King Constantine of Cornwall, Successor of King Arthur
In many of the Arthurian legends, Arthur is succeeded as High King by Constantine, a member of the dynasty that ruled over Cornwall. This figure is a particularly fascinating character from the Arthurian legends, since he was actually a historical figure. He was also said to be related to King Arthur. With that in mind, what do we really know about him historically, and what was his true connection to King Arthur?
Who Was King Constantine of Cornwall?
King Constantine was the relative and successor of King Arthur as High King in many versions of the Arthurian legends. The first version to present him in this way is Historia Regum Britanniae, written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in c. 1137.
Although he is often referred to as the king of Cornwall, Constantine actually ruled over all of Dumnonia, which included Devon, Cornwall, and likely much of Somerset.
Constantine’s dynasty was closely allied to Arthur throughout the latter’s reign. There are records of Constantine’s father and grandfather serving alongside that king. Therefore, it is not surprising to see Constantine presented as Arthur’s successor.
One of the most interesting things about this character is that he is known to have been a historical figure. He appears in De Excidio, written by Gildas in the sixth century. In this work, Constantine appears as one of five kings to whom Gildas directs some scathing criticism.
This contemporary record demonstrates that Constantine was a real person. He also confirms several details which appear in the later Arthurian legends.
Family
Many of Constantine’s family members appear in the Arthurian legends. However, there is some controversy surrounding certain important details of his dynasty.
Father
The one piece of information which is widely accepted is that he was the son of a figure named Cador by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The overwhelming majority of subsequent versions of the legend maintain this detail.
However, some modern sources claim that Cador, Constantine’s father, was the son of Gorlois. Gorlois is a figure who first explicitly appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work, in which he is referred to as the duke or king of Cornwall.
Since Cador appears later on in Geoffrey’s account with the same description, many scholars (including medieval scribes) assumed that Cador was the son of Gorlois. However, there is very firm evidence that this conclusion should be rejected.
When we look at Gildas’ description of this king, we see that he associates him with the kingdom of Dumnonia, not just the region of Cornwall (or ‘Cornubia’ in Latin). Various records regarding sixth century Britain attest to the ruler of the kingdom of Dumnonia in Arthur’s time being a king named ‘Cadwy’, along with similar variations.
One variant of his name, seen in a version of Bonedd y Saint, is ‘Gadwr’. This is so close to ‘Cador’ as to make it obvious that they should be identified as the same king. Cadwy, the king of the kingdom of Dumnonia and ally of Arthur (as one record explicitly presents him) is clearly identical to Cador, the king of Cornwall and ally of Arthur according to Geoffrey of Monmouth.
True Ancestry of Constantine’s Father
This is very important, because Cadwy appears in medieval genealogies of the kings of Dumnonia. These lists show that Gorlois was not his father. In fact, Gorlois does not appear in these lists at all, suggesting that he was a much more local ruler.
In fact, Cadwy was the son of a king named Gereint, or Geraint. He, in turn, is presented as the son of Erbin, the son of an earlier Constantine.
This list of kings goes all the way back to Cynan ap Eudaf, a legendary king from the time of Magnus Maximus. Cynan was the supposed founder of Brittany, although he is also strongly associated with Dumnonia, hence his position as the ancestor of those kings.
Mother
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any substantial information about the identity of the mother of Constantine. Perhaps the only reference to her in all the medieval texts is by Gildas. He does not give any meaningful information about her, apart from calling her “the unclean lioness of Damnonia”.
This might be taken to suggest that Constantine’s mother was actually a native of Dumnonia, although we cannot rule out the possibility that she was from another kingdom and had married into the dynasty of Dumnonia.
However, the most obvious point to be observed from this description is that Gildas calls her ‘unclean’. This shows that there was something about her that Gildas found objectionable, although he does not explain what it was.
Siblings
What about the brothers and sisters of Constantine? Do we know anything about them?
Pedur
A brother of Constantine is mentioned in the genealogical list found in the Jesus College MS 20. This document refers to a certain ‘Pedur ap Cado’. Some modern sources, such as Peter Bartrum in A Welsh Classical Dictionary, state categorically that his name is a corrupt shortening of ‘Peredur’. However, since ‘Pedr’ is an attested name, this conclusion seems unwarranted.
