The Sad Thing About Les Prophéties Is That There Is No Known English Translation (yet). There's This

I normally don't like Tennyson's narrative around the female characters due to his framing of them being the source of all the faults in Camelot.

But there's a part of this story that often catches my attention and its Guinevere's rejection of Arthur:

Like, I can't help but dig idea that Guinevere rejects Arthur because of his virtue. As if his holy character actively irritates her.

If I was writing, I would take it further and outright imply Guinevere is some kind of demonic being. If Tennyson can get away with turning Arthur into a mysterious, divine entity that Merlin found instead of being born of Uther's misdeeds, then I don't see why I can't apply that to Gwen.

Welsh Myth already provides the idea of Guinevere as a Fae/Giantess so I would just present her as a "Reverse Persephone" -

Guinevere is actually a mysterious girl who came up from the "Kingdom beneath the Earth", "a daughter of a Colossus of Old" and is reared as ward of one of Arthur's vassals. Arthur, being taken by her beauty, took her as his wife. "And so, the Worthiest and Most Righteous King on Earth married a she-devil, the fairest of all her race, and made her his Queen."

The reason she finds Arthur repulsive is because she's a "primal spirit" who was born deep underground and can't stand the presence of someone so "Heavenly", so divorced from "the touch of the Earth". Camelot falls into "sinfulness" because Guinevere is in fact a physical avatar of all Materialism and Worldly Values, both good and bad.

And instead of Guinevere repenting of her actions, I would just take a cue from E.A. Robinson and have Gwen reject Arthur to the very end:

And if Arthur and Guinevere ever meet again, Guinevere could go as far as threaten to eat Arthur - "as is the habit of my kind, says the Queen" - especially if Arthur starts posturing about his (Victorian) morals and being chaste for her.

If there was a way to present Guinevere as a proper Anti-heroine or compelling villainess without the usual sexism/misogyny, this is how I would do it.

She's not so much an actively evil force as she is simply incompatible with the "Blameless" Arthur and indeed, the marriage's eventual failure was inevitable.

But for a time, while the marriage endured, Camelot was the place where the Spiritual and Material meet as fellows and prosperity ensued.

From Le Roman des Franceis (AKA Li Romanz des Franceis or Arflet) by André de Coutance, in which the poet is very concerned about the widespread(?) slanderous accusations that King Arthur was killed and replaced as king by a giant cat.

The problem with antisemitism and anti-Zionism

Someone recently reblogged this post I shared that called out antisemitism in pro-Palestinian rallies. An action I was initially happy about, until I went into this person's blog, and saw a lot of posts that I, as an Israeli-Jewish person, find incredibly antisemitic. I found myself utterly baffled by that. Because this person clearly recognized the things said in these rallies were extremely antisemitic, and yet, they posted a lot of things that were rooted in the same antisemitic worldview. Can't they see it? And I think the main problem with the current pro-Palestinian movement is that they honestly can't see the line between being on the side of compassion and humanity and being critical of Israel's actions, to spreading horrible lies and dehumanizing Israelis and Jewish people. And the ugly truth these people refuse to face is that the reason they can't see when they cross this line is probably unconscious antisemitism.

You don't need to hate Jewish people to be antisemitic

Antisemitism, like many other forms of racism, often works on an unconscious level. Maybe you have Jewish friends. Maybe you fought for better Jewish representation in media. Maybe you are even Jewish yourself. But over the years you have been exposed to a lot of antisemitic ideas and stereotypes that altered your worldview and made you more vulnerable to believing Jewish people are the bad guys.

If your gut reaction to this is- "but Israel is actually doing bad things, so I'm actually right about hating them." Please keep reading.

Your idea of Israel and what it stands for is based on the worldview of the most radical right-wing Israeli activists at best, and blatant lies at worst.

Imagine if we took the words of the most radical Republicans out there, the ones that go after trans kids and believe women should have no right over their own bodies, and believe all Americans are supporting this idea. That wouldn't have been very fair of us, right? Because there are a lot of people in America who are fighting for a better future. A lot of people who are standing up for human rights.

Just like the United States isn't a homogeneous entity, filled with only trump supporters, Israel is also an incredibly diverse place, with people who have radically different ideas about how Israel should look. Even the current Israeli government, which is extremely right-wing, and has people in it I personally believe should have never been in a position of power, is probably a lot less evil than you were led to believe by ill-intent strangers on the internet. Mainly because this is still a democratic government, in a democratic country, which has a lot of checks and balances that (for the most part) manage to prevent people with radical ideas from making them into official policies.

