To what am I referring? you ask.
Well, according to a recent ‘find’ by researchers, the roundtable of King arthur was not a table after all.
Instead it was a “wood and stone structure which would have allowed more than 1,000 of his followers to gather” ...
And Camelot was not a castle ...
Alas and alack. Can these things be true?
Next they will be telling us that King Arthur was just a legend and never even existed. Indeed, many have been saying that for years.
But, if there was a real King Arthur, does this mean that the historical site that many of us have visited is not the real Camelot and did not contain the round table?
Well, I don’t know. But, to read the article with these new 'insights', HERE’S THE LINK.
And if you want to read more about King Arthur and the legends surrounding him, HERE’S A WIKIPEDIA LINK
