how seriously anything here can be taken.

Appreciate any insights you all might have on this question.

Comments

There appear to be two groups of people here on WikiTree, the regulars, who really want to know their ancestry, and work toward finding proof of it, and those who glory in having been descended from Ceasar Agustus, or Cleopatra, or Boadicea, who is reported to have been killed after being forced to watch the death of her two daughter, dying without issue.<br>

The former should be applauded and the latter eliminated, but it can't be done.  So we live with what we have, knowing that its an imperfect world. <br>

Please excuse the Italics, Not my doing. 

---

You may be interested in perusing this lengthy post on another website [link]

A very brief synopsis of what the post is arguing (and I apologize for any inaccuracy in my synopsis) is that Uther Pendragon (to use one modern spelling) was actually a title used (earned?) by some Welsh Kings. [I interpret this as similar to how the actions of Edward I earned the sobriquet "Hammer of the Scots"]

The post contends that there was a "real" King Arthur who did exist and was the son of Meurig and Queen Onbrawst and that this Arthur is the basis of the legend of King Arthur and the identity of his father as Uther Pendragon. (Actually the post claims there was more than one King Arthur throughout history and that they were conflated by Monmouth and other early authors - possibly intentionally - so that the historical events that the legendary King Arthur is linked to impossibly span multiple centuries)

Although not 'footnoted' the post mentions some modern research and historic texts and highlights some suggested further readings. Might be worth time for someone more familiar with the subject to read it over - I am certainly in no position to judge the plausibility of the claims in the post.

---

But I think you can make judgments. If none of the primary sources for over 400 years mention Uther Pendragon, that's a pretty high hurdle to clear. So make a judgment.

I think after hundreds of years of research on this, the burden is on anyone who suggests they have something new.

---

I'd be more worried about how I'm connected to Uther.

He's got a single line down to Rhodri Mawr, who may have existed.  Then there's an explosion into many branches, containing many people with strange names, and this stuff goes on for centuries before it starts to meet up with any actual records like deeds.

To fill the gap there are only pedigrees, which some people insist are factual while others insist they're fictitious.

As for the line from Uther to Rhodri, which is about 10 generations too short, it's just a naked political attempt by Welsh nationalists to claim Arthur for Wales.  What few indications and considerations there are would suggest that Arthur lived and died and fought the Saxons in future-England and had no particular connection with the bit sticking out on the left.  But people do like their myths and WikiTree doesn't welcome mythbusters.

Answer 1

Thanks for asking this question but unfortunately as Helmut and others have said there isn't an easy answer.

There was a similar question about King Arthur and from the answers you can see that people have different ideas about what profiles should and shouldn't be on Wikitree.

In what I call, the dark depths of Wikitree are many of these mythological figures as well as some very strange connections between historical and semi-historical people.  Many printed genealogies, particularly from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are also to blame, and often harder to discredit.  There is something about a printed book that makes us believe in, and trust the contents, even though there are no actual sources cited for any of the information.

All we can do, is as Kitty suggested, is document what the sources actually say, use the disputed parentage, or the questionable templates  perhaps disconnect the totally incorrect, and make sure that there are better sources in place to counteract those internet genealogies or unsourced printed books.

By the way, there is a European Aristocrats sub project that deals with that era European Royals and Aristocrats pre 742 with Maggie as their excellent leader. 

John Atkinson - Leader, European Aristocrats project

Answer 2

Unfortunately we have a lot of these mythical figures floating around, mostly from old GEDCOM uploads (this one is from 2011) when things were apparently quite a bit looser than they are now. Just look at the three children, supposedly born 450, 565, and 620. What needs to be done is to establish the first documented people in each line of descent and disconnect them from their mystical parents. As said before, there are lots of these ghosts around and whenever you get to a situation like this, this is the forum to bring it up and have it corrected.

BTW, re-tag your question "euroaristo" to alert the appropriate people.

Answer 3

Hi Charles, Welcome to our worldwide family tree and thank you for any donations of your time, energy and research toward helping us grow!

You will find many profiles here that are not sourced or supported by documentary research, including lines back long before Uthyr.  The Honor Code it a very flexible committment to free and open family tree information.  We have to be flexible to allow all, professional genealogists and newby hobbyists alike, to add their information as long as they are not creating duplicate profiles, etc.

