 In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but ...] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical.The historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, "The Age of Arthur" (1973).