[pigbucket]

Bede's was not a history of a homogeneous socio-political people, and Arthur, if he was any kind of early mediaeval king, was certainly not King of all Britain. The island was politically fragmented. Record keeping was poor. The very exceptionality of Bede's history would be one reason for its incompleteness. And wikipedia, at the time, was notoriously unreliable.

[JacobAldridge]

True, but Bede's history was wide-ranging and made no mention of Arthur or any other elements of his legend.

To the extent that Arthur could have been real, he likely would have been a warrior-leader, rather than a king, fighting against the spreading Anglo-Saxon invaders.

[arethuza]

Wasn't Bede very much on the side of the, ultimately largely victorious, Anglo-Saxon invaders?