Post by himiko on Dec 12, 2013 16:31:55 GMT
So, the full title of this was actually supposed to be as below, but it wouldn't all fit in the title box, so without further ado:
Arthur: A bad king with good intentions, or a good king in an impossible situation?
Basically, we know how the miniseries ends for Arthur and Mordred- they fight each other to the death, along with their respective armies. Before this can happen, however, we go from a Britain largely united under Arthur (in the early part of his reign, after he and Lot have made peace), to a stage where enough of Arthur's knights and lords turn on him to unite with Mordred that they are roughly evenly matched.
Now, I don't think anyone can argue that Arthur's intentions as king were largely good ones- he builds Camelot as a "golden city", he ends the war with Lot without bloodshed, he wants to ensure Camelot's future by marrying Guinevere, and setting Lancelot to protect Camelot in his absence. The question is, does it all go so wrong for him near the end because, despite his intentions, he simply wasn't a very good politician, or was his position simply impossible to win.
Personally, my thoughts are that it was a mixture of the two- I've put some reasons together below.
Arthur's Politics
I think we can probably all agree that leaving your kingdom for years on end in the hands of a total stranger, who earned the job by winning a joust, and your wife, who you just married and hardly know, is not one of the stellar political moves of the film. Especially given that he has been made aware that, as Merlin predicted and later confirmed, he has a son (his only child and only heir) by Morgan le Fey, who hates him and will likely move against him, allied as she now is with Mab and Frik.
How could Arthur have acted differently? Off the top of my head:
- Put off his quest to seek out the Holy Grail until he has a legitimate heir with Guinevere.
- Leave someone he knows as co-regent with Guinevere (Merlin, if he were accepted by the lords, would actually have been a decent choice given his experience of watching kings making bad decisions and seeing the outcomes...).
- Attempt to make peace with Morgan, offer to foster Mordred at court, something that might make her less likely to actively work against him.
- Not go on the damn quest at all and redeem himself for sleeping with his sister in some way that is closer to home.
Later, of course, having chosen to condemn Guinevere to death (which he believes is the right thing to do by the letter of the law), he chooses to have her saved at the last minute (which he believes to be the right thing to do morally), in a way that could possibly look like coincidence (Merlin causes it to rain, and then it is Lancelot who rescues Guinevere). This could be seen as a good political move (he sentences Guinevere to appease Mordred and the other lords, and then makes her rescue look like a coincidence- though that's really at least half down to Merlin's choice of method), however, because he is spotted, it turns into a spectacular blunder- by saying one thing and doing another, it makes him look like a hypocrite, but it also makes him look weak, like he won't abide by his own decisions.
Mordred, Mab, and the political situation
All the above said, Arthur does not know that Guinevere and Lancelot will have an affair, and we cannot really hold him responsible for that beyond leaving his wife behind for several years and not expecting that she might get lonely. This is of course, the big event that sows seeds of discontent in Arthur's court in his absence, and that Mordred uses to his advantage.
Arthur has built Camelot as a city of peace, justice, etc, and he doesn't want to give preference to he and Guinevere as royals, he makes that clear enough. In reality, he sees Guinevere's adultery as a personal matter, something done against him personally, not against the realm- what's more, he is actually quite sympathetic to her reasons. In the letter of the law, however, because Arthur is the king, Guinevere's adultery against him IS considered treason, and a matter of the state. This puts Arthur into a tricky position whereby he either has to follow the letter of the law, and put Guinevere to death, even though he believes that she doesn't deserve it, or he does what he believes to be morally right, and risks being held up as a hypocrite.
And this is where Mordred comes in, and pushes the situation. We see Merlin try to diffuse the situation by asking for mercy, using some light humour, and we actually see the lords coming around to this idea (Lot's "I confess, I have sinned - a little.")- it appears in this instance that the lords are willing to push for mercy without Arthur having to demand it. It is Mordred who hammers home the argument against this- that they are making excuses for her because she is a queen, because she is Arthur's wife. And Mordred then deliberately calls Arthur out on this, saying that "I thought Camelot was to be different". At this point, Arthur has only two decisions he can make- condemn Guinevere to death, or command that she be pardoned. There isn't really a "correct" decision that he can make in this situation that won't inflame it further.