While we do not know much about him, it is possible that Pedur ap Cado can be identified as a figure named Petyr who appears in the Book of Llandaff as a witness to one of the land grants in the time of King Morgan ap Athrwys.
In all likelihood, Pedur ap Cado is the ‘Bledericus’ mentioned by Geoffrey as the king of Cornwall in the early seventh century.
It also appears likely that this Pedur can be identified as Patrick the Red, the son of King Arthur according to Le Petit Bruit, written in 1309. It was likely by virtue of being the brother of Constantine, normally portrayed as Arthur’s heir, that this prince came to be misremembered as a son of King Arthur.
Possibly Gereint of the South
It does not appear that there are any other explicit references to other brothers or sisters of Constantine. However, one possible brother is mentioned in the early Welsh poem Y Gododdin, written in c. 600.
When describing the Battle of Catraeth, this poem mentions that one of the participants was a certain ‘Gereint of the south’. Given that ‘Gereint’ was a name used by the dynasty of Dumnonia, it is entirely possible that this Gereint was a prince of that kingdom.
The chronology completely rules out the possibility that the Gereint of Y Goddodin was Geraint the grandfather of Constantine. A more realistic possibility is that he was Constantine’s brother. Identifying him as a nephew or son is also possible, but seems less likely.
Children
Some modern sources claim that Geoffrey of Monmouth presented Constantine with a son named Bledericus. However, this is incorrect. In reality, Geoffrey does not mention the parentage of Bledericus anywhere.
He simply describes him as the king of Cornwall, and this is set in the generation following Arthur’s death. Hence, it is logical that Bledericus could be Constantine’s son, but this conclusion is not guaranteed. He could just have easily have been a younger brother of Constantine and a relatively mature king by the time he appears in Geoffrey’s narrative.
In fact, in his account of the reign of Aurelius Conan, the king who came after Constantine, Geoffrey states that Constantine should have been succeeded by his brother. This shows that Geoffrey does not present Constantine as being succeeded by children. Hence, the Bledericus of Geoffrey’s account is far more likely to be a brother.
As we saw earlier, Bledericus is most likely identifiable as Pedur, the son of Cadwy. The very fact that Pedur appears in the Jesus College MS 20 (while Constantine does not) in the genealogical list of the kings of Dumnonia strongly suggests that he became king at some point, evidently after Constantine, and the subsequent kings were his descendants.
Hence, it would appear that Constantine actually died childless. Or, if he did have any children, they either pursued religious lives or they predeceased him.
One possible son is ‘Geraint of the south’, mentioned in Y Gododdin. However, as discussed above, he could just as easily have been another prince from this dynasty.
How Was Constantine Related to King Arthur?
Some modern sources refer to Constantine as King Arthur’s cousin. Geoffrey of Monmouth is the earliest surviving source to mention the family connection between the two kings. He simply refers to Constantine as Arthur’s kinsman in the Historia Regum Britanniae, without specifying the relationship.
Some subsequent writers in the centuries after Geoffrey used the term ‘cousin’ or ‘nephew’, with a variety of theories presented regarding their exact relationship in the narratives written by these writers.
However, a detail which is often missed is that Geoffrey of Monmouth does, in fact, specifically state that Constantine was Arthur’s nephew. This detail is not found in the Historia Regum Britanniae. Rather, it is found in the Vita Merlini, written years later by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
This account presents a summary of many of the events described in the Historia Regum Britanniae, including the rebellion of Mordred (or ‘Modred’), the collapse of Arthur’s kingdom, and the succession of Constantine to the position of High King.
Within this summary, Constantine is specifically called ‘nepos regis’ – that is, ‘nephew of the king’. Hence, according to this source, Constantine was actually King Arthur’s nephew.
How Was Constantine Arthur’s Nephew?
This raises the question of how Constantine was Arthur’s nephew. Strictly speaking, this should mean that Constantine was the son of Arthur’s sister or brother. Since we know who Constantine’s immediate male ancestors were, a sister is the only option.
However, there is no record of Cador marrying one of Arthur’s sisters. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any information whatsoever about Cador’s wife, so we cannot rule this out.
