Historical writings that pre date modern journalism are considered suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians...iddle_Ages
Quote:Geoffrey of Monmouth is singled out from the list because, on the one hand, he was one of the most popular historians in England of this period. On the other hand, his Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) was considered almost entirely fiction and was not considered authentic history by some other contemporary historians. Kings of Britain covers the legend of King Arthur as well as other Welsh legends of the early period of England, and was presented, and often accepted, as actual English history. It was extremely popular, but other contemporary historians, interested in impartiality and truth, were highly critical of Geoffrey. William of Newburgh devotes an extended section of the preface of Historia to discredit Geoffrey, saying at one point "only a person ignorant of ancient history would have any doubt about how shamelessly and impudently he lies in almost everything".[12] The discussion over the historical basis for King Arthur continues to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians...iddle_Ages
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