Please read the instructions for disputed parentage.  You may be able to find the point on your line where collaboration is required and you may be able to mark those parents as uncertain or disputed.  Using these instructions, I was able to indicate the last reliable person on my line and basically indicated that those earlier had an unsupported connection. That way, if another WikiTreer comes along in a few years and has the support, they can add it to the profile. Just follow the directions; they are very helpful.  

Comments

Thanks. Very good response.

---

I don't get this.  Suppose my line of folks back home connects to the Big Tree in say 1750, and behind that, there's a long line of profiles that I didn't create and don't manage, going back to the year dot.

I can find out where it all comes from (though most of the PMs haven't - they only know they got it from Ancestry.com).

Suppose I feel that a line is convincing enough as far back as say 1400, but then the evidence gets too thin.  The line is in the books, but primary support seems lacking and I don't trust it.

This is a judgment call.  It's just my opinion.  But it's not just my line.  There are thousands of descendants with their own opinions.  Where am I going to stick the dispute flag?

 

And what happens when all the descendants have disputed their connections to the junk?  The junk is still there, coming up on Google and being broadcast to the world, and there's nothing to say all the descendants have disowned it.

---

Hear, Hear! Well said RJ Horace.

Answer 4

This well encapsulates the main problem with online genealogy, and what happens when we're not serious enough about enforcing sources and other research standards.

Comments

Sources aren't the solution.  Sources are the problem.  The internet does invent a lot of junk by accident, but the rest of the junk comes from sources.

You find an unsourced doubtful-looking factoid, you go googling and find the source of it in an old book, once decently buried, but now resurrected on archive.org.  Do you think, right, that's it, we've proved it?  A lot of the time the correct response would be, right, now we know where that came from, we know we can safely ignore it.  But who decides, and how?

And then you've got all the families where there are several sources and no two agree.

---

You know, I originally posted a longer answer which spoke the to the "obstinate amateurishness" that characterizes so much online genealogy, and the websites that enable this trait. I later edited that part out because I didn't want to come off as overly harsh. (I do consider carefully what I say here.) But maybe I should have left that part up after all...because it provided needed context to the first part of my answer that remains. 

Perhaps you noticed that, beyond sources, I mentioned "other research standards." One of those standards ought to be, as I have discussed on this forum before, the practice of deleting deficient (and obviously frivolous or spurious) person profiles. I see that Uthyr Pendragon's profile is still up and running, branded by moderators with the bandaid label of "Disputed Existence," along with the form explanation: "Research suggests that this person may never have existed. See narrative for details."

But isn't this as risible as the profile to which it is attached? What "research"? Where is such "research" ever cited or disputed in further detail on the profile page? The profile creator cites a Wikipedia article. There is nothing further...no additional text of explanation. Better still, in the interest of standards, why not simply DELETE THE PROFILE?? Are we (they) really going to take the non-deletion policy so far? If so, can I really just go and create profiles willy-nilly for figures such as Elmo and Big Bird? Is there a line drawn somewhere?

So yes, while your point does have a kernel of truth, I think we need to see the sources issue in the context of other research standards. Profiles for obviously fictional or apocryphal figures should simply be deleted, and offending posters be censured sternly but fairly. But to knock the whole concept of sources, based upon a person's ability to provide a dubious (or worse) source for a bad profile, is an evasion - a great big case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Done properly, and in the context of necessary censorship, sources are an indispensable part of sound research. I would have thought this is obvious, though. 

 

---

I agree Michael. It is a sad fact that sources appear to include variants on 'histories' such as were written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and transcribed and translated sagas.

It is a fact of life that the period in question was known as the 'Dark Ages', at least they have been known by many as such. Notwithstanding the high cultural achievements in metalwork and other things that have survived down to the current day, the reason that they were known as the Dark Ages was because of a paucity of written record. The Roman period was over, the civil administration had disintegrated and the evidence in place-names suggests a return to the use of the Brythonic tongue indigenous here from the Iron Age.

One essential ingredient of this culture was that its histories were remembered and spoken about. The Bardic tradition was extremely similar to the Scandinavian saga tradition. What we will never know, of course, is whether these traditions had an element of Chinese whispers about them. Was it the case that each generation amplified or moderated particular aspects reflecting contemporary mores and tastes, or were they absolutely faithfully repeated over tens of generations as claimed?

What we can probably be assured of is that not all Vikings were descended from Thor or Woden, and that the ancestries dating from all of these traditions were probably all developed to add credence to the contemporary societal status of those who were in some sort of leading role.

