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.
>
>
> 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 WA****NGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewa****ngton.com
FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
|
