Gildas, saieng: Britaine hath kings, but they are tyrants: iudges it
hath, but the same are wicked, oftentimes spoiling and tormenting the
innocent people. And Cesar (as ye haue heard) speaketh of foure kings
that ruled in Kent, and thereabouts. Cornelius Tacitus maketh mention
[Sidenote: Some take Prasutagus and Aruiragus to be one man.]
of Prasutagus, and Cogidunus, that were kings in Britaine: and Iuuenal
speaketh of Aruiragus: and all the late writers, of Lucius. Hereby it
appeareth, that whether one or mo, yet kings there were in Britain,
bearing rule vnder the Romane emperors.

[Sidenote: _Gal. Mon._]
On the other part, the common opinion of our chronicle-writers is,
that the chiefe gouernment remained euer with the Britains, & that the
Romane senat receiuing a yearelie tribute, sent at certeine times (_Ex
officio_) their emperors and lieutenants into this Ile, to represse
the rebellious tumults therein begun, or to beat backe the inuasion of
the enimies that went about to inuade it. And thus would these writers
inferre, that the Britains euer obeied their king, till at length they
were put beside the gouernement by the Saxons. But whereas in the
common historie of England, the succession of kings ought to be kept,
so oft as it chanceth in the same that there is not anie to fill the
place, then one while the Romane emperors are placed in their steads,
and another while their lieutenants, and are said to be created kings
of the Britains, as though the emperors were inferiors vnto the kings
of Britaine, and that the Romane lieutenants at their appointments,
and not by prescript of the senat or emperours, administred the
prouince.

This may suffice here to aduertise you of the contrarietie in writers.
Now we will go foorth in following our historie, as we haue doone