Mythology of the British Isles

by Geoffrey Ashe

Beginning with the giant Albion, after whom the country was once named, Geoffrey Ashe explores the myths whose roots lie in the different British regions. Taking in fairy-folk, druids and King Lear, and the tales of Merlin and King Arthur that continue to hold sway in the nationâ€s imagination, he uncovers their sources and underlying ideas as well as their handling in tradition and literature.

An unforgettable and illuminating exploration of the legends of the British Isles.

From the misty centuries of British and Irish prehistory to the height of the dark age, comes tales of giants and fairy-folk, druids and saints. From King Lear and King Arthur, to Fingal, Beowulf, Gwendolen and Guinevere these are the legendary characters who shaped the nation.

But who were they?

In Mythology of the British Isles, Geoffrey Ashe explores these compelling and ancient stories, seeing how they have taken on fresh significance as historical and archaeological research has uncovered the truth behind each legend.

Genres: History, Mythology, Nonfiction, Folklore, Arthurian, Audiobook, British Literature

304 pages, Paperback

First published April 5, 1990

About the author

Geoffrey Thomas Leslie Ashe is a British cultural historian, a writer of non-fiction books and novels.

Reviews

[K.J. Charles]

Robert Graves style overview of British mythology (tell the myth then explore what if anything we know of the real story) covering the foundation legends for all four nations and going up to, roughly, Beowulf. Majors on Arthur, obv. Interesting and comprehensive if a little dry, though satisfyingly sarcastic about ley lines.

[Wee Lassie · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look into the mythology of the British Isles in whatever form it takes and the possible real history that inspired it. Personally, I love me a good King Arthur story.

[Alex Sarll]

The other Ashe book I've read, Camelot And The Vision Of Albion, was much more of a personal manifesto than this general survey, though both acknowledge a debt to Robert Graves. Here, rather than the hem hem 'idiosyncratic' White Goddess it's, as you might expect from the title, Greek Myths. Meaning the presentation is broadly chronological, each chapter opening with the legend, before a commentary discusses sources, facts and variants. As such, the spine inevitably comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who plays the long-dead Little Alex Horne to Ashe's Greg Davies, setting up the whole thing then semi-fondly berated for his various fuck-ups. Ashe's overall conclusion is that Geoffrey was working from something, though perhaps not the Homer-like epic he suggests, and that where possible he did work with the facts he had, albeit often massaging and tidying them, which is also why his History peters out once it runs into as unassailable an authority as Bede.

The real spell of the book, though, is less in any explicit thesis than its ability to have things all ways without jarring. Ashe is a smart man, able to read the historical and archaeological evidence, and too honourable to try twisting it to fit, which can sometimes result in bathos, as when, after a section on giant legends, the commentary begins with the deeply 1066 line "The real megalith-builders were not particularly large." He can also recognise the wriggling of his predecessors, sometimes wryly - "Holinshed. who does not accept the notion, makes a distressed attempt to deal with it" - and elsewhere with exasperation, as when he notes modern glosses that recent historians have unthinkingly applied to something like the purported discovery of Arthur's grave at Glastonbury. I noticed very occasional slips - while his scepticism of Constantine's devotion to Christianity is fair, suggesting that only being baptised towards the end of his life was a sign of that is anachronistic - but these are very much the exception.

