"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. 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.
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.
> 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?
|
