Camelot Spoilers

Post by Tim Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Why didn't Arthur ban burning at the stake when he was politically
strong?
I suggest that Arthur tell Lancelot to look up Tom and join forces to
recreate
Camelot.

Consider that 1) the musical is based on a novel written in the
20th century; 2) the novel was based on Le Morte d'Arthur, an
epic compiled several centuries before that, and 3) the actual
events are alleged to take place at the tag end of the Roman
Empire. In such a chronological hodgepodge it is pointless to
look for historical accuracy. In almost every case the creators
did what they felt would make for a good story, consistency and
historicity be damned.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

John W. Kennedy

2007-02-27 03:32:45 UTC

And "Le Morte d'Arthur" is based on (with some other things) the book
known as the "Arthurian Vulgate", which was based on the poems of Robert
de Boron, which were based on the poems of Chrêtien de Troyes, which
were based on "The History of the Kings of Britain" by Geoffery of
Monmouth, plus some Breton legends, which were based on some Welsh
legends, which were, in part, based on some Sarmatian legends that were
centuries old before the historical Arthur (the theory that he really
existed is slightly more satisfactory than the theory that he didn't)
was born.

Me, I'm going to be Merlin at the NJ Renaissance Kingdom this year. From
2002 to 2005 I was Pellinore, but we shuffled and redealt the deck this
year.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-02-27 04:15:10 UTC

Now I would like to know why Arthur wasn't asking why his wife has been
accused and convicted of treason, or asking what she did to warrant a
treason charge, or demanding to review the evidence to make sure its
valid. I find it unbelievable that Arthur wouldn't be curious as to why
his wife has suddenly been convicted of treason and sentenced to death!

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2007-02-27 14:37:59 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: Now I would like to know why Arthur wasn't asking why his wife has been
: accused and convicted of treason, or asking what she did to warrant a
: treason charge, or demanding to review the evidence to make sure its
: valid. I find it unbelievable that Arthur wouldn't be curious as to why
: his wife has suddenly been convicted of treason and sentenced to death!

Because he already knows. He knows why she's been accused and convicted
(because someone finally caught Lancleot in her bed while Arthur was
away), he knows what she did (infidelity by the queen constitutes
treason), and he knows why she's been convicted and sentenced to death
(death is the penalty for treason). Did they leave that dialog out of the
production you saw?

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"Christopher Robin told me what it said, and then I could read it."

Tim Bruening

2007-02-28 05:05:40 UTC

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Now I would like to know why Arthur wasn't asking why his wife has been
: accused and convicted of treason, or asking what she did to warrant a
: treason charge, or demanding to review the evidence to make sure its
: valid. I find it unbelievable that Arthur wouldn't be curious as to why
: his wife has suddenly been convicted of treason and sentenced to death!
Because he already knows. He knows why she's been accused and convicted
(because someone finally caught Lancleot in her bed while Arthur was
away), he knows what she did (infidelity by the queen constitutes
treason), and he knows why she's been convicted and sentenced to death
(death is the penalty for treason). Did they leave that dialog out of the
production you saw?

In the production I saw, I did not hear anyone tell the King that Lancelot had
been caught in bed with his wife. Arthur comes back from the forest to face
demands that he give the order to burn his wife at the stake! Therefore, to buy
time, Arthur should ask why his wife has been convicted of treason and ask to
review the evidence.

Judy

2007-02-28 10:36:06 UTC

Then why don't you just write your own play?

John W. Kennedy

2007-02-27 16:34:13 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
Now I would like to know why Arthur wasn't asking why his wife has been
accused and convicted of treason, or asking what she did to warrant a
treason charge, or demanding to review the evidence to make sure its
valid. I find it unbelievable that Arthur wouldn't be curious as to why
his wife has suddenly been convicted of treason and sentenced to death!

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.

B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.

C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-02-28 05:11:27 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.
B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.
C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

I still suggest that Arthur could have stalled for time by asking why
Guenevere has been convicted of treason and by demanding to review the
evidence.

