Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae (c. 1138, henceforth Historia) is not an obvious place to look for historiographical varietas, for several reasons. First, many scholars contend that Geoffrey's emphasis on genealogy and dynasty allows him to create a continuous, teleological foundation narrative in support of his own political agenda (whatever that may be). The kind of continuous historical writing envisioned by these scholars differs significantly from the kinds of historiographical varietas I examine in this book, because the latter advances its interpretations of history by foregrounding political discontinuities, not continuous genealogies. Second, Geoffrey's Historia was extremely popular (it survives in over 220 manuscripts) and influential (it was the direct or indirect source for many narratives about early Britain until the early modern period). As a result, its purported genealogical (rather than varius) structure can be said to have contributed to the increasing interest in genealogy in Britain during the later Middle Ages. Finally, Geoffrey casts himself as the foil to his English contemporaries, both explicitly in his prologue and colophon, and implicitly throughout his Historia. Since (as previous chapters have shown) English historians wrote and interpreted history with the help of varietas, Geoffrey’s elevation of continuous genealogy can be interpreted as a rejoinder to the varietas of English historians such as William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon.

Yet Geoffrey's political sentiments and purposes for writing remain continual subjects of debate, with scholars holding mutually incompatible views of Geoffrey's work. His relationship with English historiography is no different. On the one hand, Geoffrey's literary methods owe more to English historians than he claims. His Historia imitates the basic structure of both William's and Henry's histories, in his use of sparse details at the beginning and end of his narrative, coupled with an expansive account of important rulers in the early parts of the latter half of his history. It has also been argued that both Geoffrey and William embrace a relentless genealogical linearity, interpolating documents into their respective narratives ‘to cover up gaps or to forge transitions’, in the hopes of shoring up their histories’ continuity. 9 On the other hand, it has been argued that Geoffrey adopts English historiographical norms in order to parody or criticize them.