I don't blame you for believing the reports you see from Gaza. As a pacifist, and as someone who voted for left-wing parties ever since I was eligible to vote, someone who truly believes the Palestinians has a right to self-determination and sees how problematic the occupation is, I struggle a lot when I see posts about the suffering of the people in Gaza. Wars are horrible. I never want to see other people suffer. Let alone children. I wish I could go there right now and take all of them somewhere safe. I wish none of this was happening.

But I also know who my people are, and the values they stand for. And what I noticed about these anti-zionist posts is that they are often written in a biased, misleading way. They often attribute malicious intentions to Israel's actions. And they often jump to conclusions, without giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Without asking the right questions. And often, without any sort of proof. Some of these posts are outrageous lies. Others are incredibly biased and fail to mention the terrorist organization Israel is fighting against.

Only a small amount of them are coming from unbiased sources that describe the reality of the situation without giving in to personal interpretation.

But most of you can't tell the difference. You are seeing lies about how IDF soldiers are targeting children, or about how Israel is lying about their true evil intentions, and you accept them as the truth, without questioning the intention of the person who wrote that post. Without stopping to think this is incredibly dehumanizing to think Israeli people are capable of such monstrous actions. Without examining your own biases. And that's incredibly problematic, and yes, this is antisemitic. Because you would have never spread this kind of accusation about any other group of people without definitive proof.

This isn't to say our soldiers are never wrong, and that there aren't any bad apples, or even systematic problems in the IDF and every allegation should be thoroughly investigated, because any harm to innocent people is terrible, unavoidable as it may be. And ideally, even terrorists should get a fair trial.

But if you think soldiers in Israel defense forces, who are mostly 18-21-year-old Jewish men and women from all sides of the political spectrum, are inherently evil and baby killers, you are in fact antisemitic.

Even if you believe your type of anti Zionism isn't antisemitism being anti-zionist is still not a great position to take.

I never defined myself as a zionist before. But it was more to do with my own disconnection with Judaism and my ideas about the place of religion in modern society than my belief about the right of Israel to exist.

I think it would be amazing to live in a utopian world where we have one multicultural democratic state where everyone lives together in harmony. But I’m also a realistic person. And someone who wants to keep living as a free woman with full rights in my home country.

And while I never felt particularly zionist, I was never an anti-zionist, and I never believed zionist was a bad word.

I'm probably not the first person who tells you this, but Zionist isn't a synonym for "everything I hate about Israel". It doesn't mean "a person who supports the occupation", or even "a person who only cares about the life of Israelis" or "someone who fully supports the Israeli government".

So what does it actually say? Let's look at a dictionary definition.

Do you notice what the definition doesn't say? Anything about Israel's borders or about the idea of a Palestinian state. There are many types of Zionism, some more radical than others. But as I said before, is it really fair to judge an entire group of people based on the idea of the most radical of them?

The truth is, most of us just want to live in peace. We want to go to work without finding ourselves at the scene of a terror attack or running to the shelter because of rockets. We want all the hostages to come home. We want to feel safe in our own homes. This is what it means to be a zionist. This is what you are standing up against. Not the "occupation," or the "settlers" or the extremists in the government. Just regular people who want to live their lives.

Zionism isn't colonialism

Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel. This was the land we dreamed of in 2000 years of exile, and it's a huge part of our religion and our culture. This doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a claim to the land as well after living on it for so many years, or that what they went through in 1948 wasn't terrible, but it doesn't magically make Israelis into white colonialists who woke up one day and decided to take over a random land.

A lot of mistakes were made. In 1948, and especially in 1967. And we are paying for them now. But the idea that Israel is a colonialist state that represents everything that's wrong with society is entirely false.

If you support the existence of a Palestinian state but don't believe Israel deserves the same right, you need to ask yourself why that is the case.

Is that because you don't believe Jewish people when they tell you about their connection to the land of Israel? Because you think there is something inherently wrong with the existence of a state that is only for Jewish people? (But have no problem with all the Muslim and Christian states out there) Because you think Palestinian deserves to live from the river to the sea and Israelis should have nothing, or whatever the Palestinians would be willing to give them? Because you are more comfortable with the idea of Jewish people as a minority in a Palestinian Muslim state than the idea of them having their own free country? Because you think you know better than us what our future should look like?

