Was King Arthur bad? What are some stories in Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur that describe him negatively?
78956
King Arthur was fictitious.
489187
This is what I found on-line...\n\nThe Crystal Cave, the first book of Mary Stewart's classic Arthurian saga, begins the tale of Merlin, long before he became a magician and a druid. From his conception, the unlikely offspring of a Welsh king's daughter and his enemy's son was more than he seemed.\n\nAs a child, he had the Sight and a talent for remaining unnoticed while he gleaned information. An intelligent and quick child, he often knew who was coming before they arrived. Merlin also knew when his uncle offered him a poisoned peach. This ability was dangerous, and led him to study the natural world with Galapas. The night that his grandfather died, Merlin was able to escape the tender mercies of his uncle Camlach by setting a fire to cover his escape.\n\nHe fled to Brittany, not entirely under his own power, and met with Ambrosius, a powerful man who planned to depose Vortigern to become King of Britain. Soon, he becomes a friend to Ambrosius, though seen as a rival by Uther, Ambrosius' brother and war leader. With his Sight and further training as a druid and an engineer, Merlin's brains are as vital to the campaign of Ambrosius as Uther's brawn.\n\nOn a reconnaissance trip to Wales, Merlin is brought to the attention of Vortigern. There, he proves Vortigern's advisers wrong, and with his engineering skills helps to build a wall that previously would not stand. So begins Merlin's rise as the power behind the throne of Britain. This book follows Merlin's exploits, and ends with the magic and trickery surrounding the conception of Arthur -- the bedding of Uther and Ygraine.\n\nThough Merlin's youth is surrounded in mystery and legend, Stewart crafts these tales into a winning novel that gives the reader a sense of Merlin as a person rather than as an icon of Arthurian legend. Mary Stewart begins her series with a lovely piece of fiction that stands well on its own as well as setting the stage for Camelot.
290980
He is considered the Greatest writer of the French Farce. Which is a lot like a the formula or template that current writers of sitcoms use today. Moliere's vernacular is really the only difference in what was funny then and what is funny now. He also ventured into headier stuff such as the Misanthrope which really doesnt follow the farce template but is genius just the same. He was the leader of a comedy troupe that traveld throughout the french provincials putting on shows to great success. He eventually would play for the royal court of france. He made fun of the pretense of the time and the misguided women and men of privilage. Suggested primer...The Misanthrope and other Plays, A New Selection. Penguin Books. Translated by John Wood and David Coward.
455238
Sir Galahad; As I heard the story, the lady of the lake told Arthur to find his champion on the far side of the sea. He made the trip and found Lancelot (we all know how that turned out).\n\nLancelot was good, but it was not he the Lady of the lake spoke of. She meant for Arthur tu find his son, Galahad (who was way too young at the time)
107622
I'm not sure what your question is, but for information about the story of the Wife of Bath from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales check out the links below.\n\nShe is a very interesting character.
541945
Unfortunately this quote is famous because several knights who were drunk and lingering outside the door overheard this and went to go "help" their king. They killed Thomas Becket and it is said the cut his head off.  The King grief stricken by his good friends death sent the knights to the holy land (Jerusalem), an effective death sentence, to make penance for their crimes against the church and god.\nG
236342
Henry VIII \nby William Shakespeare (1564-1616) \nType of Work: \nHistorical, fictional play \nSetting\nLondon, England; 16th century \nPrincipal Characters\nHenry VIII, Tudor King of England \nKatherine of Aragon, Queen of England \nAnne Bullen, Henry's lover and subsequent queen\nWolsey, ambitious Cardinal of York \nDuke Buckingham, Wolsey's adversary\nDuke of Norfolk and Duke of Suffolk, also Wolsey's enemies\nCranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury \nStory Overview\nTwo noblemen, the Dukes Norfolk and Buckingham, met in the palace to converse. Norfolk was angered by the audacity of Henry VIII, who had signed a peace treaty with Francis I of France - a treaty