[Red] Everyone knows something about King Arthur, whether you watched Sword in the Stone as a kid, listened to Camelot as an adult, or just existed in a part of the world where Britain was briefly in charge, you know about King Arthur. But if you ever tried to look into King Arthur to try and find some sort of canon for the story, you were probably both confused and disappointed. Maybe you read somewhere that Merlin aged backwards, but then couldn't find any evidence to support that. Maybe you wanted to know about the Holy Grail and ended up reading 50 pages about some Fisher King guy instead. Maybe you wanted to learn the sordid history of Arthur and Morgan Le Fay's secret trysts that famously produced the traitorous Mordred and were on utterly baffled to find zero connection between Mordred and Morgan at all. Whatever the case, while Arthurian mythos is very widespread and most people have at least some knowledge of the basic structure of the story, when you start tugging at the threads, the entire setup starts to lose cohesion. So what is Arthurian canon, and more importantly, do we actually care? To start off, we need to talk about the historical context for King Arthur: as in, the time frame he supposedly existed in and the events and accomplishments he's generally credited for. But because talking about history makes me break out in hives, I've conscripted Blue to do it for me. Blue? [Blue] So basically in the late 400s A.D. after the Germanic tribes did the sacking and Rome did the falling, the power structure was pretty scattered. And a handful of German warlords ruled over an ethnically Latin and German mixed European population. As far as this dichotomy goes, Britain was handily in the non-Latin corner on account of Rome only holding territory there for a couple centuries, although they were still predominantly Christian. With the Roman Empire gone, there was hefty competition over who would get to fill in the various power vacuums that had opened up. In Britain, the major conflict at the time was between the local Quasi-Roman Britons and a number of incursions from the Angles and Saxons (Germanic tribes from nearby Scandinavia who predated the Vikings by a good few centuries). Now, you might recognize some of those names from the word "England" which is "Engla-Land" and also places like Essex and Sussex: East and South Saxony. So our buddy Artie, according to the few sources that we have, was most likely one of these Quasi-Roman Britans fighting against the Scandinavian invasions. That being said, the sources are pretty spotty, so we don't even know if this guy ever really, you know, existed. He may well be an exaggerated version of some real historical figure, as some historians suspect, or, like most superheroes, he could have been 100% made up and then just placed into a real world setting. But whoever King Arthur was or was inspired by, the bottom line is that they had some serious beef with the Angles and Saxons. [Red] Thanks, dude. So now that we've gotten the historical Arthur stuff out of the way, let's talk about the retold Arthur stuff. The earliest written accounts of King Arthur are from the mid 900's in the Annales Cambriae, and they're really short and really uninformative. One says in 516 A.D., Arthur won the Battle of Baton, and the other one says in 537 A.D. Arthur and Mordred fell in the strife of Camlann and there was death in Britain and Ireland Unsurprisingly, this isn't much to go on. It doesn't tell us who Arthur and Mordred are or how they're connected to each other. It doesn't say who they're fighting, if they were fighting each other, or on the same side. It technically doesn't even tell us if Arthur and Mordred died. And given that this account was written around 400 years after any historical basis for Arthur died, we're already starting from a pretty ahistorical source material. The first written Arthurian stories properly get started in the early 1100's with Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regem Britanniae: a Latinized pseudo-history of Britain that starts with Brutus as the first king of Britannia and ends with Cadwallader, a king you've almost certainly never heard of because lineages of kings tend to peter out into lameness once the hero kings die. In the middle of the Historia is where all the Arthur stuff happens. Geoffrey of Monmouth is pretty much responsible for the foundations of Arthurian legend, the stuff that everyone agrees on. He's got Merlin, Guinevere, Mordred as a traitor, Excalibur, the strife of Camlann, the island of Avalon, stuff like that. So according to Geoffrey, the basic timeline goes like this: Uther