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2007-02-28 11:19:55 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: I still suggest that Arthur could have stalled for time by asking why
: Guenevere has been convicted of treason and by demanding to review the
: evidence.

To what end? Really, how would it have served the story? There would have
been a long scene consisting of talking heads as each knight who'd been on
the scene when Lancelot was discovered repeated exactly the same story to
Arthur as ewvery other, right at the climax of the play when tension needs
to be building up toward the final catharsis with Tom on the battlefield.
Way to destroy the mood.

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"Christopher Robin told me what it said, and then I could read it."

Tim Bruening

2007-03-02 03:59:44 UTC

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: I still suggest that Arthur could have stalled for time by asking why
: Guenevere has been convicted of treason and by demanding to review the
: evidence.
To what end? Really, how would it have served the story? There would have
been a long scene consisting of talking heads as each knight who'd been on
the scene when Lancelot was discovered repeated exactly the same story to
Arthur as ewvery other, right at the climax of the play when tension needs
to be building up toward the final catharsis with Tom on the battlefield.
Way to destroy the mood.

My suggestion is for Arthur in the Arthurverse, not for the writers of the play.

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2007-03-02 12:57:20 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: PAUL GADZIKOWSKI wrote:
:> In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
:> : I still suggest that Arthur could have stalled for time by asking why
:> : Guenevere has been convicted of treason and by demanding to review the
:> : evidence.
:> To what end? Really, how would it have served the story? There would have
:> been a long scene consisting of talking heads as each knight who'd been on
:> the scene when Lancelot was discovered repeated exactly the same story to
:> Arthur as ewvery other, right at the climax of the play when tension needs
:> to be building up toward the final catharsis with Tom on the battlefield.
:> Way to destroy the mood.
:
: My suggestion is for Arthur in the Arthurverse, not for the writers of the play.

Okay. Well, I still say, either Arthur doesn't bother challenging the
charges because he knows they're true, or because the trial before him in
which the charges are proved occurs offstage.

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"Christopher Robin told me what it said, and then I could read it."

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 18:34:39 UTC

My suggestion is for Arthur in the Arthurverse, not for the writers of the play.

"Arthurverse" is a bit vague -- there are hundreds, perhaps thousands,
of 'em. But if you mean the specific Arthurverse of "Camelot", then, as
we've remarked, Arthur /already knows/ the horrible truth, and knows
that Mordred, Agravain, and the rest are eyewitnesses. If he tries to
deny it, then all that he has done in his reign is exposed as hypocrisy.

(At the New Jersey Renaissance Kingdom, back in 1997, King Roland of
Somerset was forced to condemn his own son to death. In the best line
I've ever heard in an amateur script, he cried in anguish, "Tristan,
know that your father loves you -- but your king hates you!" Come
November, I'll be playing Gloucester to that same actor's Lear, and I'm
looking forward to it.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-04 21:38:54 UTC

My suggestion is for Arthur in the Arthurverse, not for the writers of the play.

In the version I saw, Mordred et al did not actually SEE Lancelot and Guenevere in bed
together. I would suggest that Arthur ask the eye witnesses if they actually saw the
two of them making love! If not, perhaps Arthur could sentence the two to probation,
and send Lancelot far, far away.

BTW, why didn't Arthur arrance to send Lancelot out of Camelot when he realized that
Lancelot was after Guenevere?

fmomoon

2007-03-04 21:45:36 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
BTW, why didn't Arthur arrance to send Lancelot out of Camelot when he realized that
Lancelot was after Guenevere?

Because Lancelot was his best friend and he allowed himself to deny what was
in front of him.

--
Moni (fmomoon)
War does not determine who is right,
war determines who is left.

lclough

2007-03-04 22:21:34 UTC

Post by fmomoon

Post by Tim Bruening
BTW, why didn't Arthur arrance to send Lancelot out of Camelot when he realized that
Lancelot was after Guenevere?

Because Lancelot was his best friend and he allowed himself to deny what was
in front of him.