And along the way, as well as pulling together the strands of the big picture, he digs out so many wonderful little nuggets! I'm sure I already knew that Totnes was supposedly where the Trojans landed, and had forgotten it because I don't like to encourage Totnes, but I was surprised at how large the British-Israelite theory of Britain as descended from the Lost Tribes looms, given I've only really encountered this before in the work of noted historian Robert Rankin. And I had no idea whatsoever about Claudia Rufina, the only Brit in the Bible, and possibly sister to second pope Linus (which would be one in the eye for Breakspear). The notion of Cimmerians as Cymry is also raised, which historically turns out not to work, but still provided me with much amusement at the notion of Conan being very Welsh. And Picts, of course, was not their own name, being derived from their skin art and the same root as 'pictorial'. King Lear (or Leir) as mythic founder of Leicester was new to me too, though that did also come up in Once And Future while I was slowly making my way through this. I knew that in his story's original form it had a happy-ish ending (a rare mis-step for Gaiman) - but not that Goneril had the spelling Gonorilla, which manages to sound even more STD while also suggesting a royal ape (and her nephew Cunedagius similarly sounds like something unpleasant downstairs). I was also amused to register my own reaction when after being fine with all the tales of magic, talking severed heads and giants, I was entirely unable to stomach the origin story for Bath because pigs can't get leprosy.

One area where the book does falter is in never entirely knowing how far to include Ireland, in part because of difficulty aligning the mythic chronologies, so that one side of the story rather comes and goes. Still, in between familiar bits like the monstrous Fomorians raiding from Tory Island, which for ages I assumed was just Pat Mills being typically subtle, I was amused to learn how the land was reputedly populated by Noah's son Bith with his shipmates Fintan and Ladra. Who had fifty women between them until Ladra died from excessive sexual activity, which sounds heroic, except then the other two reapportioned the women, so really Ladra was a bit of a lightweight.

The heart of the book, though, was always going to be Arthur. Here even the structure breaks down a little under his sheer legendary gravity, so we get the Welsh Arthur, Geoffrey's, and then the proper version after the romancers have ramified it. Inevitably this is something of a less trippy reprise of Camelot And The Vision Of Albion; elsewhere Ashe has been very willing to poke fun at some of the more obviously stupid legends (his scepticism regarding ley lines and the Glastonbury zodiac is particularly entertaining), but Arthur is different. Ashe is fully aware that at most the evidence supports a pretty good war-leader in the twilight of Roman Britain, and can even show how late parts of the myth must have developed - so Excalibur can't have been thought irretrievable when Richard I gave Tancred of Sicily a sword supposed to be Arthur's, say. But deep down, in exactly the sort of separate dominion I mock when the idea is applied to Jesus rather than Arthur, Ashe also knows full well that it's all true, or ought to be, and more and better besides.

After that, inevitably, the book, like Geoffrey, rather loses momentum; Arthur's successors, the rise of the English and the likes of Beowulf all have too tough an act to follow. But as a survey and a synthesis that manages to yoke the horses of history and legend together, it's still an impressive piece of work.

[Richard Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Britain, given its remarkable history is somewhat devoid of a mythology. Hence many authors have looked to ancient Greece and Scandinavia for inspiration. One of Tolkien's aims in writing his opus 'The Lord of the Rings' was to provide England with an epic of its own. In this wonderful volume Geoffrey Ashe traces the mythological strands of the isle of Great Britain (with contributions from Ireland where relevant) and attempts to pull them together into a coherent narrative. He succeeds and, along the way, demolishes many common misconceptions. (Many of which I held.) Arthur, of course, looms large and the author examines all the major sources of his legend with exemplary objectivity.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the mythology, folklore and history of this enchanted isle.

[Liam Hyland · Rating 2 out of 5]

The prose was dry. Was insightful for the tales and history, but the writing was hard to get through at points.

[bo · Rating 3 out of 5]

i've always loved mythology and history, so when my best friend got me this book i was really excited to read it, especially as i love learning about history connecting to my heritage in cornwall and scotland.
so did it live up to my expectations?
sort of???

i felt like i needed major qualifications in history just to understand a lot of things in this book! the wording could be very confusing, like geoffrey was trying to get clever points by using all the different sentence structures he could think of. a lot of chapters felt like i was hitting at my brain trying to get the words in.
however, it's worth noting that i'm 16, have only just done my GCSEs, and can struggle with processing issues because i'm autistic. so, this could just be a me problem! i did skip a fair few pages because i would find a passage difficult to understand and want to skip to a more interesting part, but that's to be expected considering i don't usually read non-fiction and was branching out with this read. i actually used highlighters every time i read to make sure that i was focusing on the sentences and trying my best to understand them, which made it a very colourful experience.

