Interestingly enough, bronze swords were cast from stone moulds. Therefore, they may be a grain of truth to the sword in the stone legends.

Monks didn't necessarily limit themselves to religious subjects in their manuscripts. Histories, like Geoffrey of Monmouth's  "History of the Kings of Britain", were also popular (Geoffrey was a clergyman). We have many of the legends of the past thanks to clerical interest in the subject. And take a look at some of the illuminations that accompany the text in medieval manuscripts. Some clerical artists doodled all sorts of things that had nothing to do with religion.

"Why do the Abenaki peoples of Maine call them selves the Abenaki? In thier old tongue, this means "people from the east" or "People of the dawn". Now, if you are standing on the coast of Maine looking east, then you aint seeing anything but a lot of water."

Um,maybe they call themselves "people from the east" because they live to the east of everyone else, or "peple of the dawn" because they are the first ones to see the dawn every day?

As for "why people wrote books when only monks could read"... you really need to read more history books (and I mean books about everyday secular life in history) and fewer conspiracy tomes.   In many cases, books were a way of recording oral tales (that's certainly the case for Beowulf and the Icelandic sagas, for example), and even in the days before printing, secular books existed and were in some cases surprisingly popular (even when they were works of fiction - Mandeville's Travels, for example)

Let's see, Harald Hardrada died in 1066. Rurik died circa 879. That's almost two centuries separating the two. Both apparently did have some connection to the "Varangians". Harald served in the Byzantine emperor's Varangian guard and gained a great reputation as a warrior. Rurik was apparently one of the Varangians (perhaps a more general term in this case meaning Scandinavian merchants and mercenaries that settled in the East) asked by the native Slavs to rule.

Any link made between the two would be a very broad generalization at best.

By the way, I talk a little bit about Harald Hardrada in my myArmoury article "The Battle of Stamford Bridge":

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_battle_stamford.html

It contains some details about Harald's background that I gleaned from various sources. Harald was apparently a well-travelled warrior.

Here's a link to excerpts from the Saga of Harald Hardrade:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hardrada.html

 Good point, Anthony, kings did wish to be associated with a former king of glorious stature and reputation. Which brings me to a crazy thought, Could it be possible that Alfred approved of the continuation of the Arthurian stories? Would he have had a hand in preserving them, or maybe even translating them himself, as he could read and write? After all, Alfred did find himself with his back up against the wall a few times, and he could use a hero.

As to the other point about the Norse side of Ruriks line, I agree, it is difficult. I have searched in vain for some time to pinpoint this beyond doubt. I have not found an english webpage for the Heimskringla that will open for me. I think this may be a place of clues for me, if I could find it. 

What about Silkbeard of the Dublin episode? Was he a relation to Harold Hardruler? I may be getting these Vikings mixed up, as I am thinking that Silkbeard was the foe of Brian Boru. I wish I could find some better research sites for these guys. I be sorely vexed with frustration with trying to organize the lines of the Norse royalty. 

By the way, Mr. Fay, I liked that article about Stamford Bridge. You certainly did a great job with that.