A WRITER and historian believes he has found proof that the legendary King Arthur was Scottish and is offering £50,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong.

David Carroll has spent more than 25 years researching the legend of King Arthur – a quest that has taken him all over Europe delving into ancient manuscripts and records. He has concluded from one of those documents in particular that Arthur was the son of a sixth century Scottish king.

Carroll found a frail document hidden away under lock and key in the library of Schaffhausen in Switzerland, and after examining this so-called Dorbene Manuscript, written by seventh century monks, the author believes it is the oldest historical document in the world to mention Arthur.

READ MORE: Was King Arthur a Glaswegian from Govan?

Having first told the tale in a book Arturius: A Quest for Camelot more than 20 years ago, Carroll has updated his theory and is now putting up the £50,000 ‘bet’ that he will not be proven wrong. He says the similarities between the Scottish battle leader Arthur documented in the manuscript and the legend of King Arthur cannot be ignored.

The story of Caroll’s Arthur is almost identical to that of the legendary king we all know today though Arturius was the son of a sixth century Scottish king called Aiden.

Carroll said: “There is no doubt in my mind that Arturius is the real King Arthur. Both were active in the sixth century, both died in battles against the Picts, both were Christian, both fought alongside Urien and other British kings and both had a sister called Morgan – a name unheard of in sixth and seventh century records.

“To have a brother and a sister at that time called Arthur and Morgan is highly unlikely. It would be like finding another Napoleon and Josephine or Antony and Cleopatra – it’s almost impossible.

“Arturius’ documentation in the manuscript came five centuries before Geoffrey of Monmouth introduced the story of Arthur into Cornish legend.”

Carroll suggests the distribution of the manuscript throughout Europe would explain why Arthur was known of on the continent centuries before being connected to Cornwall in the 12th century. He says that the reason why, for centuries, this sixth century prince was overlooked as being the source of Arthurian legend is because he was referred to as a battle leader by the monks, not as a king.

READ MORE: Scotland Back In The Day: King Arthur was real ... and he was Scottish

Carroll added: “Arturius was referred to as a battle leader, never a king, but he was the son of a king. Had he not died in battle against the Picts, he could have eventually succeeded his father and become King Arturius – King Arthur.”

Commenting on the latest ‘Arthur is Scottish’ claim Historian Miles Russell told BBC History Extra: “The biggest problem for anyone attempting to uncover the ‘real’ King Arthur is the lack of reliable, contemporary source material. Our best text for the period is On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain by the sixth century sermon writer Gildas.

“Gildas depicts a period of anarchy and violence in which the degenerate and demoralised Britons are ultimately cowed by their pagan Saxon foe. Unfortunately, he fails to mention Arthur, although he does praise a successful general by the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus, to whom he credits the victory of ‘Mount Badon’ – a battle thought to have occurred between Celtic Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the late fifth or early sixth century.”

The National has previously reported that Scottish writer Adam Ardrey explored the Scottish roots of the Arthurian characters in his books Finding Merlin and Finding Arthur. Ardrey said the Arthur legend was based around the life of Scottish King Arthur MacAedan. He also found Merlin was less a wizard and more a Scottish political leader and operator.