Pendragon, King of Britannia, is at war with the Saxons, but also he really wants to sleep with this lady Igerna, who happens to be married to Uther's buddy Gorlois, the Duke of Cornwall. Uther and Gorlois casually go to war over this whole debacle, but Merlin, a wise dude with vaguely defined magical powers, helps Uther bang Igerna by shape-shifting him to look like Gorlois, so he can sneak behind enemy lines and get down with another dude's wife. This is how Arthur happens. Uther then storms the castle and he and Igerna then get married and have another kid named Anna. Uther is then poisoned by the Saxons and dies. Arthur takes the throne at the ripe old age of 15 and proceeds to spend the next several years conquering his way through a truly ridiculous amount of northern Europe, including but not limited to: Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Gaul. Which, if you've ever read an Asterix book, you already know was dominated by the Roman Empire. So by conquering Gaul, Arthur's pretty much declared war on the empire. [Blue] What the heck, Geoffrey? That's not even slightly historically viable. [Red] So Arthur moves on to fighting Rome but while he's away doing that, his nephew Mordred marries Arthur's wife Guinevere and usurps the throne. Arthur comes back to fight Mordred in the famous strife of Camlann, and and while Mordred is killed in the encounter, Arthur is fatally wounded and is taken away to the magical Island of Avalon to be healed. Avalon, by the way, has been referenced once before by Geoffrey as the place where Arthur's sword Caliburn was forged. Now, Caliburn is unsurprisingly going to turn into Excalibur in the next few centuries once the word gets a little more "French-ified" Geoffrey seems to have gotten the name Caliburn by latinising a Welsh word (which I have no hope of pronouncing correctly but is spelled like this) which might also just be an archaic word for "sword." At this point, Caliburn isn't fancy or magic or whatever. It's just a really good sword. So to recap, Geoffrey establishes Arthur as a conquering king, Merlin as what is heavily implied to be a classical druid, Mordred as a traitor who usurps the throne, Excalibur as Arthur's nifty sword, and Guinevere as Arthur's wife But Geoffrey's barely managed to publish the Historia regum Britanniae before people started writing fanfic about it. The first handful of these are written barely a few decades later by Chrétien De Troyes, a French poet whose name I also can't pronounce, who wants to show off an OC he's super proud of. You may have heard of the character. Does Lancelot ring a bell? Yeah. Lancelot "Best Knight in the World" Du Lac, an exiled prince raised by the Lady of the Lake in her magical fairy kingdom, who's super handsome and totally unbeatable and all the girls like him and also he totally gets the girl instead of Arthur, is somebody's original character (Do Not Steal). Try and contain your shocked disbelief. So Chrétien is actually responsible for a few major Arthurian elements beyond Lancelot. He introduced the Lancelot-Guinevere romance subplot, and he also introduced the Grail, although it's not the Holy Grail yet. We'll get back to that in a minute because the Lancelot-Guinevere thing is kind of a big deal in all later versions of the mythos, usually credited with being a reason for the ultimate downfall of Camelot. But in Chrétien's version, Lancelot and
Guinevere's romance isn't characterized as a bad thing at all. It's a beautiful, secret, love affair that's not even a little bit wrong and how the heck did that happen? So one thing we have to understand for context here is that courtly love was just getting big in France around this time. Now, courtly love is a bit complicated. It's kind of a fusion of a few different ideas of love, none of which are native to France or even Western Europe. So those ideas of love are, respectively, Love for love's sake, which is the idea that love on it's own is enough reason to to pursue the whole thing which also handily sidesteps the idea of being morally wrong to be in love with someone who's married to somebody else. Exaltation of the Beloved Lady, which pretty much treats the lady involved as your personal goddess. Think Princess Bride's "as you wish" for an example of how that works. The ennobling power of love, the idea that being in love makes you more noble, or like, spiritually enlightened or something. And love is desire never to be fulfilled, the idea that courtly love can't really go anywhere. You just gotta stay in an eternal state of mutual pining until one of you dies or the whole thing goes public and falls apart. Now, one of