Medra(w)d, Medard and the Death of Arthur At/Near Chichester/Noviomagus

Some quick clarification regarding my earlier piece on the true identity of Medraut, as published here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/06/medraut-at-camlan-final-reveal.html?m=1

My idea is (and I believe it to be sound) that Medrawd is a reflection of St. Medard, who died in 545 - the same year we find the death of Comgall son of Domangart and plague mentioned in the Annals of Ulster.  This entry is given earlier at 537/8 in the Ulster and Tigernach Annals.  Arthur dies at Camlan in 537.  

Medard was bishop of Noviomagus in Gaul.  The name Noviomagus is mirrored in Britain, both at Crayford (mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the year 457 -

457

Her Hengest 7 Æsc fuhton wiþ Brettas in þære stowe þe is gecueden Crecganford 7 þær ofslogon .iiiim. wera, 7 þa Brettas þa forleton Centlond 7 mid micle ege flugon to Lundenbyrg. 

- and at Chichester, the civitas of the Regni tribe.  Their territory covered roughly the area of the later English Sussex.

An outstanding candidate for Arthur's Camlan is to be found near the western border of the Regni kingdom: The Cams.  This pronounced bend is modernly referred to as Cams Shore.  I once thought Cymenesora might be Camlan (with the Welsh interpreting Cymen as their own camen, "crookedness, curvature, turn, bend, loop; see GPC").  But instead I think Cymen represents a Welsh cyman, 'host, army', a word which is, essentially, a translation of the second component of the Wihthere name found at Wittering ('people of the Wight-host'). 

What might have happened is that the death of Medard of Gallic Noviomagus was wrongly associated with the fall of Arthur near an identically named place in Britain.  We originally may have had separate or "stacked" year entries in a chronicle that at some point became conflated.  And hence Arthur and Medard/Medrad were thought to have fallen at Camlan/The Cams.

Cerdic of Wessex, who died in 534, is closely associated with the men of Wight, and my gut is still telling me that Cerdic is Arthur (for the many reasons I have detailed before). But, this is so only if we insist on seeing the Camlan entry as otherwise genuine, i.e. Arthur, at least, really did fall at The Cams - even if Medard never did.

The question remains: if Medrawd is not an Arthurian figure, can we trust the Camlan entry at all?