There is not a hope of obtaining absolutely categorical evidence to support them; so surely we ought to question whether there is any point in there being included in the first place.

---

What is to prevent the next newcomer to WikiTree with an Ancestry tree to think XYZ's ancestral line to Uther Pendragon is missing and to add it right back in after you have just "deleted" it? There are not enough volunteers on WikiTree to prevent this from happening, over and over again. The labeling with "Disputed Existence" is one attempt to prevent that. It may not be the best way to do it but at least may give a few people something to think about. I do agree, though, that the execution could be better. Everybody in the line of descent that cannot be proven should be labeled, not only the main mythical characters.

---

The odds are stacked.  A million people decide not to create a profile for King Arthur's evil twin brother Urthar, but one person thinks, why not, and hey, Urthar is out there.

And by WikiTree rules, the one in a million is now in charge, leading the collaboration on all Urthar-related matters.

No use saying, They should sort it out, because there is no They.  It's all down to collaboration between descendants and citing sources.

Descendants?  Fictional people don't have any.  And there's no way of finding out who WikiTree thinks you're descended from, except by chance.  I might have a line from Uther showing, but (bizarre but true) there's no way of finding out.

Sources?  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a good source, isn't it?  It's heavily relied on.  It gives our ancestry from Alfred back to Cerdic.  Scholars accepted that line until recent times.  That they no longer do, says more about modern English culture than about Wessex.  Other cultures (including the US) are much less keen to take the hatchet to their glorious past.

And in some, including the Celtic fringe, if you don't drop your proof standards very low, you're left with almost no medievals at all.

But there are too many books which state things as facts that aren't.  And people aren't going to think it's their job to question and second-guess the books.  They were told it was all going to be so easy.  It's bad enough having to second-guess the smart-matches.

Which of course is where the single tree should win hands-down.  Don't bother trying to collect your own version of the Big Tree from all the untrustworthy sources.  Just plug into the one we've got here, already done for you.

Question is then though, what sort of tree does the market want to plug into?

---

Helmut: "What is to prevent the next newcomer to WikiTree with an Ancestry tree to think XYZ's ancestral line to Uther Pendragon is missing and to add it right back in after you have just "deleted" it?"

A user ban? More stringent restrictions on the creation of medieval profiles? Just two ideas that do more than the little or nothing being done now. 

RJ:

1. If I understand your response correctly, you're basically saying "what's the point of doing anything substantial to solve these problems, since they'll persist in some form?" It's a little like saying, "you'll never stop all serious crime, so why have police?" or "what's the point in shoveling your driveway since you won't get all the snow off of it?" No, you'll never get all of the snow off, but the effort is still worthwhile. And you'll never stop all online genealogy mischief, no matter which steps you take to do so. But you can make it better (more credible). You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but you should still try to make the good the enemy of the not-so-good. I firmly believe that the things I mentioned are a start: deleting fictional profiles, administering warnings and penalties to people/accounts that persist in making them, doing more to require and evaluate sources, etc. 

2. Additionally, if I were to follow your line of reasoning, what's the point in having a "disputed existence" category at all....or even of having an honor code? Aren't those things by themselves, with no teeth behind them, spitting into the wind more than anything I am suggesting? Since they fix much less alone than the things I would add, what's the point in THEM? Why have any restrictions or guidelines if this site is just a chaotic, unrestrained (and unrestrainable) playground?

3. You say: "And in some, including the Celtic fringe, if you don't drop your proof standards very low, you're left with almost no medievals at all."

That sounds just fine to me. 

---

Well I didn't write the business plan.  But there has to be one, because bills have to be paid.  The puzzle is how to reconcile quality genealogy with financial viability.

It's noticeable that the kinds of sources used by the project teams aren't much used by anybody else.  People prefer a different kind of book or website.  Typically, these were never researched in primary records - they stitch together some concoction of tradition, speculation, invalid inference and sometimes outright fakery and assert it confidently and persuasively.  And they give people completely the wrong messages about what kind of information exists and what research can do.

It's also noticeable that the financial viability of other sites hasn't suffered from data quality.  Very possibly the reverse.  Would ancestry.com be more successful if it were better?  Have they somehow missed the most obvious trick of all?

Answer 5

I always consider how WikiTree compares to the other online genealogy sites, particularly our competitor, Geni.com, which is the only other site I'm aware of that's even attempted to tackle this problem.  