the reasons why courtly love was showing up in France around this time was that the First Crusade had just wrapped up and all the French Crusaders were coming home, bringing some very interesting cultural ideas back with them. Also, the Reconquista was in full swing, causing a similar cultural bleed into France from Muslim Spain. This is relevant all four of these courtly love elements can be easily traced back to contemporary to Islamic and Arabic notions of love. Love for love's sake and Exaltation of the Beloved Lady are both themes of Arabic literature in the 9th and 10th century while the the ennobling power of love is discussed in length by Avicenna in his early 11th century treatise on love and love is desire never to be fulfilled is a major theme in Arabic poetry as well as the general idea that love is something that completes a person and is basically a form of enlightenment, which also shows up in courtly love. So courtly love was getting big in France right about now and, as a result, Chrétien wrote a lot of courtly love stories, which is what Lancelot and Guinevere's whole thing was. In the first story that they appear together in, Lancelot rescues Guinevere from this bad guy, Meleagant, they spend a passionate night together, and they end up a classic courtly love relationship, where it's basically a very careful dance so they don't get exposed, while still being properly infatuated with one another. Lancelot has all kinds of trials and tribulations to defend Guinevere's honor, Guinevere at one point tells him to deliberately lose a tournament to prove his love for her, but when he starts losing she's all like "I changed my mind" and it ends up with them very carefully hugging in public. While the secrecy of their relationship is prioritized, they're never characterized as being in the wrong for pursuing that relationship. Guinevere is married to Arthur, but she's in love with Lancelot. A very classic courtly love set up. Lancelot and Guinevere sleeping together despite Guinevere being married was justified by love for love's sake, and the whole thing actually made Lancelot more noble rather than less via the ennobling power of love part. And of course, since they could never properly be together, they hit that last part bang-on: their love could never be fulfilled. We'll get to the problems this caused later. Chrétien and also introduced the concept of the Grail: In the story of the Fisher King, who you also might have heard of. The Fisher King's whole thing is that he's a king who's been wounded in a very unfortunate place, and as a result, can't have children. This has detrimental effects on his kingdom, which becomes a wasteland as a result of the king's infertility. So a knight named Percival stumbles on the Fisher King and is invited to a banquet, but warned against talking too much. While there, he sees a procession of people carrying weird stuff, like a bleeding lance and a candelabrum, and finally a girl carrying a Grail. Afterwards, one of the courtiers angrily tells him that if he'd just asked who the Grail was for and why the lance was bleeding, the Fisher King's injury would be healed and they'd have all been saved. Percival then has to embark on a bunch of quests to fix his mistake, although annoyingly, Chrétien didn't actually finish this story, so we don't get a resolution until later writers stepped in to write Percival returning and healing the Fisher King. So after that, the next major part of Arthurian literature is probably one of the most famous ones, too - it's called the Vulgate Cycle, written in the early 1200s and, among other things, it does a lot to Christianize the mythos, adding things like the "Holy" part to the Holy Grail and things like consequences for adultery to Lancelot's personal character arc. The Vulgate cycle also produces Le Morte d'Arthur, written by Thomas Malory a couple centuries later, which is basically just the same stories but rewritten a little bit for clarity. So to start off, before the Vulgate cycle was written, this dude, Robert de Boran wrote a poem about Merlin, fleshing out his backstory. And the poem has been lost, but it was transcribed into prose and incorporated into the Vulgate, which is why we still know basically what it said. Now, De Boran went ham on the Christianization for Merlin's backstory. Prior to this, Merlin had been kind of purposefully mysterious. He was heavily based on two quasi-historical figures: one a mad prophet and bard named some Welsh thing that I have no hope of pronouncing but is spelled like this, and the other one Aurelius Ambrosius, a cryptic wise dude with unclear origins. Boran tosses