Historical Analysis of the Name Arthur's Usage Among Britons After the Legendary King

A scholarly examination challenges the notion that Britons ceased using the name Arthur following the era of the legendary King Arthur. Medieval genealogical records from later centuries indicate the name surged in popularity during the late 6th and early 7th centuries, corresponding to generations after the fabled ruler's supposed reign. This pattern is often cited as potential evidence for King Arthur's historical existence, as names commonly gain popularity from prominent figures. Specific examples include Arthur ap Pedr from Dyfed in southwest Wales and Artuir mac Aedan from Dal Riada in western Scotland, both born around the 6th-7th century transition. Additional instances are Arthur, son of Bicoir, noted in Irish annals for an event in the 620s, and other figures referenced in documents like the Cain Adomnan from 697. Some scholars previously argued that the name's appearance primarily among Irish dynasties, and its absence from Welsh genealogies, suggested Britons avoided it due to superstition or reverence for a folkloric figure, while Irish settlers adopted it. However, counter-evidence questions the Irish ethnicity of these dynasties. Records suggest Dyfed's rulers had Romano-British lineage after circa 500, and Dal Riada's royal family intermarried with Brythonic dynasties, making figures like Artuir mac Aedan partially Brythonic. Furthermore, Arthur, son of Bicoir, is explicitly called 'the Briton' in annals. The timing of the name's surge also doesn't align with Irish settlement periods in Britain, which began earlier. The analysis concludes that the name Arthur was indeed used by Britons in the post-Arthurian period, with many bearers having Brythonic connections, particularly in southeast Wales, a region associated with Arthurian tradition. This challenges theories of a superstitious naming taboo among Britons.