Since there's Arthurian posting on my timeline: something I've always found amusing, and which is proof that fans have always been that way about their fandoms, are the absolute contortions people have gone through to make all the various medieval Arthurian texts into a consistent narrative.
And the thing is, you can't because they aren't! They're a body of texts written by different people over a span of decades to centuries.
What their audience was familiar with, what they had to include & what they could make up, would differ.
But that doesn't stop people from trying.
At this point I'll even argue that Malory, one of the earliest & certainly the most famous attempt to compile the various texts, doesn't even try to make a consistent narrative — he just throws everything in that people would have been familiar with.
Does Arthur get Excalibur by pulling it from the stone? Yep!
Does he get Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake? Also yep!
Does the Lady of the Lake get beheaded shortly after? Of course she does.
Does the she reappear to accept Excalibur after Arthur's death? Come on. You know the answer…
And before someone comes at me with "the sword in the stone wasn't Excalibur": that's a latter modification. One of the attempts to make the stories into an internally consistent whole.
In the Vulgate Cycle it's Excalibur. And Malory explicitly names it as such.