that at the window and makes Merlin the Antichrist. Or, rather, an attempted Antichrist. Basically, a cabal of demons got together and sent an incubus to impregnate a virgin. But said virgin objected, told her confessor and the two of them baptized baby Merlin and saved him from potential Antichristness. His demonic heritage gave him some nifty superpowers, like shape-shifting, as well as a perfect knowledge of the past and present, but he was also given the power of prophecy by God, making him pretty close to omniscient. Boran also expanded Merlin's mythical role in Arthur's upbringing, expanding it from "orchestrated his conception" to "advised him throughout his childhood and adulthood," turning Merlin into a more permanent presence in Arthur's life. The Vulgate cycle also introduces the concept that Arthur wasn't known to be Uther Pendragon's son and heir, and had to prove his credentials by pulling Excalibur out of an anvil. So this is also the origin of the sword in the stone concept. In this version, Merlin's story ends kind of tragically, or hilariously, depending on your perspective. Basically, he falls in love with this lady, Niviane, who was incredibly uninterested in him and grossed out by both his persistence, his oldness, and his demon heritage. When Merlin won't leave her alone, Niviane asks him to pretty please teach her everything he knows about magic, and when he does, she uses her newfound powers to seal him away so he'll leave her alone. Points for problem solving. Anyway, along with that stuff, we also get more focus on Arthur's knights when we get to the quest for the Holy Grail, which also introduces Galahad: the illegitimate son of Lancelot and Elaine, who, because Lancelot was strictly a one-woman guy, magically transformed herself into Guinevere to get him to sleep with her. Galahad is basically Lancelot, but better Like, "not sleeping with another man's wife" better. Galahad kicks off his being-better-than-Lancelot-ness by sitting in a chair that will only allow the Grail Knight to sit in it or else it'll kill him. Galahad, not dying, is recognized as the Grail Knight, and lest, the one who will find the Holy Grail. He also pulls a magic sword out of a stone, just because he wasn't symbolically significant enough already. The knights do some jousting and some partying and a few people mentioned that this Galahad kid seems a lot like Lancelot, only better somehow. And that evening, they all have a vision of the Holy Grail covered by a cloth, which also magically makes a bunch of food appear out of nowhere. Gawain declares that he wants to actually see the Grail, and this prompts 150 of Arthur's knights to decide to go on a quest for the Grail, which Arthur thinks is a bad idea and blames Gawain for it. So Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, Percival, and Bors, along with 145 other knights who are significantly more disposable, all independently head off to quest for the Grail. And by the way, this Percival is the same Percival as was in the older Grail story, too, basically being slotted into the story as the previous Grail Knight candidate so Galahad can also be shown to be cooler than him. But on top of showing off how cool Galahad is, the whole story is basically about driving home how NOT cool Lancelot is, because pretty much every turn in his quest is some other God-given sign that he's not worthy of seeing the Grail. This culminates in him actually reaching the Grail chamber, at which point it shoots a fireball at him and knocks him out for three and a half weeks. Galahad, meanwhile, having spent his quest time fighting villains, rescuing maidens, repairing swords with a single touch and healing the Fisher King, (because, oh yeah, that's still a thing) finally reaches the Grail with Percival and Bors in tow, at which point, after some shenanigans, Galahad gets carried up to heaven by a choir of angels and the Grail is never seen again. Lancelot, having learned a valuable lesson about his sinful ways, resolves to stop with the adultery: a resolution which lasts till about the next time he sees Guinevere. Basically, what we're seeing here is the collision between the concept of courtly love as a good thing and the concept of being faithful to your husband as a good thing, running up a kind of a weird moral conflict as a result of these two conflicting visions of what love and marriage should really mean. Anyway, alongside all that Lancelot drama, we also get some major developments in the character of Morgan Le Fay. Now, we haven't talked about her yet because she hasn't really been important up till now, although her character does feature