In various texts that post-date Geoffrey of Monmouth, Cador is presented as Arthur’s half-brother by virtue of him being the son of Gorlois and Igerna, Arthur’s mother. Therefore, this would indeed make Constantine Arthur’s nephew.
Yet, we have already seen that the idea that Cador was the son of Gorlois and Igerna is simply a result of an assumption based on Geoffrey’s account. The chronological evidence definitely makes it impossible. Thus, it is very unlikely that Geoffrey himself would have made this mistake, since there was no basis to it until after he had compiled his account.
Constantine as a Grand-Nephew of King Arthur
Therefore, this cannot be the true family relationship. When we look at the Welsh records, which tend to preserve more authentic traditions, the explanation becomes readily apparent. As noted in A Welsh Classical Dictionary, one Welsh text states that Cador was Arthur’s nephew on his mother’s side.
This would mean that Cador’s father, Geraint, was married to a sister of Arthur. As it happens, Bonedd y Saint states that Geraint’s wife was Gwyar the daughter of Amlawdd Wledig. In reality, Amlawdd was born well over a century before Geraint, making such a marriage obviously untrue.
An analysis of the women recorded as daughters of Amlawdd reveals that many of them were actually his later descendants, not direct daughters. This must be so in the case of Gwyar the wife of Geraint.
Notably, Arthur and his siblings were descendants of Amlawdd. One of his sisters is recorded as being named Gwyar. Hence, when we combine this information with the explicit statement in a Welsh text that Cador was the nephew of Arthur on his mother’s side, this would mean that Geraint’s wife Gwyar must be identical to Arthur’s sister Gwyar.
Consequently, we can see that Cador (or ‘Cadwy’) was Arthur’s nephew, while Constantine was his grand-nephew.
Constantine in Gildas’ De Excidio
Let us now examine what we know about Constantine from the words of Gildas, a contemporary writer. Gildas was writing at some point in the sixth century, although the exact decade is highly controversial.
A Tyrant
The first thing to note is that Gildas thoroughly condemns King Constantine. He does this with all the other kings to whom he directs his comments, so this is not surprising; in fact, expressing his frustration with those kings was one of the motivating factors in writing De Excidio in the first place.
Gildas starts off by calling Constantine a “tyrannical whelp of the unclean lioness of Damnonia”.
This tells us two things. Firstly, it shows that Gildas viewed Constantine as a tyrant, not a good king. The fact that he was capable of speaking positively about kings is shown by his reference to Vortiporius’ father as a ‘good king’.
Secondly, note that Gildas uses the name of Constantine’s kingdom to create a pun, changing it from ‘Dumnonia’ to ‘Damnonia’. This suggests that he viewed the kingdom itself to be corrupt and abhorrent from a godly standpoint.
The Killer of Two Royal Youths
Gildas then goes on to describe how Constantine had killed two royal youths in a church, along with their two attendants. Gildas does not explain who these royal youths were, and it is not necessarily the case that Gildas had a particularly favourable view of them.
Rather, the key issue seems to have been the simple fact that Constantine had committed murder. Not only had he committed this crime, but he had done so in a church. Gildas makes a point of noting the following:
“And when he had done it, the cloaks, red with coagulated blood, did touch the place of the heavenly sacrifice.”
Gildas also points out the wickedness of Constantine having done this at some point after taking an oath before many religious figures as witnesses that he would not ‘contrive any deceit against his countrymen’.
Also noteworthy is the fact that this appears to have occurred in the very year in which Gildas was writing. However, there is reason to believe that this might instead have occurred ten years before he wrote, although this interpretation does not have universal acceptance.
Other Sins
Gildas clarifies that Constantine is not only wicked for this one recent act. He did not have a past of righteousness against which it could be weighed. Rather, according to Gildas, Constantine had been wicked throughout his reign.
One of the key grievances that Gildas raises against Constantine is his unfaithfulness to his wife. He declares that the king had cast aside his wife and engaged in ‘many adulteries’.
He then suggests that his heart is thoroughly corrupt, and then Gildas implores Constantine to figuratively turn around and abandon his wicked course.
