While Guy is peddling the French romantic fiction of a would-be King pulling a sword from a stone, mentored by a grey haired wizard called Merlin; the truth of King Arthur makes for a much better blockbuster. (Does anyone know Mel Gibson's number?)
The first King Arthur was born during the 4th Century, son of Magnus Maximus, himself the son of Constantine the Great. Born 355AD and dead by 388AD, King Arthur I fought the Romans and went down within the annuals of the Welsh Khumry as a great and illustrious king.
Later in the 6th Century King Arthur II was born, of which so many of today's legends are based on. King Arthur II was born in 503AD and died in 579AD, famed for fighting the Saxons, son of King Maurice, who himself was the son of the Paramount King Pendragon King Theoderic.
Both King Arthur I and II were directly related to each other, both in a long line of Kings reaching back to the first King of Britain, King Brutus and further back to the Holy Family, descended from Anne, sister of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ himself. King Brutus, a great grandson of Aeneas of Troy, came to the Island of Britain around 500BC.
Since the beginning of the 18th Century AD there has been a major suppression of British History. To the academic community there is only the tunnel vision mentality of Roman Britain, or Saxon Britain, or Viking Britain, and if any major finds are made by archaeologists they inevitably end up in one of the three mentioned categories, heaven forbid they be Khumric-British - of which there are VAST amounts of evidence and written material to blown the fake history away.