early as Geoffrey's Historia, where she's characterized as the eldest of nine obviously fae sisters who live in Avalon. She's fully benevolent in that version, and is in fact the one who heals Arthur while he's resting in Avalon. Chrétien introduced the idea of Morgan being Arthur's sister, as well as her future rivalry and dislike of Guinevere. And the Vulgate cycle expands on this by giving her a whole backstory. In this version, Morgan is the older half-sister to King Arthur, and she's betrothed by her stepfather Uthor to an allied king she doesn't really like. Morgan, in classic teen rebel form, expresses her displeasure by sleeping around a whole bunch, but is caught by Guinevere, which kicks off her famous rivalry with both Guinevere and Arthur. Morgan is, among other things, very well studied, learning astronomy, astrology, magic, healing, etc. She studies under Merlin for a while, but mostly spends her time coming up with highly complex magical schemes to try and bring Guinevere and Arthur down. One of her more famous attempts, documented in "Gawain and the Green Knight," involves her conscripting an indestructible knight to go to Arthur's court and get his head chopped off in the hopes that the shock of his sight will cause Guinevere to drop dead on the spot. It's all very "Wile E. Coyote." We touched on this when we talked about the Grail, but throughout the Vulgate cycle, Guinevere and Lancelot are (of course) continuing their courtly love tryst. But probably due to the Christianization of this version of the story, this is treated less like noble courtly love and more like garden-variety adultery. This version is also the first telling where Mordred discovers their affair, but though he tries to persuade the other knights to kick up a fuss about it, nobody does. In fact, Arthur learns about the whole cheating thing from Morgan the Fae, but it's not actually one of her schemes or anything. See, after a long and varied career of trying to destroy Arthur and all he holds dear, Morgan just kind of stops one day, and Arthur just kind of assumes she's dead, until he stumbles on her castle several years later to discover that she's not only alive, but totally reformed and is, in fact, planning on moving to Avalon to live with all the other sorceresses. While he's there, Morgan decides that she can't keep Lancelot's tryst a secret from him and shows him the giant painting Lancelot made one of the times he was in prison there, documenting the whole affair, for SOME REASON. I don't know. Lancelot is stupid. Anyway, Arthur is very upset, returns to Camelot, kicks off a huge conflict with Lancelot, who runs away to Gaul, and while Arthur's away fighting Lancelot, Mordred casually usurps the throne. In this version, Mordred fails to marry Guinevere because she hides from him in the Tower of London, but beyond that, the rest plays out about as expected. Arthur returns, strife of Camlann, Mordred dies, etc, etc, etc. In this version, Morgan completes her redemption arc by being the first of the sorceresses to arrive to ferry Arthur off to Avalon. In the aftermath of that whole debacle, Guinevere becomes a nun, Lancelot becomes a monk, and thanks to a promise he made at one point, he can't even be buried alongside his love when he dies, because the moral of the Vulgate is that adultery is bad, kids. Now, one meta thing we gotta talk about is that, although Arthurian folklore has a lot of Christian elements, (what with the Holy Grail and all) it's also got a lot of traditional Celtic folklore wrapped up in it (or Pagan if that's how you want to phrase it). I mean, Morgan the Fae literally means Morgan the Fairy. The Lady of the Lake is blatantly supernatural without being divine, and in the 14th century poem "Gawain and the Green Knight," the Green Knight is a suspiciously fae-like entity (what with the immortality, the illusions, the green aesthetic, etc.), and he might actually be a variant of the mysterious folkloric Green Man. And despite the fact that the Christianization of the story is almost as old as the idea of transcribing the story, Celtic folklore elements kept getting added in for centuries! They're not all holdovers from the original telling, whatever that was. The idea that Excalibur was a gift from the mysterious fairytale Lady of the Lake is as late as the 1400s, not an original pre-Christian idea. The stories were getting more Pagan elements at the same time that they were getting more Christian elements, and there's a lot of debate over how exactly this fusion of antithetical worldviews happened, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably a fairly classical case