but, aside from the flaws, i LOVED the chapters on arthurian mythology, on ley lines, on fairy folk and druids... they were interesting and fun and gripping, and maybe that's just because i was already interested in these more digestible things, but they were exciting to read!

so, i've only subtracted a couple stars, because if i'm honest, a lot of my struggles reading this book are likely attributed to my academic inexperience, age, and learning disability. it's a pretty good book and i really enjoyed a lot of it! would reccomend if you're interested in both history and mythology!!!

[Dean · Rating 4 out of 5]

The conceit with this is a smart one, having been used notably previously by Robert Graves, in that you first treat the stories as real, tell them as such, and then after use scholarly research to find the real story. Most myths have a basis in fact, most mythical figures have developed from composites of others through history, and British history has many strands of mythology, primarily from its Celtic roots.
Even though I have a long interest in history and mythology, this book did open to my eyes to just how rich British mythology is. We all know the King Arthur stories, but there’s a lot more besides. Not too scholarly, so a casual reader can enjoy, but very well researched and written.
A good read.

[Andrew Fish · Rating 5 out of 5]

Take the format of Robert Graves' books of Greek mythology, apply to British mythology in a light, literate style and you have a potted description of this book. Ashe summarizes the legends on which Britain is built with succinct elegance and his insights into the probable meanings make fascinating reading. Recommended for anyone with even a casual interest in Arthurian legend.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended for any serious student of folklore. The illustrated version is just a sheer delight that one can fall back into time and again.

[Barrowsend · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's really well researched and scholarly, but a bit dull sadly.

[Alice Vandommele · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a very readable introduction to various legendary ideas about Britain's past. Certainly more fun than getting through Mallory, and the inclusion of modern myths such as leylines and British Israelite stuff is interesting. People didn't stop creating legends after 1800!

The only caveats I'd give:

1) This focuses on mythology in the sense of a set of stories, often building on each other. There are ancient kings and grail knights galore, but you won't find a lot of folklore like the kelpie in here.

2) It was originally published in 1990 and its age has started to show. In some areas modern research has simply passed it by: the idea that the Picts spoke a non-Celtic language, even in part, has mostly been discarded for instance, and the Kurgan hypothesis for the origins of Indo-European has only gained ground. Other elements, such as the attempt to find a historical basis for king Arthur or to find pagan remnants in the stories of the Mabinogi or the Matter of Britain, haven't necessarily been debunked (as they weren't falsifiable) but they do feel like distinctly old fashioned approaches nowadays.

All that said, it's still a fun and informative read nonetheless.

[Laurel Jackson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating insight into our mythological history and attempt to identify the real story and forgotten figures of British history. It also helps to highlight the more recent discoveries that have been made since the publication of the book.

I call it fascinating because we almost seem to have so little cultural history of the time before the Romans and Christianity’s influence (big yawning gap between the two I know) preserved due to either political reasons or means of rule and domination over the invaded people/land so I’ll take any crumb I can get my hands on. I don’t take this book as absolute fact because archaeologists are updating and filling in gaps all the time but, again, it was fascinating how much we knew or hypothesised in the 90s.

Highly recommended read either way.

[Snakeman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting stories from the British Isles

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed and interesting investigation into the folklore of Britain, quite easy to read and it filled a lot of gaps that I had in my understanding of early British history.

[Tim Pendry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over thirty years ago, Geoffrey Ashe set out to do for British mythology what Robert Graves had done for Graeco-Roman myths. This was a worthy task to undertake with sometimes less than promising material. The 'mythos' of Britain is a thorough mishmash of native and alien influences.

Taking the story roughly as chronologically as his sources permit, each chapter tells a part of the mythic tale of these islands. Then, to his credit, he attempts to critique the story he has given along as historical and as factual a line as he can.