financed by Cardinal Wolsey of York. Norfolk warned his friend of Wolsey's equal hatred for Buckingham: "Like it your grace, the state takes notice of the private difference betwixt you and the cardinal. I advise you ... that you read the cardinal's malice and his potency together: to consider further, that, what his high hatred would effect wants not a minister in his power." \n\nJust then Wolsey entered the palace and, after exchanging disdainful glances with Buckingham, headed towards the king's chamber. "I read in's looks matter against me," Buckingham whispered. "And his eye reviled me as his abject object .... He's gone to th'king!" Taking note of Buckingham's alarm and anger, Norfolk advised him to act prudently. Still, shortly thereafter, Buckingham was arrested for treason. \n\nMeanwhile, in the throne room, Queen Katherine chided her husband about the heavy tax burden that Wolsey had ostensibly levied on the people. "Your subjects are in great grievance," she said, " and almost appear in loud rebellion." Unknown to King Henry, Norfolk had in actuality instituted a tax, in an effort to stir up Henry's subjects against the cardinal. The king demanded to know what she meant: "Taxation? Wherein? and what taxation? My lord Cardinal ... know you of this taxation?" When Wolsey denied an y knowledge of the affair, Henry immediately had the collections stopped. \n\nKatherine later inquired about the Duke of Buckingham. Why had he been arrested? Henry and Wolsey brought forth their witness to Buckingham's treason. This man claimed to have heard Buckingham say, in effect, that if the king should die without male posterity then he would make the throne his own. Wolsey also stepped forward and further testified that Buckingham had suggested he would go so far as to kill the king in order to gain the scepter. Henry was convinced: "By day and night, he's traitor to the height." \n\nThat week, at a party given by Cardinal Wolsey, Henry met Anne Bullen. He was taken by her beauty and impulsively kissed her. And, on the following day, Henry sent Lord Chamberlain to bestow upon Anne the title of "Marchioness of Pembroke; to which ... a thousand pounds a year, annual support, out of his grace he adds." Hours later, Buckingham was declared guilty of treason and condemned to die. \n\nNow Henry, in the same way that he was accustomed to executing slanderous dukes, was prone also to divorcing his wives. With King Henry's infatuation with Anne, prompt separation from Queen Katherine was inevitable. A court of divorce was convened, in which Katherine, kneeling at Henry's feet, pled her case: "Alas, sir, in what have I offended you?... I have been to you a true and humble wife, at all times to your will conformable ... When was the hour, I ever contradicted your desire, Or made it not mine too?" Then Katherine directed her ire toward Wolsey: "I do believe ... that you are mine enemy; and make my challenge, you shall not be my judge." But Wolsey refused to step down from the judge's seat, and Katherine, realizing that she had already lost her cause to Henry's whims, retired. "The queen of earthly queens," Henry lament
489895
Yeah, they all seem to be about horrible things.  Like "Ring Around The Rosy".  It's about the plague in the medieval times.  Great music!
738244
As of now, despite research, King Arthur, his knights, Excalibur, and Camelot are considered fiction.  It is believed that once there may have been an Arthur who was a warlord, who was probably the basis for the first story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable.  There are people (even archeaologists and historians) who believe there may have been a real King Arthur and a true Camelot (and Avalon), but the scientific proof has not been discovered yet.
377863
If you are talking about the legendary castle:  It depends on who is telling the story.  Different versions of the legend, from the ancient folk tales to the Victorian poets.  The first link has different retellings of the Arthurian legend.\n\nIf you are talking about the historical figure of Arthur, who may or may not have existed:  There is a sight in Cadbury, England, which is usually pointed to as the "historical Camelot;" it was an ancient hillfort.  There have been stone age, Roman and Saxon artifacts unearthed in the area.  Life inside and around its walls depended on who was in charge at the time, and whether there was peace or war.  It was probably a site of battles, as well as a place of residence.  The second two links have information about the Cadbury site.