Furthermore, there was the political thing. You may recall that
Lancelot was the best knight of the Table Round. Without his
support the Orkney faction (already possessed of a fine royal
candidate in Mordred) becomes much more powerful. Since there
is no clear legitimate heir the disposition of the kingdom is
dicey anyway. Can Arthur afford to upset the balance simply to
preserve his marital rep? Perhaps it is better to insist that
Lance and Gwen are just the best of friends.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2007-03-05 12:12:04 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: In the version I saw, Mordred et al did not actually SEE Lancelot and Guenevere in bed
: together.

Then the version you saw was staged very differently than any version of
Camelot I've ever seen or read. Did Mordred and his group of knights not
start banging on the queen's room's door while Lancelot was inside? Didn't
Lancelot have to fight his way out because that door was the only way in
or out? Therefore his was in the room.

: I would suggest that Arthur ask the eye witnesses if they actually saw
the
: two of them making love! If not, perhaps Arthur could sentence the two to probation,
: and send Lancelot far, far away.

It's sufficiently scandalous that he was in her room unattended while her
husband was away.

Plus, it's not like a Broadway musical of the early 60s, or a contemporary
community theatre production of a Broadway musical of the early 60s, is
going to have an actual sex scene staged in it. It's not Equus.

I'd like to suggest that the problem you're having with this sequence of
of scenes in Camelot is due to an unusual unwillingness to suspend
disbelief on your part, and is not a flaw of the play.

: BTW, why didn't Arthur arrance to send Lancelot out of Camelot when he
realized that : Lancelot was after Guenevere?

Because he loved them.

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"All they need to do is find the right wormhole."

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-05 20:44:59 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
In the version I saw, Mordred et al did not actually SEE Lancelot and Guenevere in bed
together.

It doesn't matter. They were alone together. That's enough.

Post by Tim Bruening
BTW, why didn't Arthur arrance to send Lancelot out of Camelot when he realized that
Lancelot was after Guenevere?

You're dealing with a version ("Camelot") that's tugging against its
source ("The Once and Future King"), which is tugging in turn against
its own sources (Tennyson and Malory, chiefly -- and Tennyson was
tugging against Malory). There's a vague sense that Arthur doesn't want
Guinevere to be unhappy, but "Camelot" doesn't really go into this part
in detail. (In the traditional versions, Arthur is surprised.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

2007-06-26 02:30:07 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
In the version I saw, Mordred et al did not actually SEE Lancelot and Guenevere in bed
together.

It doesn't matter. They were alone together. That's enough.

In the versions I've seen, the irony is that they weren't doing anything
for a change, but, as stated, they were alone together and that was
enough.

--
Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
Journal: http://slywy.blogspot.com/
Hodge on Catster: http://catster.com/pet_page.php?i=134490

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-01 02:36:35 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.
B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.
C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

I still suggest that Arthur could have stalled for time by asking why
Guenevere has been convicted of treason and by demanding to review the
evidence.

So we have a scene in which nothing happens to advance the story, and
impossible to set to music, merely to establish what the audience
already knows, and that every literate member of the audience already
knew was coming before the overture started, in a context where the
/next/ scene is an equally undramatic sung exposition by the chorus of
an unstageable action -- the second one in the show?

"There are many definitions of good dramatic structure. This is not one
of them."
-- ?

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-02 04:07:46 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.
B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.
C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

Another note: As Arthur is pondering whether or not to order his wife
executed, people start yelling that Camelot is being invaded. Could Arthur
have moved that the execution procedure be postponed so that the invasion can
be dealt with?

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 18:44:21 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.
B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.
C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

It's been a while since I saw "Camelot", but as far as I can recall, the
only invasion is by Lancelot, who rescues Guinevere from the stake, but,
in so doing, forces a civil war. That's certainly the standard version
of the story. It is while Arthur is away in France, fighting Lancelot
(which he cannot avoid, because, during the rescue, Lancelot killed two
of Gawain's brothers), that Mordred makes his move. (This replaces the
original version, where Arthur was away fighting the Roman Empire.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-04 21:41:26 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.
B) The circumstances under which L+G are caught would have been
sufficient to prove adultery through most of history.
C) In the musical, Arthur already knows perfectly well that they're
guilty. It's the public knowledge that forces him to act.