The result is a respectful division between the imagination and probable (or possible) reality, one that respects the contribution of both to the construction of what it is to be culturally British - at least what it was in 1990 before the evident fragmentation and cultural collapse since then.

Ultimately the tale is dominated (certainly in the second half) by the 'mythos' of Arthur. Ashe concludes the book by suggesting (I think reasonably) that the Arthurian myth is part of a singularly 'English' mindset that seeks the correction of the present backwards into what was better in the past.

Creative political radicals from William Blake to Alan Moore have not been averse to diving backwards into the mythos and drawing progressive themes from it whereas the past elsewhere (notably in France and Germany) tends to drive reactionary politics and ideas.

This is because it is not easy to make British mythology 'pure' or 'racial' although this may now be more problematic culturally after at least thirty years of mass migration. The core is the dialectic between 'British' indigenous beliefs and external influences reinventing reality to create new unities.

There is a core Romano-British identity here and a coming to terms with pasts that are unrecorded, with the many kingdoms that resisted the Anglo-Saxons, with a sense of also being Roman and with an underpinning of ancient gods and habits, especially amongst the Wealhas and Irish-Scots.

All these distinct ways of seeing, travelling through time, have their own variants of Christianity with distinctive relationships to Rome and to the continent. The Anglo-Saxons, while bringing their own traditions to some extent, seem to have been more assimilative than not.

On top of this is the topography of the island with its depth of cultures preceding the Romano-British (the lost worlds of megalithic structures and barrows) and, later, there is the intervention of Anglo-Norman story telling, the European appropriation of Arthur and medieval clerical politics.

Ashe does an excellent job of finding a way for us through the maze (a very British artefact in itself but one that also may have antecedents elsewhere) even if the book should be used as a launching pad for further investigation rather than be taken as some final word on the matter.

Our impression (the book seems to require a degree of mental impressionism in order to cope with its complexities) is that the British mythos is a thorough garbling of ancient folk religion, historical events that can now never be entirely verified and calculated Christianisation.

Much of the oldest material appears embedded in crises of Romanisation - the status of 'Celtic' client kings, the trauma of the Roman departure much like recent American withdrawals from empire, political conflict while picking up the pieces and dealing with various predators on a rich province.

Out of this comes The Matter of Britain which is the creation, much later, of imaginative writers for a courtly market that was 'trans-national'. The core stories are thus layered with Celtic religion, poorly recorded or recalled history and Christian aspiration.

We can construct a possible historical underpinning just as we can reconstruct the basics of the Old Religion (if only because of the common denominators between 'Celtic' communities in later myth) but the story is still rife with problems of chronology and the imposition of later political demands.

You will not get a firm view here on who Arthur may have been originally before he became a myth but you will probably be persuaded that the legend derives from some original warlord, almost certainly a Romanised Briton, who fought Saxons and rivals and held both at bay.

You may also be persuaded that tales of the very ancient Kings of Britain (such as Old King Coel) connect in some way to actual Celtic leaders, largely collaborating in managing Britain with and for the Romans. That remains plausible but speculative.

Ashe closes with some reference to Scots mythology (which is a comparatively bare thing where it is not derived from its richer Irish origins) and to the mythos of the English in Britain. Pictish beliefs seem to be largely unknown.

In the English case, he does not include what we might assume to have been the original pagan mythology that we know from later Norse and Icelandic sources, albeit Germanic and as subtly different from the former as Irish is from Welsh and so Brittonic.

This may seem like a derogation of duty except that the Anglo-Saxons seem to have taken rather readily to Roman Christianity and abandoned their old religion more decisively than the Irish and Welsh who preferred to fully Christianise theirs and saw no issue with doing so.

The great English epic (Beowulf) has nothing to do with England and everything to do with the homeland overseas. Although the Wild Hunt is taken up and Wayland the Smithy has a presence, the great hero is actually the rather homely and unifying historical Alfred resisting Danish Heathens.