of belief systems intersecting without colliding. Now, I've noticed this a lot, especially in the more historically Celtic parts of Europe. A lot of fairy stories and ideas have survived to the modern day: not as fun mythical folklore, but just as stuff people know is true. Ireland still doesn't pave over fairy circles! And from this angle, the coexistence of Christianity with a fundamentally Pagan belief system of fairy tale supernatural interference is actually pretty precedented. Again, though, just a theory, and we don't know for certain what the logic behind the folklore was, because it's been, you know, centuries. Now, after Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur, which was basically just a remix of the Vulgate Cycle, there was kind of a lull in interest in Arthurian mythos for a few hundred years. People stopped writing proper Arthurian poetry, and there was also growing concern about the historicity of King Arthur and whether any of the stories about him could be considered even a little bit true, or if he even existed. These questions were uncomfortable because Arthur was kinda the foundation of the whole matter of Britain and the idea that he maybe didn't exist was uncomfortable in a lot of ways. So no Arthurian stuff really happened until the early 1800s, when Le Morte d'Arthur was reprinted for the first time in over a century. Now with the benefit of nostalgia, Arthurian folklore got popular again in a big way, as a romanticized ideal of chivalry and stuff. Unfortunately, World War One apparently kind of bruised the popularity of the chivalry idea, but the story stayed popular and has continued to be popular into the modern day. Now, the canon of modern Arthurian folklore isn't really the same as the Vulgate or Morte d'Arthur canon. There's been drift over the past few centuries, and I think this is because the way we think about King Arthur has changed. Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing a fictionalized history that was still supposed to be grounded in real historical events. Chrétien used Geoffrey's Arthurian canon to glorify his character Lancelot, and with him, the French ideals of courtly love. The following centuries brought heavy Christianization and an exploration of Christian themes, ascribing Merlin's magic to demonic power, making Morgan the Fae a scholar instead of a spirit, and using Lancelot's fundamentally contradictory characterization of supposed noble paragon AND chronic adulterer to explore the notions of sin and impurity in the quest for the Holy Grail and the ultimate downfall of Camelot. In the centuries of lapsed interest in Arthurian canon, Arthur was rarely discussed, and only ever used for political commentary on modern events. For the past thousand years, Arthurian canon has been used to glorify specific movements and agendas, but recently we've stopped adding to Arthurian canon and have started reimagining it. Arthurian canon has basically gotten the urban fantasy treatment. Rather than focusing on the story itself, we treat it like source material. Everyone knows King Arthur, but what if King Arthur was a lady? Everyone knows Merlin. But what if Merlin was a skinny British kid? Everyone knows Mordred. But what if Mordred has a sympathetic pawn of his evil mother? Maybe to spice up your modern urban fantasy story, you should have the Fisher King show up, or make the bad guy Morgan the Fae, or throw the Grail in there for funsies. Basically, rather than treating the Arthurian mythos like historical fact or moral creed, we're treating it like a mythology. And just like modern urban fantasy will casually mix up the events of major Norse myths for the sake of an incredibly entertaining movie, rewrite Greek myths to be more character-driven, or just straight-up make up new gods, King Arthur's entire story is basically an open source grab bag of modern fantasy ideas. And on top of that, modern writing also puts a lot more focus on character-driven storytelling than story-driven storytelling. Up until now, Arthurian canon has been written and expanded on for specific reasons. People added adventures to provide precedent for social movements or add in characters they liked, but a lot of modern writing puts almost all of the focus on dealing with characterization, with the story mostly providing context for that characterization, rather than writing stories with the characters being incidental or vehicles for the plot. And because of this focus in characterization, everyone taking that angle focuses very specifically on two parts of Arthurian mythos: Lancelot, Guinevere, and Arthur's whole situation, and