Constantine in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae
Let us now examine what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about King Constantine. In the Historia Regum Britanniae, after explaining that King Arthur was taken away to the Isle of Avalon to be healed of the wounds that he had sustained at the Battle of Camlann, Geoffrey states that he ‘gave up the crown’ to Constantine.
War Against the Saxons
Geoffrey explains that Constantine fought against the Saxons during his reign. The Saxons, according to this account, were allied to the two sons of Mordred. Geoffrey states:
“After many battles they fled, one to London, the other to Winchester, and possessed themselves of those places.”
Constantine pursued these two sons and killed both of them, each one in a church in their respective cities. This is clearly related to the statement from Gildas about Constantine killing two royal youths in a church. While the details are different, it would be remarkable if this was just a coincidence.
Although Gildas does not explicitly say anything about the two royal youths being engaged in warfare, or even being old enough to do so, he does state that ‘no man was in the habit of using [armour] more bravely than they’. This implies that they did engage in battle, consistent with what Geoffrey wrote.
Regarding the Saxons, Geoffrey states that Constantine successfully reduced them under his yoke.
Religions Events during His Reign
Geoffrey of Monmouth also helpfully describes certain important events within the Church during the reign of Constantine. He mentions, for example, that Saint Daniel died. This religious figure is also known as Deiniol, especially in Welsh texts.
Interestingly, this helps to date Constantine’s reign. The death of Daniel is placed in 584 in the Annales Cambriae, a Latin chronicle written in the tenth century.
Furthermore, Geoffrey says:
“At the same time also died David, the pious archbishop of Legions, at the city of Menevia, in his own abbey.”
As with Daniel, the death of David is also found in other records. The Annales Cambriae dates it to 601, although Irish sources which are considered more reliable place it in c. 587. Therefore, Geoffrey’s statement that these two religious figures died at about the same time is supported by the evidence.
Overthrow and Death
Finally, Geoffrey describes the end of Constantine’s reign. He writes:
“Three years after this, he himself, by the vengeance of God pursuing him, was killed by Conan, and buried close by Uther Pendragon within the structure of stones, which was set up with wonderful art not far from Salisbury, and called in the English tongue, Stonehenge.”
The Conan mentioned here is Aurelius Conan, one of the other kings mentioned by Gildas in De Excidio. As we can see here, Geoffrey presented this as divine retribution for Constantine’s sins.
Interestingly, in the section about Aurelius’ reign, Geoffrey notes that he was Constantine’s nephew. His use of the word ‘avunculus’ means that Constantine was apparently the brother of Conan’s mother.
This detail, while not particularly remarkable or unlikely, is not confirmed by Welsh texts. These only speak of a wife of Conan’s father, Brochwel, as Arddun ferch Papo Post Prydain, although she need not necessarily have been the mother of Conan.
The idea that Constantine was buried close to the grave of Uther Pendragon is interesting, and it arguably reinforces the conclusion that Constantine was the grandson of Arthur’s sister Gwyar, thus making Constantine the great-grandson of Uther.
Historicity
As we read Geoffrey’s narrative, it is evident that his account of the sequence of kings who came after Arthur is taken directly from Gildas’ De Excidio. Even the descriptions of their respective reigns are taken almost directly from what Gildas wrote.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that Aurelius Conan did actually wage war against Constantine. However, this does seem to be confirmed, or at least strongly supported, by a Welsh poem entitled Trawsganu Kynan Garwyn mab Broch.
This describes the activities of Cynan Garwyn, almost certainly the Aurelius Conan of Gildas and Geoffrey. In this poem (which may well genuinely date back to the sixth century), mention is made of Cynan threatening Cornwall.
Although this does not explicitly confirm what Geoffrey wrote, it does lend notable contemporary support to it.
When Did King Constantine of Cornwall Live?
Before we can examine other potential appearances of this Constantine, we need to examine the issue of when he lived. This is fundamental to the process of working out which references to a Constantine are actually talking about this Constantine, since there seem to have been several in the sixth century.
Evidence from Gildas
Since Gildas’ De Excidio is by far the earliest source that mentions him, this is a vitally important source. It confirms that Constantine was reigning at the same time as the four other kings mentioned by Gildas. If we can determine when those kings lived, we can establish when Constantine must have reigned too.
