• Tehhund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    28 days ago

    I assume this was a grift — they “found” some bodies and declared them Arthur and Guinevere, and suddenly the site became a pilgrimage destination and lots of money started flowing in from the pilgrims.

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      27 days ago

      Says right there: they dug to find them. Actually finding them might have better chances elsewhere, on account of the bodies being elsewhere, but the light was better here and they didn’t have to walk that far.

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      In that case, the headline could read instead as:

      Medieval monks were sly
      The faithful were suckers

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      26 days ago

      Bingo. There is no real historical proof that Arthur existed (that I know of), all historical mentions of him are likely themselves taken from already poetic sources.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    28 days ago

    In a thousand years (if we last that long) they’ll have similar signs in Jerusalem and Rome.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      28 days ago

      Arthur probably didn’t exist. Guinevere certainly didn’t. Even if they did, there’s no reason to assume any particular location would be the location of their tombs.

      Plus, according to the legend, Arthur’s supposed to be alive and in the mystical island of Avalon, waiting until he is needed to return and become king again. These guys needed to look up their Geoffrey of Monmouth.

      Basically, it would be like digging to find the tomb of Uncle Sam and his wife.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          27 days ago

          Fun fact, he was actually right in the original version — there hasn’t been a queen of England since 1707, when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were replaced with one kingdom of Great Britain

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              27 days ago

              There was no title “king of England” or “queen of England” as of that date, in the same way that there is no king of Sheffield. There’s a king whose kingdom includes Sheffield, yes, but it’s not the kingdom of Sheffield

        • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          There is no Once and Future King of England

          So far!

          … though I expect if there is one, it’s that shitty hologram/AI technology hybrid

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        28 days ago

        Basically, it would be like digging to find the tomb of Uncle Sam and his wife.

        I just had the most amazing idea for a post-apocalyptic roleplay campaign.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        27 days ago

        Or they had tombs made for them and they remained empty because Arthur is alive on the mystical island of Avalon

        Yaknow, pharaoh pyramid rules - they built those suckers when the dude was still alive. But one dude just didn’t have to use his “pyramid” cause he floating on an island.