Similarly, after Arthur has Guinevere rescued, and has Merlin make it look like an accident/ coincidence (which could have appeased the court), it is Mordred who sees Merlin cast the spell, and he once again brings this up publicly, to shame Arthur as a hypocrite and further his own cause, and it's at this point that several of Arthur's lords leave with Mordred.
Additional Novelisation info
I've included this stuff in a separate section largely because I know not everyone here will have read the books, and because your mileage may vary as to whether you consider the contents of the books "canon", but the books do include a few bits of information that imply that Mab and Mordred took further advantage of the situation than the film shows.
- The black stone Morgan puts in Arthur's crib at Frik's request is, if I recall correctly, explained to be a curse on Arthur that will cause him to not be turned from a course of action once he sets his mind to it- the biggest example of this, I believe, is him leaving for the Holy Grail. Of course, this doesn't match very well with his indecision over Guinevere's fate- perhaps the curse has worn off by this point?
- Mab gives Mordred a potion that will persuade men to follow him- basically it gives him a boost to his Persuasion skill, to use Elder Scrolls terminology
It's why so many lords follow him, and why they get so angry over the supposed "priviledge" of the royals, despite the fact that most of them would probably have expected a King to act in such a way that favoured himself and his family.
Overall, I would argue that Arthur WAS a bad politician in many ways- his naivety leads him to leave his kingdom in a situation that could have ignited very easily- and, indeed, it did. I think without the situation being exploited by Mab and Mordred, he could probably have come back from it, and prevented any battles. However, given that he was aware of their existence, and their opposition to his reign at the time he left the country, it's hard to argue that he shouldn't have expected some sort of political manouvering by them, either in his absence, or upon his return. I think there's definitely an argument to be made, however, that by going off on his quest he puts the wellbeing of his soul/ conscience/ whatever you choose to call it, ahead of the wellbeing of his kingdom, which makes me fall on the side of "bad king with good intentions". Add the bad situation, and it was always going to come down to battle in the end.
What does everyone else think?
Arthur: A bad king with good intentions, or a good king in an impossible situation?
Basically, we know how the miniseries ends for Arthur and Mordred- they fight each other to the death, along with their respective armies. Before this can happen, however, we go from a Britain largely united under Arthur (in the early part of his reign, after he and Lot have made peace), to a stage where enough of Arthur's knights and lords turn on him to unite with Mordred that they are roughly evenly matched.
Now, I don't think anyone can argue that Arthur's intentions as king were largely good ones- he builds Camelot as a "golden city", he ends the war with Lot without bloodshed, he wants to ensure Camelot's future by marrying Guinevere, and setting Lancelot to protect Camelot in his absence. The question is, does it all go so wrong for him near the end because, despite his intentions, he simply wasn't a very good politician, or was his position simply impossible to win.
Personally, my thoughts are that it was a mixture of the two- I've put some reasons together below.
Arthur's Politics
I think we can probably all agree that leaving your kingdom for years on end in the hands of a total stranger, who earned the job by winning a joust, and your wife, who you just married and hardly know, is not one of the stellar political moves of the film. Especially given that he has been made aware that, as Merlin predicted and later confirmed, he has a son (his only child and only heir) by Morgan le Fey, who hates him and will likely move against him, allied as she now is with Mab and Frik.
How could Arthur have acted differently? Off the top of my head:
- Put off his quest to seek out the Holy Grail until he has a legitimate heir with Guinevere.
- Leave someone he knows as co-regent with Guinevere (Merlin, if he were accepted by the lords, would actually have been a decent choice given his experience of watching kings making bad decisions and seeing the outcomes...).
- Attempt to make peace with Morgan, offer to foster Mordred at court, something that might make her less likely to actively work against him.
- Not go on the damn quest at all and redeem himself for sleeping with his sister in some way that is closer to home.