In the version I saw, Arthur was in Camelot pondering Guenevere's fate during the
rescue, and there was no one named Gawain.

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-05 20:47:37 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
In the version I saw, Arthur was in Camelot pondering Guenevere's fate during the
rescue, and there was no one named Gawain.

It's a musical trying to summarize the action of a /very/ long story, a
story that Lerner and Lowe expected their audience to know already. It
simplifies massively.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

ElBob-O

2007-03-06 01:07:03 UTC

A) Adultery by a consort is treason, by definition.

If a pregnancy occurred from the affair it would dilute the purity of
the royal lineage; the King/Queen "energy" was a very important
commodity required by the people for leaders to show consistency and
continuity of rule -- and order. Another example was having a ruler
walk on a carpet in order to keep this energy from being drawn off
into the commonality of more earlthly beings.

lclough

2007-02-28 00:14:13 UTC

In that time (i.e. when the novel and epic were set, not the
musical) adultery in the Queen was indeed treason. The whole
point of the marrying a virgin, your wife being faithful, your
daughters being guarded bit was to ensure that you, the king,
were going to pass your kingdom on to your true genetic son. If
the Queen commits adultery she is by definition imperilling the
succession, and is lucky to get off merely with being burnt at
the stake. There are plenty of places on this planet even now
where that rule holds.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

Tim Bruening

2007-02-28 05:22:16 UTC

Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

lclough

2007-02-28 23:47:46 UTC

Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

He probably could not have, because Arthur was not legally
married to Mordred's mother. To inherit the throne you have to
be legitimate (your parents solidly married), your descent must
be undisputed (your mother must be pure at least until after you
are born), and then it does help to be right on hand when Dad
kicks off. (This is where Hamlet went off track; you remember he
was in college at Wittenberg and that was how Uncle Claudius got
the crown.)

There were plenty of obscure British royals named "Fitzroy"
because they were illegitmate children of some prince or other.
Even in this latter day the tradition holds; possibly you
remember the vehement discussions about Lady Diana before she
married Prince Charles. One of the major criterion was that she
was a virgin.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

Tim Bruening

2007-03-02 04:04:02 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

However, in the absence of a legitimate heir, wouldn't Mordred have a claim on the
throne?

solar penguin

2007-03-02 18:29:07 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
However, in the absence of a legitimate heir, wouldn't Mordred have a
claim on the throne?

As Mordred can't prove his father's identity (remember, DNA tests hadn't
been invented yet!) his only claim could come as Arthur's nephew. And
the Orkney knights could make similar claims. It all depends on who's
oldest!
--
___ _ ___ _
/ __| ___ | | __ _ _ _ | _ \ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
\__ \/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| | _// -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
|___/\___/|_|\__,_||_| |_| \___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|___/
http://www.freewebs.com/solar_penguin/

** The parson's family also went in for that wrong challenge, and you've
half a second.

** Sarah is increasingly annoyed by the numbers. I want D.C.S and
tactical database assimilation by 0830.

Tim Bruening

2007-03-04 22:32:14 UTC

Post by solar penguin

Post by Tim Bruening
However, in the absence of a legitimate heir, wouldn't Mordred have a
claim on the throne?

In the version I saw, Mordred was Arthur's son.

lclough

2007-03-05 01:05:45 UTC

Post by solar penguin

Post by Tim Bruening
However, in the absence of a legitimate heir, wouldn't Mordred have a
claim on the throne?

In the version I saw, Mordred was Arthur's son.

He may well have been -- but his mother was not married to
Arthur. His mother (Morgause) was married to Lot, king of
Orkney. So, like it or not, Mordred is officially the youngest
son of King Lot.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 18:56:16 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

However, in the absence of a legitimate heir, wouldn't Mordred have a claim on the
throne?

In the real 5th century, yes. But "Camelot", like most versions, assumes
the traditions and institutions of the high middle ages. In that period,
Mordred would have no claim as Arthur's bastard, but he /would/ have a
claim as Arthur's sister's son.

