history of kings and kingdoms except where a moral lesson could be drawn or where they illuminated events in the church. In the early Middle Ages, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Historia Brittonum, and Alcuin's Versus de patribus, regibus et sanctis Eboracensis ecclesiae all drew heavily on the text. Likewise, the later medieval writers William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, and Geoffrey of Monmouth used his works as sources and inspirations. Early modern writers, such as Polydore Vergil and Matthew Parker, the Elizabethan Archbishop of Canterbury, also utilized the Historia, and his works were used by both Protestant and Catholic sides in the Wars of Religion. Some historians have questioned the reliability of some of Bede's accounts. One historian, Charlotte Behr, asserts that the Historia's account of the arrival of the Germanic invaders in Kent should be considered as current myth, not history. Historian Tom Holland writes that "When, in the generations that followed Alfred, a united kingdom of England came to be forged, it was Bede’s history that provided it with a sense of ancestry that reached back beyond its foundation." Manuscript tradition Manuscripts of the Historia Ecclesiastica fall generally into two groups, known to historians as the "c-type" and the "m-type". Charles Plummer, in his 1896 edition of Bede, identified six characteristic differences between the two manuscript types. For example, the c-type manuscripts omit one of the miracles attributed to St Oswald in book IV, chapter 14, and the c-type also includes the years 733 and 734 in the chronological summary at the end of the work, whereas the m-type manuscripts stop with the year 731. Plummer thought that this meant the m-type was definitely earlier than the c-type, but this has been disputed by Bertram Colgrave in his 1969 edition of the text. Colgrave points out that the addition of a couple of annals is a simple alteration for a copyist to make at any point in the manuscript history; he also notes that the omission of one of Oswald's miracles is not the mistake of a copyist, and strongly implies that the m-type is a later revision. Some genealogical relationships can be discerned among the numerous manuscripts that have survived. The earliest manuscripts used to establish the c-text and m-text are as follows. The letters under the "Version" column are identifying letters used by historians to refer to these manuscripts. Relationships between the manuscripts With few exceptions, Continental