Mordred. Now, the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur thing has two major angles: either Lancelot is the good guy or Arthur is. If Lancelot's the good guy, then Arthur's characterization gets pulled into being a bad husband. Either he's neglectful because he has to go fight all these wars, or he's a full-on jerk, or he's boring and Lancelot is by contrast a noble, heroic paragon here to rescue Guinevere from her lousy husband with the power of love. If Arthur's the good guy, then Lancelot will be an egotistical, self-centered jerk who betrays his trust without thinking and Arthur will be a beleaguered, betrayed man whose kingly duty demands that he execute his wife and hunt down his best knight. Either way, plenty of good characterization stuff to exploit. Arthur's characterization is further jerked around by the character of Mordred. So, in the first texts that specify Mordred's relationship to Arthur, he's written to be his nephew: the son of Arthur's half-sister Morgause. Later versions changed it up so that Mordred was also Arthur's illegitimate son. But the modern version of Mordred is the son of Morgan Le Fay, conceived by Arthur and used by Morgan as one of her many schemes to bring Arthur down. You may note this has zero precedent in the mythos. Morgan and Morgause are different characters, and Morgan and Mordred canonically have nothing to do with each other. Not only that, but Mordred's decision to usurp Arthur's throne is always his own ambition. Also, lest we forget, Morgan le Fey has already given up on being evil for years by the time Mordred does his traitor thing and Arthur falls. But the modern tellings combined the disparate elements of Mordred's betrayal and Morgan's routine scheming into one significantly nastier, game-changing plot, wherein Morgan bears Arthur's illegitimate son and specifically raises him to overthrow his father and claim his throne, which is a lot more evil than hiring a local fairy to prank Guinevere and hoping she dies from it. But as a side effect, this also changes Arthur and Mordred's entire dynamic. Classically, Mordred is the traitor and Arthur is the good king brought down, but in this version, Arthur's not so good - - what would the whole illegitimate child thing - and Mordred isn't the traitor. He's the pawn in his mother's schemes. Or, from another angle, Arthur's tragic karmic downfall brought on by his own wrongdoing. Mordred becomes sympathetic and Arthur becomes morally complex, at the cost of Morgan becoming a whole lot morally simpler. So the moral of this complex, century-spanning story is: if Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot had all just been honest about their feelings and entered into a mutually supportive romantic relationship, we could have called it a polyarmory. Thank you and good night. If ever I would leave you... I wouldn't be in Summer. Seeing you in summer. I never would go Your hair streaked with sunlight, Your lips red as flame, Your face with a lustre That puts gold to shame! But if I'd ever leave you, It couldn't be in autumn. How I'd leave in autumn I never will know. I've seen how you sparkle When fall nips the air. I know you in autumn And I must be there. And could I leave you running merrily through the snow? Or on a wintry evening when you catch the fire's glow? If ever I would leave you, How could it be in springtime? Knowing how in spring I'm bewitched by you so? Oh, no, not in springtime! Summer, winter or fall! No, never could I leave you at all!
Moral of the stories: don't think with your dick.
Maybe think twice before dicking the king's wife. Maybe think twice before teaching someone magic just to get laid. A lot of these problems could be avoided if they didn't just think with their dicks.
A neat little vid about the history of the Arthurian legend.
In the end Lancelot got the short end of the stick and Mordred was changed to be pawn.
Man this is pretty good. Might sub to this channel.
I'm surprised she didn't use the Kids Proving Themselves joke again when talking about Gallahad/Arthur
that was my favorite
I always love watching their videos. Fun and informative.
Also scrolling down to see the occasional fate related comments.Senpai! It seems you've forgotten to properly flair your post, but this kouhai will gladly do it for you. Simply reply to my comment with one of these flairs and I'll change it myself. Just put the flair title inside brackets, like so '[Fluff]'.
soo...at what point does arthur grow a vag? after or before pulling excalibur?
In wich version of the legend Morgan was called Morganna ?
I love this channel. The comments on the video include a lot of fate references.