John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>>
>> lclough wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>
>>>> lclough wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoilers:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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 WA****NGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewa****ngton.com
FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
|