896587
Monty Python and the Holy Grail tends to make fun more of the romanticised view of knights and the middle ages created by Renaissance and Victorian story writers rather than real minstrels/ knights etc.\n\nThe minstrels in Holy Grail were depicted in this vein. In the romanticised version they were hangers on who just sang the praises of their lords (although in Holy Grail, the minstrels made fun of Sir Robin's cowardice instead - at least until they were eaten). Real minstrels were more likely to be multi-skilled high ranking servants in a court of a king or lord, specialising partly in entertainment, but also partly in retelling oral history. Minstrels were adept at recognising the emblems of lords and kings and would also act as heralds, and as signallers in battle (with trumpet or drum signals). Travelling minstrels (or troubadours) wandered the country earning what they could from entertaining the people. These tended to play coarser songs that appealed to the common people (they also tended to be thieves).\n\nThe idea of "courtly love" and protecting those in distress is also largely a victorian myth. Codes of Chivalry existed, about not killing those who had surrendered etc, but was only practiced amongst the knights themselves. If you were a peasant, you didn't count. The idea of knights storming castles to rescue damsels in distress, as Lancelot does when he storms Swamp Castle, were created by Victorian writers selling the idea that women were to be weak and submissive. In fact, Medieval women were not particularly weak and submissive and there are a number who were war heros in their own right.\n\nMonty Python and the Holy Grail is not a satire per se, but rather a gently pastiche of all of those swashbuckling movies of the 50s and 60s (often starring Errol Flynn or Burt Lancaster) that the Pythons probably remember watching as kids (mixed up for good measure with ideas from Dante etc that both Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam were fond of, hence the muck and disease). The animation comes about, partly because it's a recognisable element from "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and partly because they were working on a very small budget and couldn't afford anything better (hence also the coconuts). The "documentary" sequence with the Famous Historian were relics from earlier drafts of the script where Arthur's knights eventually found the Holy Grail in the modern day, in Harrods.
307096
Two stories from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales that serve as excellent demonstrations of irony are "The Pardoners Tale" and "The Nun's Priest's Tale."  Although these two stories are very different, they both use irony to teach a lesson. \n\nIn "The Pardoner's Tale," the Pardoner uses his story to speak out against many social problems, all of which he is guilty of. He preaches about drunkenness, and he is intoxicated while telling the story. Blasphemy and greed are other problems he speaks of. Ironically, he attempts to sell fake religious relics and is incredibly avaricious.\n\nIn the "Nun's Priest's Tale" we start with the romance, a genre traditionally featuring knights and their ladies, and hardly anyone else at all. The first information we have about Chauntecleer is that "In all the land, of crowyng nas his peer" (4040). This is a perfect opening for a romance in which the heroic central character is usually introduced as the 'best' of all his kind. However, in this context the description pokes fun at the heroic tradition on two counts - 'crowyng' is not heroic, and it is not particularly astonishing that Chauntecleer does it well - it is the natural thing that roosters do.\n\nThe tale moves on to describe Chauntecleer using a classic descriptive technique of a poet lover; described from head to toe with the gorgeous colours of jewels and flowers. It is absurd when applied to Chauntecleer, because it is usually used to describe a beautiful young woman. Ironically the description fits Chauntecleer perfectly, evoking the vainly strutting beauty of this beast.
986123
Isn't it supposed to be based on the conqueror Vlad The Impaler in Romania? Google it, you will see....\n\nFictional character based on a real evil person.
115188
I remember reading somewhere one time that the faeries were mischevious and could be evil while the fairies were good...
585140
VERY GOOD. So true, and yet so many say He let them down when it was them that told him to leave.\n\nDo not listen to these degenerates that say it is not good. Honey Hod gave you a talent use it and do not listen to nay sayers.
207730
creteon (the king)is the main character. he was greedy.
130445
Language and Culture:Well depending what literary and historical version your basing your King Arthur on, your language and culture could be vastly different.  If you want the first historical version of King Arthur back as far as the 5th-8th century A.D., your Arthur would have spoken some kind of Celtic/Roman language, and would have been living in vary barbariac circumstances.  If you like T.H. Whites' and  Malory's accounts of Arthur, you are looking at a more civilized Camelot, that would probably speak proper English, and be following the chivalric code.\nRoyalty: The early 5th-8th century Royalty would have been anyone who had Roman ties or had proven himself on the battlefield.  The later 'versions' of Camelot, are going to be what we think of Royalty today, Kings&Queens, everyone who is related to them would lords and ladies, then slightly lower on the rank would be your Knights and Church bishops, and sinking further still...\nImmortality: Historically, King Arthur died on the Battlefield at Badon.  However, in literature King Arthur is taken to Avalon to recover from his fatal wounds, and their lies sleeping till Britain needs him again.