Later, of course, having chosen to condemn Guinevere to death (which he believes is the right thing to do by the letter of the law), he chooses to have her saved at the last minute (which he believes to be the right thing to do morally), in a way that could possibly look like coincidence (Merlin causes it to rain, and then it is Lancelot who rescues Guinevere). This could be seen as a good political move (he sentences Guinevere to appease Mordred and the other lords, and then makes her rescue look like a coincidence- though that's really at least half down to Merlin's choice of method), however, because he is spotted, it turns into a spectacular blunder- by saying one thing and doing another, it makes him look like a hypocrite, but it also makes him look weak, like he won't abide by his own decisions.
Mordred, Mab, and the political situation
All the above said, Arthur does not know that Guinevere and Lancelot will have an affair, and we cannot really hold him responsible for that beyond leaving his wife behind for several years and not expecting that she might get lonely. This is of course, the big event that sows seeds of discontent in Arthur's court in his absence, and that Mordred uses to his advantage.
Arthur has built Camelot as a city of peace, justice, etc, and he doesn't want to give preference to he and Guinevere as royals, he makes that clear enough. In reality, he sees Guinevere's adultery as a personal matter, something done against him personally, not against the realm- what's more, he is actually quite sympathetic to her reasons. In the letter of the law, however, because Arthur is the king, Guinevere's adultery against him IS considered treason, and a matter of the state. This puts Arthur into a tricky position whereby he either has to follow the letter of the law, and put Guinevere to death, even though he believes that she doesn't deserve it, or he does what he believes to be morally right, and risks being held up as a hypocrite.
And this is where Mordred comes in, and pushes the situation. We see Merlin try to diffuse the situation by asking for mercy, using some light humour, and we actually see the lords coming around to this idea (Lot's "I confess, I have sinned - a little.")- it appears in this instance that the lords are willing to push for mercy without Arthur having to demand it. It is Mordred who hammers home the argument against this- that they are making excuses for her because she is a queen, because she is Arthur's wife. And Mordred then deliberately calls Arthur out on this, saying that "I thought Camelot was to be different". At this point, Arthur has only two decisions he can make- condemn Guinevere to death, or command that she be pardoned. There isn't really a "correct" decision that he can make in this situation that won't inflame it further.
Similarly, after Arthur has Guinevere rescued, and has Merlin make it look like an accident/ coincidence (which could have appeased the court), it is Mordred who sees Merlin cast the spell, and he once again brings this up publicly, to shame Arthur as a hypocrite and further his own cause, and it's at this point that several of Arthur's lords leave with Mordred.
Additional Novelisation info
I've included this stuff in a separate section largely because I know not everyone here will have read the books, and because your mileage may vary as to whether you consider the contents of the books "canon", but the books do include a few bits of information that imply that Mab and Mordred took further advantage of the situation than the film shows.
- The black stone Morgan puts in Arthur's crib at Frik's request is, if I recall correctly, explained to be a curse on Arthur that will cause him to not be turned from a course of action once he sets his mind to it- the biggest example of this, I believe, is him leaving for the Holy Grail. Of course, this doesn't match very well with his indecision over Guinevere's fate- perhaps the curse has worn off by this point?
- Mab gives Mordred a potion that will persuade men to follow him- basically it gives him a boost to his Persuasion skill, to use Elder Scrolls terminology
It's why so many lords follow him, and why they get so angry over the supposed "priviledge" of the royals, despite the fact that most of them would probably have expected a King to act in such a way that favoured himself and his family.Overall, I would argue that Arthur WAS a bad politician in many ways- his naivety leads him to leave his kingdom in a situation that could have ignited very easily- and, indeed, it did. I think without the situation being exploited by Mab and Mordred, he could probably have come back from it, and prevented any battles. However, given that he was aware of their existence, and their opposition to his reign at the time he left the country, it's hard to argue that he shouldn't have expected some sort of political manouvering by them, either in his absence, or upon his return. I think there's definitely an argument to be made, however, that by going off on his quest he puts the wellbeing of his soul/ conscience/ whatever you choose to call it, ahead of the wellbeing of his kingdom, which makes me fall on the side of "bad king with good intentions". Add the bad situation, and it was always going to come down to battle in the end.
What does everyone else think?