Ashe also does not bother (rightly) with later legends of defiance like Hereward the Wake and Robin Hood. There is nothing chthonic or spiritual about such figures whereas there certainly is about Merlin, Taliesin and Arthur. Merlin is accepted fully as overtly part pagan.

One interesting aspect of the mythos is the position of women. They are nearly always strong, often defiant, and autonomous, expressing the high level of equality in Celtic elites, a situation which the Saxons did not change a great deal even if they were perhaps more warrior-centred.

Ashe is persuasive that some of this derives from the Old Religion. Morgan La Fay and Nimue are ambiguous figures but not as negative as much later lore might suggest. They suggest something religious that might only later have got perverted into 'witchery' (notably in Scotland).

Similarly Guinevere and Isolde are complex characters with their own identities and indeed autonomy of decision-making. If these are 'novelistic' creation of medieval writers, they clearly descend from expectations that derived from the Brittonic mythos.

The high strangeness of the melange of pagan attitudes, romanisation, warlord politics, Christian aspiration and continental influence, whatever this thing was, as an attitude perhaps, was appropriated without embarrassment by the English to become absolute by the time of the Tudors.

Perhaps there is a political point in this. The division of Celt and English is a contradictory myth that needs unravelling, the result not of English oppression but the turn of the British State towards a form of imperialism that appropriated Englishness as the dominant cultural mode.

Relations between incomers and indigenes in Britain were certainly not stress-free any more than they are today but the Anglo-Saxons were invited in to serve a function much as migrants today have been by elites who failed to think through the consequences. Plus ca change, Eh?

What you have is not a simplistic struggle between ethnicities along nineteenth century ethno-nationalist lines but something more complex like the early settlement of New England. Local tribal leaders bit off more than they could chew. Vortigern was not up to the job. Arthur was.

The Anglo-Saxons just wanted land. Warlordism was a bargaining tool in an essentially materialistic game. Flaccid Romano-British elites had to learn how to organise and become counter-warlords and that is what they did. But the core population remained Brittonic throughout.

The eventual 'Imperial Englishness' was less English than it appeared. The English were just one 'race' in a composite island, later conquered by Anglo-Normans who then imposed their own courtly unifying Arthurian ideology in the interests of political management.

This reached its apogee in the Tudor period where a Welsh-origin dynasty could use the mythos to create an imperial model that was unifying. Unfortunately, this healthy final appropriation of a shared mythos was subverted by the socio-economic dominance of a population that classed itself as English.

This 'English' was, in fact, just the English-speaking hybrid of several traditions including the ur-population of the islands (Britonnic) alongside Anglo-Saxons and later Danes, all of which had now ceased to be submerged under its Anglo-Norman elite and shared a common Christian heritage.

The eventual and easy transfer of the Arthurian 'mythos' from Celts to Saxons seems odd until you realise that the wars between Celts and Saxons were being resolved in a classic golden age as if a civil war had ended rather than a war against invaders (though that's what they were originally).

Perhaps that is what modern liberals are dreaming of - an integrative resolution of cultural conflict between 'English' (or 'Welsh') and Muslims in Britain leading to an Arthurian Golden Age, administered from Camelot. The nationalists just want an electoral Mount Badon to decide the matter.

The confusions in the mythos are typically 'English' - pragmatic and tolerant - even if the less-romanised 'Celts' of Ireland and the mountain defenders of Wales might resent such attitudes. British dynasts and elites always gave priority to power, land and money over 'ethnos'.

The mythos of Britain (excluding the now nationalist Celtic parts) is worn lightly because there is no 'ethnos' in the way nationalists like to think. It arose out of a cosmopolitan prosperous Romanised province fought over by warlords for prestige and land. Its myths could eventually be for everyone.

[Kate Pickett · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book but found some chapters hard work. Got better as it went along. Made myself carry on with it and it was worth it for the later chapters.

