Some iudge that she tooke hir name of hir excellent beautie, bicause Guinne or Guenne in the Welsh toong signifieth faire, so that she was named Guennere or rather Guenlhean, euen (as you would say) the faire or beautifull Elenor or Helen.  She was brought vp in the house of one Cador earle of Cornewall before Arthur maried hir:  and as it appeareth by writers, she was euill reported of, as noted of incontinencie & breach of faith to hir husband, in maner as for the more part women of excellent beautie hardlie escape the venemous blast of euill toongs, and the sharpe assaults of the followers of Venus.  The British historie affirmeth, that she did not onelie abuse hir selfe by vnlawfull companie with Mordred, but that also in Arthurs absence she consented to take him to husband.  It is likewise found recorded by an old writer, that Arthur besieged on a time the marishes neere to Glastenburie, for displeasure that he bare to a certeine lord called Melua, who had rauished Gueneuer, and led hir into those marishes, and there did keepe hir.  Hir corps notwithstanding (as before is recited) was interred togither with Arthurs, so that it is thought she liued not long after his deceasse.

Arthur had two wiues (as Gyraldus Cambrensis affirmeth) of which the latter (saith he) was buried with him, and hir bones found with his in one sepulchre, but yet so diuided, that two parts of the toome towards the head were appointed to receiue the bones of the man, and the third part towards the feet conteined the womans bones, apart by themselues.  Here is to be remembred, that Hector Boetius writeth otherwise of the death of Arthur than before in this booke is mentioned, & also that Gueneuer being taking prisoner by the Picts, was conueied into Scotland, where finallie she died, and was there buried in Angus, as in the Scotish chronicles further appeareth.  And this may be true, if he had three sundrie wiues, each of them bearing the name of Gueneuer, as sir Iohn Price dooth auouch that he had.  Now bicause of contrarietie in writers touching the great acts atchiued by this Arthur, and also for that some difference there is amongst them, about the time in which he should reigne, manie haue doubted of the whole historie which of him is written (as before ye haue heard.) ¶ But others there be of a constant beleefe, who hold it for a grounded truth, that such a prince there was; and among all other a late [Sidenote:  Dauid Pow. pag. 238, 239.] writer, who falling into necessarie mention of prince Arthur, frameth a speech apologeticall in his and their behalfe that were princes of the British bloud, discharging a short but yet a sharpe inuectiue against William Paruus, Polydor Virgil, and their complices, whom he accuseth of lieng toongs, enuious detraction, malicious slander, reprochfull and venemous language, wilfull ignorance, dogged enuie, and cankerd minds; for that they speake vnreuerentlie and contrarie to the knowne truth concerning those thrisenoble princes.  Which defensitiue he would not haue deposed, but that he takes the monuments of their memories for vndoubted verities.