In those versions of the story that bother with continuing after the
Battle of Camlann, Arthur is succeeded by Constantine III, son of Cador
of Cornwall, who is a relative (unspecified) of Arthur.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-01 02:45:50 UTC

Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

Arthur's legitimate son disappeared very early in the evolution of the
mythos, and was never given anything to do. Mordred, on the other hand,
is as old as Arthur; the fact that he and Arthur died at the battle of
Camlann is one of the few solid pieces of information we have.

In the musical, as in most versions, Mordred is an oppotunist and a
traitor. Indeed, before the invention of Lancelot, it was /he/ who has
an affair with Guinevere, while Arthur was out of Britain fighting a war
against the Emperor.

In any case, the fact that Guinevere is barren does not change the fact
that, by committing adultery, she is guilty of treason as defined by the
laws of most monarchies that respect primogeniture. (Ancient Britain did
not, in fact, respect primogeniture, but the mainstream mythos developed
in such nations, and takes it for granted.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

lclough

2007-03-01 03:14:19 UTC

Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

Arthur's legitimate son disappeared very early in the evolution of the
mythos, and was never given anything to do.

This son was not by Arthur's marriage to Guinevere, I assume.
(Arthur is alleged to have had at least a couple sons by one or
another women previous to marriage.) The quandary of the
non-child-bearing queen is a toughie that many monarchs have had
to wrestle with, Henry VIII being the best known.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-01 03:51:05 UTC

Post by John W. Kennedy
Arthur's legitimate son disappeared very early in the evolution of the
mythos, and was never given anything to do.

This son was not by Arthur's marriage to Guinevere, I assume.

I don't think he ever appears outside of catalogs, and one very old
legend about his grave. The suggestion is that he (I think his usual
name is "Loholt") is Arthur's son by Guinevere, but, as I say, there are
no real stories about him, and he had disappeared completely long before
the mythos reached its classic form in the Vulgate.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-01 08:36:26 UTC

Interestingly, in the version I saw, Arthur and Guenevere did not have any
children. Arthur does have a true genetic son: Mordred. Should Arthur pass
the kingdom on to him?

Are there any versions in which Lancelot heard about Arthur's death and hastened
to take advantage of his death by hooking back up with Guenevere?

Much of Mordred having an affair with the Queen.

Post by John W. Kennedy
In any case, the fact that Guinevere is barren does not change the fact
that, by committing adultery, she is guilty of treason as defined by the
laws of most monarchies that respect primogeniture. (Ancient Britain did
not, in fact, respect primogeniture, but the mainstream mythos developed
in such nations, and takes it for granted.)

Would Princess Diana have been arrested if there was solid evidence of her
committing adultery?

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 01:15:46 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
Are there any versions in which Lancelot heard about Arthur's death and hastened
to take advantage of his death by hooking back up with Guenevere?

No doubt some jerk has imagined it.

Post by Tim Bruening
Much of Mordred having an affair with the Queen.

He /originally/ did, but when Camelot became the ultimate exemplar of
Courtly Love, it became necessary that Arthur's queen's adultery be with
a partner who was worthy of her -- worthy, so to speak, of Arthur,
himself. Thus the invention of Lancelot.

Post by Tim Bruening
Would Princess Diana have been arrested if there was solid evidence of her
committing adultery?

I don't know. The law may have been changed. On the other hand, it's a
difficult sort of law to put through a change in, because people will
always snigger, "And why are we changing it /now/ -- heh-heh-heh?"

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Terry Jones

2007-02-28 09:03:32 UTC

Post by lclough
In that time (i.e. when the novel and epic were set, not the
musical) adultery in the Queen was indeed treason. The whole
point of the marrying a virgin, your wife being faithful, your
daughters being guarded bit was to ensure that you, the king,
were going to pass your kingdom on to your true genetic son. If
the Queen commits adultery she is by definition imperilling the
succession, and is lucky to get off merely with being burnt at
the stake. There are plenty of places on this planet even now
where that rule holds.