[Arthur Cowslip · Rating 4 out of 5]

After finishing this exhilarating dash through the stories and legends underpinning that old Britain, you'll start to question why anyone ever thought the country lacked it's own mythology. Much more readable than Robert Graves, this book covers just about everything you'd want it to cover, and its sparseness and brevity conceal a real rigour and comprehensiveness. From Lancelot to Loch Ness, this is an excellent gazetteer to the old lost land and its lingering stories.

[Emily Hird · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really interesting read! I love mythology from all different cultures and historical points so I knew I’d like this book. Having it be British history with the close connection of home made it even better!

The book is well written and the authors research is unbelievable to be honest. So much insight and knowledge. Some of the myths I have never encountered before and I learnt about for the first time whilst others I can grown up with and this was a nice reminder. It’s also amazing to be told and myth and be like “I’ve been there!”. I grew up next to the long man of Wilmington and visited many times as a child so I loved reading about it in this book.

However, there are times this book becomes very confusing. The first few chapters I was completely lost. The author reply of a structure where he tells you the myth and then goes straight into dismantling it, sometimes even mid sentence. At first this is really confusing. Once you know it’s happening it is a bit easier to follow. I think it would have been better to section these parts. Tell the myth in once section and then show a clear divide of when he starts to compare it to history and whether any of it could have occurred or where it came from. I think this would make it more accessible! As I said though, once you know it’s coming it does get easier as your progress.

This book really comes into its own when it discusses Arthur. I feel like you could feel the authors passion on the page which made me more entertained. I finished this part much quicker than the rest!

Overall I would recommend this book to anyone who loves mythology or has a deep interest in the culture of historic Britain. I did enjoy it and I’m pleased I read it. I feel like I learnt a lot from this!

[Mbuye · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scholarly but fun retelling of the tales shrouded in mystery which recount the origin of placenames and history of Britain when the first people came there. And when the first Britons went to Britain, it was only to find earlier settlers with their own legends and stories. So who went first, gods, giants, aliens or one of the lost tribes of Israel? A captivating study of folklore and legends, most of which are grounded in fact, but not as we think.

An etymological dictionary as well, as it traces the history of words and names from British folklore and legends recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth onwards, to when the earliest recorded histories and the advent of Christianity banished mythology. The legends about individual and occasionally fabulous persons are brief but capture your imagination. One point is made, though: most mythology in Britain is Celtic folklore. Mythology the way it existed in either Greco-Roman literature, or in the Scandinavian edda just never took root in Britain. Perhaps the single exception is the mythology surrounding Arthur, but even his story is of doubtful provenance.

Particularly interesting for the non academic reader, but it would have been even better with illustrations and photographs. Or was it the copy I have? Some editions do not carry illustrations and I felt, like Alice, what was the use of a book without pictures.

[Nosemonkey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was rather better than I was expecting. More like a historiography of myth, Robert Graves style, than a simple retelling - tracing the origins and evolution of the stories back to pre-Celtic times, with a lot of criticism for Geoffrey of Monmouth for just making shit up. While big chunks were pretty familiar, the short, focused chapters work well to maintain attention - even in the extremely familiar Arthurian bits.

The decision to stay focused on pure myth rather than hybrid figures like Boudicca is probably a good one. This is really about everything up to the Anglo-Saxon period, rather than a broader exploration of the evolution of national identity - and most of the myth/legend/historical hybrid figures have been politicised even more than Arthur. Unpicking that would be more complex, and require a lot more value judgements than we get here with the author's attempt to identity the origins and evolutions of the stories, rather than their veracity.

[Cecilia Raymond · Rating 3.5 out of 5]

A comprehensive overview of King Arthur and how Britain’s mythological history, both past and present, may be inspired/derived from his tales. I found it both surprising/unsurprising how vast his impact has been not just in the British Isles, but worldwide. Would recommend to anyone interested in the Arthurian myths or wishing to understand how these tales fit into other mythological aspects of Britain.

