Books that I read Winter 2021-22 and into the spring

I began the book on the Vikings that is the next blog post in July 2022.  I had trouble with the formatting.  In the process of trying to fix that problem I erased the following blog posts about the following books:

The Hearth and the Eagle, The last Enchantment, the Hollow Hills and the Crystal Cave.

The Hearth and the Eagle was by Anya Seton.  

This was not a page turner, but I recommend it to anyone!  It s a wonderful book about how a home can be

a shelter from the world for many generations.

The other three books are by Mary Stewart.  I read them quickly one after the other.  They are her King Arthur series.  I do not believe that I read the 4th book:  The Wicked Day

Here are a few of the words that I saved from these blog posts:

Born the bastard son of a Welsh princess, Myridden Emrys -- or as he would later be known, Merlin -- leads a perilous childhood, haunted by portents and visions. But destiny has great plans for this no-man's-son, taking him from prophesying before the High King Vortigern to the crowning of Uther Pendragon . . . and the conception of Arthur -- king for once and always.

It is Christmas season and I am looking for entertainment.  This seems to be just the ticket.  I was taken tonight by the fact that Merlin is born to a Welsh princess.  I have not yet done my homework on my Welsh ancestors.  I am definitely interested in that part of the world.

I finished the book on January 1st.  I did not love the craziness of the end of the book...but I immediately started the next book in the series.  It is very entertaining.  I recommend googling who people are when one gets confused.  Because the story is about King Arthur one gets good answers about who each person is.  

I should have explained that in Mary Stewart's book, Merlin finds out that his father is Ambrosius who is the high king.  So Merlin is a prince.  He is the son of a Princess and also the son of high King.  After the death of Ambrosius, the rule goes to the brother of Ambrosius:  Uther.  And it is Uther who is the father of Arthur.  A little research shows that none of this is considered fact:

Whether Ambrosius was a king of the Britons, a war leader against the Saxons, a Briton, a Roman, all of the above or none of the above, isn't known for sure outside the legends and tales about him.

Some have thought that Ambrosius and Arthur are really one and the same, others that he was Arthur's uncle. The truth is probably that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a genuine, heroic, fifth century, Romano-British war leader, some of whose own exploits have been applied to the legend of Arthur.

  from:  https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/BritishAmbrosiusAurelianus01.htm

Other quick research shows King Arthur 

Although the themes, events and characters of the Arthurian legend varied widely from text to text, and there is no one canonical version, Geoffrey's version of events often served as the starting point for later stories. Geoffrey depicted Arthur as a king of Britain who defeated the Saxons and established a vast empire. Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia, including Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the magician Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur's conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann, and final rest in Avalon.

wikipedia says:  The historical basis for King Arthur has been long debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), saw Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons some time in the late 5th to early 6th century.

The Historia Brittonum, a 9th-century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called Nennius, contains the first datable mention of King Arthur, listing twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the Battle of Badon, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies, however, question the reliability of the Historia Brittonum.^[7]

The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which also link Arthur with the Battle of Badon. The Annales date this battle to 516–518, and also mention the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the Historia's account and to confirm that Arthur really did fight at Badon.

So we can place King Arthur (if he is real) from about 480 until this date of death.