IIRC one of Henry VIII's wives was executed for this reason. So in
England this was the case at least until the Tudor period.

But of course the original (or rather the earliest version) was set in
post Roman Britain - One or two Roman emperors had executed a wife for
adultery (real or imagined), but I don't know the situation in Celtic
law.

And of course "Lancelot" didn't exist in the early version - he was
"grafted on" later.

--
Terry

Tim Bruening

2007-03-01 08:40:13 UTC

In the version I saw, I wasn't certain whether Lancelot and Guenevere had
actually consummated their romance. Would it have done any good for Arthur to
ask Guenevere if she had boinked Lancelot, and for her to answer "I did not
have sex with that knight!!!!!!!!!"?

Tim Bruening

2007-03-01 08:41:20 UTC

I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up the
treason charges, so I figured that it might do some good for Arthur to contest
the treason charges.

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 01:20:51 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up the
treason charges,

Let's just say that in the standard literary version of the story,
there's no question about it. In the musical -- hey! it's a musical
written during the Eisenhower administration. They could only go so far.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-02 03:51:04 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up the
treason charges,

You think that Joseph McCarthy would have objected to the treason charges being
trumped up?

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 18:58:25 UTC

Post by Tim Bruening
I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up the
treason charges,

You think that Joseph McCarthy would have objected to the treason charges being
trumped up?

No, but he would have objected to a scene in a Broadway musical where
two main characters have sex on stage. So would a great many others.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Tim Bruening

2007-03-01 08:43:35 UTC

I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up
the
treason charges, so I figured that it might do some good for Arthur to
contest
the treason charges.

To me, treason constitutes aiding and abetting your nation's enemies by
such means as fighting for them, selling arms to them, and leaking
national secrets to them. Adultery does not, by itself, help your
nation's enemies.

PAUL GADZIKOWSKI

2007-03-01 12:27:39 UTC

In alt.legend.king-arthur Tim Bruening <***@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up
: the
: treason charges, so I figured that it might do some good for Arthur to
: contest
: the treason charges.

Aside from the dramatic structure problems already noted, the flaw with
this is that it's been pointed up all through the second act that any such
treason charges, if brought up, would not be trumped up. That's why Arthur
panics when he's trapped in the forest: he knows Mordred has contrived it
in order to trap Guenevere and Lancelot in the act.

: To me, treason constitutes aiding and abetting your nation's enemies by
: such means as fighting for them, selling arms to them, and leaking
: national secrets to them. Adultery does not, by itself, help your
: nation's enemies.

You live in a twenty-first century republic. In a middles-ages inherited
monarchy, when the belief is that the royal family is God-anointed to
rule, for the queen to go mucking about with the succession (by, for
instance, giving birth to another man's son - or even just risking it)
does constitute treason, to the king and to God. I haven't seen or read
Camelot recently enough to be certain how well that point is got across,
but there you are.

Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"Christopher Robin told me what it said, and then I could read it."

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 01:25:52 UTC

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
You live in a twenty-first century republic. In a middles-ages inherited
monarchy, when the belief is that the royal family is God-anointed to
rule, for the queen to go mucking about with the succession (by, for
instance, giving birth to another man's son - or even just risking it)
does constitute treason, to the king and to God. I haven't seen or read
Camelot recently enough to be certain how well that point is got across,
but there you are.

It doesn't matter, really. In 1960, Lerner and Lowe could expect that
everyone in the audience over the age of twelve would know the story.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

lclough

2007-03-01 23:21:17 UTC

I had thought that Mordred and the rebel knights might have trumped up
the
treason charges, so I figured that it might do some good for Arthur to
contest
the treason charges.
To me, treason constitutes aiding and abetting your nation's enemies by
such means as fighting for them, selling arms to them, and leaking
national secrets to them. Adultery does not, by itself, help your
nation's enemies.

Tch. It ALL depends on how you define 'nation.' If l'etat,
c'est moi, then of course any personal betrayal is treason. I
am sure that if you asked Kim Jong-Il he believes it.

Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com

FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

John W. Kennedy

2007-03-02 01:22:06 UTC