The second edition of the United Kingdom's own study guide for immigrants on life in Britain states that the legendary King Arthur did exist, and that he led the British against invaders during the sixth century. Despite whatever pesky historians and encyclopedias might say.

A friend of mine is currently in the process of getting their permanent residency in the UK and, as some will know, they are required to take a test to demonstrate that they are literate in English (the test is in English) and that they have an understanding of the country and culture they are integrating into.

To help perspective citizens study for the test the Home Office (the government department in charge of immigration) has produced a study guide on Britain, and while thumbing through my friends copy of the book I discovered the following on page 9:

"As the Roman Empire gradually became weaker, new tribes invaded from northern Europe looking for better land. These were called the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. These people spoke dialects which later became the basis of English. The people of Britain fought against these new invaders and were led for a while in the 6th century by the legendary King Arthur. Eventually, however, the invaders took over all of southern and eastern Britain, setting up their own kingdoms and pushing the Britons to the west and to the north.

'Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship' - 2nd Edition (2007), Page 9, Early Britain, After the Romans

Oh boy, where to begin?

In general, the only thing that all historians will agree on about the Sub Roman period is that we don't know much about it! Yes, some historians think they might have found references to a number of individuals who might be the legendary King Arthur, but no one knows for sure.

For example: Britannia presents a number of the King Arthur theories and advises the reader to pick one they like the sound of - with a footnote that should the reader discover any additional evidence - one way or the other - to please get in touch.

I rather suspect that the only people who accept Arthur as a specific historical figure are tour guides. Perhaps tourism is why the Home Office have included the reference as apparent fact - I can't think of any other good reason.

Of course, I understand that Home Office is attempting to provide a brief overview of the period - a wave of the hand, if you will - but of all things to pull out from that period they choose King Arthur? If they had to chose a person, Vortigern stands a better chance of having existed. Probably.

I think they wold have been better off saying that the Sub Roman period was difficult for Britain; Britons were largely ruled by war lords and tyrants, were under almost constant threat of invasion (by everyone in the area - including other Britons), suffered a collapse of long distance trade, whose population may have gone into a decline, and were eventually conquered by the Angles and the Saxons.

hmm... I will admit that their version sounds better though.