If you search Geni for Uther Pendragon, you'll find at least five different profiles.  One of them says "fictitious person", along the same lines as WikiTree's disputed person notice.  But the other five profiles don't mention fictitious and are all over the map as far as the information they contain.  

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS400&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Ageni.com%20uther%20pendragon

I wouldn't even want to try to figure out how many Ancestry profiles there are for him.  In the scheme of things, I think WikiTree is doing pretty well.

Comments

No Wikitree is not much different than Geni.com and it will remain similar, growing in that direction, unless it is forced not to by conscious decisions. Many people have accounts on these two websites and many more. Many of us are looking to see what might perhaps grow the right way. Currently there is no really good wiki of genealogy. It is yet to be created. Wikitree gives hopes in many ways, but not in areas like the one we are discussing. Quality genealogy is not going to "just happen". Wikipedia also did not "just happen", but has resulted from a lot of difficult debate and development by a lot of people.

Answer 6

I think all the answers you already got show that the best genealogists who are responsible for most of what is worth keeping in this wiki, especially concerning profiles before about 1850 will probably be trying slowly but surely to find a way to either remove or else somehow neutralize nonsense profiles. One thing has been the increased care about gedcom imports including old profiles. Another approach has been the positive effort of some people to try to focus on what can be done well, such as Magna Carta descents, which should be lauded because it gives wikitree a backbone of real lines.

But honestly I think all profiles before Charlemagne could best be deleted and then only allowed to be filled in again by a selected minority of editors. There are after all only very few lines with real evidence that go further so rebuilding this would be much easier for a small number of good editors than fixing the mess we now have will ever be.

Comments

Pre-742 isn't the only area where is this true.  The pre-1700 profiles generally are stuffed with unsourced dates, places, spouses and children which at some point were guessed, imagined, invented or put in the wrong place by mistake.

But once they've got in, the onus is on the would-be remover to show that they're wrong, one factoid at a time.  Life's too short, so the junk stays.

Cleaning up an individual family line can be tackled by somebody who has made a study of that line and is familiar with all the sources, though it might be hard work.  But that leaves thousands of families to be dealt with by a small number of people, or not at all.

---

For sure RJH, this is not a problem isolated to pre 742, but the solution I proposed above is dramatic (delete everything and start again) and I think would never be accepted for post 742. I do wish there could be more differences of policy and rules based on time blocks. Really the whole "cousin bait" policy where quantity is encouraged over quality helps no one at all for pre 1700, and arguably for pre 1800. By the time you get back to there, there are a smaller number of real proven lines, and a greater number of problems. The emphasis should switch to quality and the default modes of editing should be more pro-filter.

Answer 7

Whatever outcome is agreed on, I believe it is important that Uther Pendragon remain a profile within WikiTree.  The reason is that there is so much legendary material out there that if you found a way to make Uther go away today, someone else would load one up tomorrow.

My approach when I discover someone to have no basis in fact is to (1) add a { { questionable } } tag at the top of the profile, which has a lovely exclamation point and the comment that research reveals the person may never have existed;  (2) add all the documentation such as you have in the query as to why the person never existed;  (3) Put links in the narrative to others associated with the person in legend, such as purported parents, children, etc and explain them;  and (4) remove all links to others from the data field, because people who never existed never had parents, spouses, siblings or children.  Removing the links means the person will not show up in anyone's ancestry.   Leaving the the profile there with a good write-up should protect WikiTree from having the legend re-created.

Comments

I have no problem with the concept of talking about Uther as a concept of course, but Wikitree is about registering family connections? Just saying.

---

Precisely why legendary people should not have family conections.  A profile without connections still shows up in indexing for people who are looking for the name, but it doesn't show up in any family tree -- because a legendary person cannot have parents, siblings, spouses or children.  De-link those people from Uther, and Uther becomes simply an informational file but not part of the "global family tree."

---

To make it clear Jack I have no problem with completely unconnected profiles, of course. Why would we be discussing those? What we are talking about is the connections, which will keep be inserted along with new parallel profiles. Genealogy is about connections. If we could stop connections being laid between real people and myths, then the problem would be solved, and such a stop to connections is what I am saying will eventually be needed in the online genealogy collaboration which succeeds eventually.

---

So at the moment, I bit the bullet and am seeing what I can do to add content to the narrative of Uther Pendragon based on the best facts that are available.  Now, what makes WikiTree different from your or my personal genealogy on Ancestry.com is that in the latter case we wouldn't even be having this conversation, but we would just disconnect Uther.  But we are collaborative.  Both project managers for Uther are active WikiTree members who are busily -- today -- working on other profiles. They need to be engaged on this topic, and facts on the ground are the best way to do it.  Anyway, having talked about it at length (!) I shall now see if I can contribute anything to actually fixing the issue!