Maelgwn
One of the kings mentioned by Gildas is Maglocunus, almost universally accepted as Maelgwn Gwynedd from the later medieval records. Out of Gildas’ five kings, this is the one about whom we know the most.
He is also the one for whom we have the earliest piece of chronological information. In the Historia Brittonum, written in c. 830, we find the statement that Maelgwn’s reign began 146 years after his great-great-great-grandfather, Cunedda, came down to Wales to drive out the Irish.
Based on the sum of genealogical evidence (since Cunedda had many descendants), combined with the information in the Historia Brittonum about which sons were already alive when this event happened, many scholars agree that Cunedda’s arrival in Wales cannot be dated any earlier than 425.
This was stated by scholar Peter Bartrum in A Welsh Classical Dictionary, and more recently by renowned scholar Rachel Bromwich in Trionedd Ynys Prydain: Fourth Edition. This would mean that Maelgwn, whose reign began 146 years later according to the Historia Brittonum, would have been a thoroughly late-sixth century king, a point which Bromwich acknowledges.
Maelgwn’s Traditional Death Date
In contrast, the vast majority of researchers have arbitrarily held to the death date of 547 for Maelgwn found in the Annales Cambriae, in which he is said to have died in a plague. Needless to say, the Annales Cambriae is later than the Historia Brittonum and thus its chronological information surely does not have the same weight.
Regarding this point, Bromwich points out that plagues were common in this era and that it would have been easy for Maelgwn’s death to have been misattributed to a different plague. The year 547 matches the Justinian Plague, which was particularly famous.
The conclusion that Maelgwn was a late-sixth century king, reigning after 576 in particular, is completely consistent with the rest of evidence from Welsh tradition. His wives and lovers are all mid- to late- sixth century figures. One of them, for example, was the sister-in-law of Urien Rheged, another late-sixth century king.
Evidence from the Arthurian Legends
Evidence from the Arthurian legends also supports the conclusion that King Constantine of Cornwall was a late-sixth century king. As we have already noted, he was allegedly the successor of King Arthur. So, when did Arthur’s reign end?
The Battle of Badon
The traditional dates for Arthur’s reign include the fact that the Battle of Badon occurred in 516 and the fact that the Battle of Camlann occurred in 537. These dates come from the Annales Cambriae. However, there is a problem. Gildas states in De Excidio that the Battle of Badon occurred forty-three years before he was writing.
As we have seen, the earliest chronological evidence for any of the five kings mentioned by Gildas indicates that Maelgwn reigned in the late-sixth century. Therefore, since this would mean that Gildas was writing in the late-sixth century, it is impossible for the Battle of Badon to have occurred as early as 516.
The simplest solution is to conclude that the date in the Annales Cambriae is the result of a confusion between the death and the birth of Jesus, which is a type of error which is demonstrable in certain other medieval British records. Hence, this would mean that the true date of the Battle of Badon should really be c. 549.
The Battle of Camlann
In turn, the Battle of Camlann should really be dated to c. 570. Welsh tradition (as well as evidence from the Life of St Gildas) strongly indicates that Arthur outlived the Battle of Camlann by at least a few years. However, given that his birth should likely be dated to c. 500, he cannot have outlived it for very long.
If we conclude that Arthur’s reign ended in approximately 575, this would therefore be the date of Constantine accession.
Constantine must have been young at the time, since his grandfather had been an ally of Arthur up until the Battle of Llongborth, which was likely the prelude to the Battle of Camlann. Hence, the birth of Constantine can probably be dated to the mid-550s.
This is fully consistent with the information from Geoffrey of Monmouth that we considered earlier, in which the deaths of David and Daniel (both in the 580s) are placed in the reign of Constantine.
Other References to Constantine
Now that we have established roughly when Constantine lived, we can turn our attention to identifying him in other records.
There are various references to Constantine within Welsh and Latin texts. These numerous references can be rather confusing, because it was clearly a common name in that era and it is easy to be confused as to which Constantine is really being described in any given text.
The Life of St Petroc
The Life of St Petroc tells the life story of Petroc, a religious figure from southeast Wales. He appears to have been born in the early sixth century. Towards the end of his life, after many decades of activity, there is an account of him coming into conflict with a certain ‘rich man’ named Constantine in Cornwall.