Very wordy at times due to names of people and places from these tales which made it a tad confusing and hard to focus for long periods of time. I did end up putting it down with no desire to pick up at times due to the level of concentration required to focus, despite enjoying myself when actually reading. If you are used to reading about mythology, you will likely have an easier time of this.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative book on the mythology of the UK. Some chapters were a bit dry and I was quite disinterested in them (particularly the chapter about Roman Britain which was more a history recap and had nothing to do with the mythology of Britain). It was also very 'mansy' meaning the author heavily discussed masculine characters and events such as kingdoms, battles and polticical transactions, heros, knights and the frontiers of kings yet he was very light on feminine myths associated with the British Isles which was a shame. Boudicca, St Helen and Epona got a little mention and that's it.

I mostly enjoyed learning more about the legends, folklore and myths, of which Ashe analysed to find the origins and their truth.

Overall though it was a fascinating read.

[Helen Robare]

I'll honestly admit that I have never been a fan of the King Arthur "myth" (though I do still enjoy Walt Disney's The Sword in the Stone" film. :)

I bought this book for the other myths and legends and I was not disappointed. I've always believed that Ireland was the land where Druids and other fantasy creatures lived. This book taught me that England was also home to the Druids, Fiants, and other Fae Folk.

The fact that the author also incorporates how the stories interact and then goes on to show how viable they are becoming with research and archeology was a great addition!

I can't say I LOVED the King Arthur part but I can also say that I didn't hate it. :)

[Stephen Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I probably don’t have the contextual knowledge to challenge or scrutinise what Ashe offers here, what I did find was a really enjoyable journey through what seems to be the majority of the myth-building of Britain and Ireland. Lots of interesting information and definitely gave me a little more grounding on characters like King Arthur, Tristan and Isolde, Beowulf, etc.

Ashe spends a lot of the book referring back to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s works, so if that’s a particular interest of yours then this would like be even more fascinating to you.

[Julian Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

An enjoyable, highly readable, and entertaining cavort through a form of ancient, filled with magical overtones, folklore, and strange beliefs.

Packed with loads of stories I had not heard, and throwing new light (for me, at any rate) on the more well known aspects of ancient Britain (Alfred the Great and the Arthurian legend), it reads like a comfortable old pair of slippers you have popped on.

A good and absorbing read.

[ToriBeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to read a book about ancient British history and mythology to connect with my heritage- I know almost nothing about my own history so when I saw this book I put it to the top of my tbr list. But... this book was confusing and assumed the reader had an understanding of historical knowledge already. Whilst I learned really interesting facts, I finished this book with more questions and uncertainty than when I began.

[David Sloan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I love mythology be it Greek, Norse, Celtic etc but I don't know much about British mythology. Several wasted hours later, I still don't. This is the driest, most boring book I have ever read. It reads like a dictionary or encyclopedia. There is no real narrative and very little mythology.If it wasn't for the fact that I have only given up on two books in my life, I should have saved my self several hous.
To say this whole experience was monotonous would be to do a disservice to monotony.

[Megan ♡ · Rating 4 out of 5]

i've always been so interested in british mythology. my nan used to tell me and my cousins all sorts of myths and legends and, with her, i have visited pretty much every rock formation in england, as well as castles and other historic sites mentioned in here. so, really, this was very nostalgic for me.

book #32 of reading my owned-tbr challenge

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enormously informative, on a subject I knew next to nothing about, and hugely impressive in the diligent teasing out of evidence for the most likely 'truths' behind a myriad of fictional claims of verity. (I pictured Geoffrey Ashe in a room papered with Post-it notes as he tried to ascertain provenances and follow alternative versions - truly an achievement.)

[Rachael Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this one might have been better if I had read rather than listened to it. Fascinating stories steeped in their historical context but this took me longer than it should as the narrator’s voice put me to sleep (this could be a compliment or criticism depending what you are looking for from your audiobooks