---

Jack, I think we are very close on all this, and what you are describing is my own approach for now. But in effect we are not yet fixing the problem. As RJ said, the way I understood him anyway, people can keep adding a new Uther line every day, and this is not even against any sort of recommendation or policy. There are good projects but there is no project to delete such things. So there is a positive tendency yes, but also a negative one which is not worked on and which works against the positive work. As soon as an online forum comes into being which fixes this problem, whether it is wikitree or not, then I guess many of us will move. I just find it worth making sure that is clear.

---

One concrete proposal which I think is feasible from an IT perspective and which would discourage unthinking addition of Dark Ages profiles, but permit additions that can be justified, would be to "Project Protect" all dates prior to a certain date, such as, say, 742.  WikiTree would only permit creation of a profile before such a date by a Leader, whom you would have to convince ahead of time.  This would therefore not only apply to GEDCOMs, but also to manually create profiles.

---

Andrew (and RJ), our Pre-1500 activity feed may be of interest to you. One of the things the Rangers project does is check in on this activity multiple times an hour. If they catch anything suspicious, odd, vandalous, or even just find someone adding unsourced profiles they report it to a Project Leader or send a request for a Mentor to assist the member. So, it's less likely we'll have more and more Pendragon-type lines appearing because community members are watching for it. 

---

Is there a legend of Rhodri Mawr's descent from Uther?  I had the impression that some Joe just thought, hey, I want him in my tree, and stuck him in.  Then he uploads his gedcom to Ancestry and a new legend is born.

---

@Jack. Your idea makes sense to me.

@Erin. Would be great if that can really work.

@RJ. Exactly, and of course if that is not the case here, it will be in many other examples. Indeed it will often be hard to work it out because as we know it is hard to get sources discussion, and easy to avoid such discussion. Most such cases do not look like "vandalism" of course, and are not really vandalism. People really think this is valid genealogy and do not understand the knock on effects this type of thing has. When pushed they will sometimes say things like "genealogy is not an exact science" (when I would say it actually is, being something more like accounting, simple processing of records, than like the full study of history).

I am not totally opposed to the registering of speculative genealogical connections when there is a clear and respected front runner amongst the theories. There are publications such as those of Settipanni (for continental genealogy) which attempt to register such things. But where there is no clear front runner, I suppose we should delete the connections?

---

I thought of an additional approach to this and posted it as a new discussion topic:  http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/184526/a-category-for-legends

Answer 8

As I responded in a parallel post, it's most likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth based his Uther Pendragon on Eudon Penteur (c999-1079), a contender for the ducal throne of Brittany, an elder cousin of King Edward the Confessor, and the father of many Breton lords who settled in England following the Conquest, including two of great prominence, Alan Rufus and Brian of Brittany.  The Bayeux Tapestry, Geffrei Gaimar and Wace of Jersey all attribute much of Duke William's victory at Hastings to Alan's efforts.

Alan, as the leader of the Bretons in England, was one of the three witnesses to the foundation charters for the Lordship and the Priory at Monmouth.  The other two were the new lord Withenoc de la Boussac and Withenoc's brother Baderon.

Geoffrey drew the names Uther and Arthur, as he stated, from a Breton source, in my view the 9th century Cartulary of Redon, wherein they appear as charter witnesses.

The names and places of origin of "King Arthur's family" run parallel to those of members of Alan Rufus's family: his father Eudon Penteur, his mother Orguen of Cornouaille, his mother's brother Count Hoel, and even his beloved Gunhild of Wessex parallels Guinevere of the West Country.

Alan's paternal uncle Duke Alan III was poisoned to death, so Geoffrey gives the same fate to Arthur's paternal uncle Ambrosius Aurelianus.

Alan Rufus's epitaph describes him as a star, shining orange-red, and emphasises its brilliance.  Well, the brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere is Arcturus.

As Arcturus is the guardian of the Two Bears, Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, so Alan Rufus was the captain of the household knights of Kings William I (William Major) and William II (William Minor).

Due south of Arcturus is the constellation Virgo, representing in medieval thought the Virgin Mary.  Brittany's symbol, ermine, was borne on the shields of Alan's men, and it represents honour and the Virgin Mary.