This conflict ends with Constantine and his men being taught the Christian faith by Petroc.
Interestingly, this account is set after a reference to a certain king named Theudur ruling in Cornwall. This is likely King Theuderic of Brittany, who was in exile between 570 and 577. It is thought that he acquired lands in Cornwall during that time. Hence, the Constantine of this account likely lived towards the end of the 570s or the beginning of the 580s.
Chronologically and geographically, he is a perfect fit for King Constantine of Cornwall. The only issue is that the account merely calls him a ‘rich man’ rather than describing him as a king. Whether this is an insurmountable problem is a matter of opinion.
Interestingly, John Leland of the sixteenth century referred to Theodore and Constantine as two kings (or princes) who reigned in Cornwall when Petroc was active there. Unless Leland simply based this statement off the Life and interpreted Constantine as a king from that, this statement might reveal evidence of a separate tradition which supports the conclusion that Petroc’s Constantine was indeed a king.
Annales Cambriae
An earlier record, but one which is enlightened by the aforementioned, is the Annales Cambriae. In this tenth-century chronicle, the entry for 589 reads:
“The conversion of Constantine to the Lord.”
According to this, there was a prominent Constantine (notice that his position and parentage is not given, suggesting that he was well known) who converted to Christianity. This same information is provided in the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Ulster, although they give the year as 588.
This seems to correspond well to the account in the Life of St Petroc about Constantine being taught the Christian faith. The chronology also lines up very well, depending on exactly how early in the sixth century Petroc was born.
Interestingly, this could also tie in well with what Gildas wrote concerning Constantine. As we stated earlier, Gildas refers to the fact that Constantine had made an oath before God and before the saints concerning some kind of reliance on the church.
Since Gildas was apparently writing in about 592 (based on the date of 549 for the Battle of Badon), a date of 588 or 589 for his ‘conversion’, or oath of allegiance to the church, would be logical.
Not in the Life of St David
There is an account in the Life of St David of a king of Cornwall converting to Christianity and giving up his throne to lead a religious life. This account is set in the early sixth century.
For chronological reasons, this account cannot be describing Constantine the successor of Arthur. Rather, this would appear to be an ancestor of our Constantine. The medieval genealogies show that Constantine’s great-great-grandfather was also named Constantine. He would have probably been born in c. 466.
This would allow this earlier Constantine to have been fairly old at the time of his conversion and pursuit of a religious life. This would be in harmony with other examples, such as that of King Tewdrig, who became a religious hermit towards the end of his life.
Not Constantine of Rathin
Regarding a certain Constantine associated with Rathin (modern-day Rahan) in Scotland, Peter Bartrum wrote:
“The ninth century Félire of Oengus commemorates on March 11:
Constantine, king, of Rathin.
Various later glosses add that he was a king of Britain or a king of Scotland.”
This Constantine is said to have succeeded Mochuda as the abbot of Rathin. This must have been in 637, since that is when Mochuda was expelled from Rathin according to the Annals of Ulster.
The chronology just about allows this to be King Constantine of Cornwall if this was at the very end of his life. However, it is certainly unlikely. Geography also argues against this identification.
There was a Constantine born in c. 570 in Scotland, the son of Rhydderch Hael. In the Life of St Kentigern, he is specifically associated with holiness and said to be remembered as a saint. On both chronological and geographical grounds, he is more likely the Constantine associated with Rathin.
Conclusion
In conclusion, King Constantine of Cornwall was the successor of King Arthur according to the Arthurian legends. He was the son of Cador, or Cadwy, a powerful king of Dumnonia in the sixth century. Constantine was famously the relative of Arthur, being remembered as his nephew. This is evidently due to the fact that his grandfather, Geraint, married Arthur’s sister Gwyar, actually making him Arthur’s grandnephew.
Constantine was a historical figure, mentioned by Gildas. The evidence suggests that Constantine was reigning, and Gildas was writing, towards the end of the sixth century.
Sources
Bartrum, Peter, A Welsh Classical Dictionary, 1993
Bromwich, Rachel, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain, 2014
Morris, John, Arthurian Period Sources, Vol 3: Persons, 1995