Because all of these reasons are antisemitic.

Apparently, Camelot of Staten Island Inc. is a branch of a counseling service for people whose lives have been impacted by addictions, either their own or their loved ones’. I would say that some of the people of Arthurian Camelot could have used the services of their Staten Island counterparts were it not that the reviews are very few and several are terrible. I have no more intention of finding out whether Google’s exclusively one-star reviews are accurate than I have an understanding of why someone chose to name a street Arthur Kill Road.

Camelot Ballroom (Overland Park, KS) vs Camelot of Staten Island (Staten Island, NY (on Arthur Kill Road (I am not making that up))

I've only messaged people on Tumblr three times: the third when I didn't have an answer for an ask (I'm still working on it), the second when I had a question to ask someone which didn't seem big enough to be ask-worthy, and the first to a very prominent Arthurian blog which wasn't strongly related to my admittedly odd and random comment about the Grail questers but was the only Arthurian blog I'd encountered at that point, since I hadn't yet figured out how Tumblr worked or that I could post things. I'm a little mortified about that last one, but all three people were nice about it. Anyway, I don't make a habit of messaging people on here because I'm worried it would seem weird and invasive. Then again, if someone messaged me, I wouldn't find it either of those things. I don't think I'm alone in this: I can vaguely remember seeing a post where someone said they would feel like they were ambushing someone in a dark alley if they messaged someone but would be happy if someone messaged them.

Anyway, all that is to say I'm not really sure how Tumblr messaging culture works, but if you want to message me, feel free to. I won't think it's weird.

hi! i apologize if this is outside your ballpark. i recently came across a post about how religion appears in bbc's merlin and it got me thinking about religion in arthurian legend in general. i was wondering if you have any thoughts on the topic? what religions do the characters follow and how does it impact their lives? i know most of the 'cast' is christian but even then medieval christianity is different enough from modern christianity that i constantly feel like i'm missing some nuance/context when i read arthuriana. do other religions feature (such as judaism, islam, pagan spirituality) and are there any essays on it or books where that's explored? thank you for all you do and have a great day!

Hello!

So I’m definitely no religious scholar of any kind. Yet I somehow managed to write an obscenely long post in reply. I've provided copious amounts of literature on everything I'm discussing here, so I encourage anyone who sees this to read what's provided and form their own opinion. Although my reply is based on the Medieval stories I've read and quoted as well as the essays and books of people far more qualified than I am, it's still my own interpretation, and shouldn't be taken as the final word on this highly complex subject. If anyone finds something here I've gotten wrong, please don't hesitate to educate me otherwise and point me in a direction to learn more!

Without further ado...

The first thing anyone looking into this needs to understand is [most of] the Arthurian stories we have were drafted or documented by Christians, oftentimes monks (ie, people very devoted to their religion). Even the texts like the Mabinogion or The Welsh Triads, which contains no Christianity, wasn’t written down until the 12th century after the oral tradition had passed through the Christianizing of Britain. Not to mention translation bias, an oft overlooked factor. For example, French characters Lancelot and Galahad were retroactively added to The Welsh Triads to bring the Triads more in line with the widely popular French narrative. Translator Rachael Bromwich has excellent footnotes regarding this in the file I shared above. So just keep that in mind while reading/researching this subject.

More generally speaking, while some characters themselves aren’t Christian, such as Muslim Palomides or the occasional Jewish character, the texts are [mostly] from an overtly Islamphobic and antisemitic viewpoint. The depictions of religion in Medieval Arthuriana should never be taken as an indication of how things “really were,” either in the time it’s meant to take place (ie, the 5th-6th centuries when the Saxons were colonizing Britain) or the time/place it was written in (ie Chrétien de Troyes wrote from his own 12th century Breton perspective). Point being, it’s all very biased. Perception heavily depends on the place and year things were written and translated. If you're ever unsure which translation of a text will best suit your needs, whether that means accuracy, readability, or containing more robust footnotes, don't hesitate to ask.

That being said, the differences you’re touching on regarding Medieval versus Modern Christianity sometimes stems from Christian Mysticism, which was a prevalent theology in the Middle Ages and still exists today (albeit to a lesser degree). Some contemporary sources on this would be:

The Confessions by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo

The Book of Divine Works by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume I by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Letters of Hildegard von Bingen Volume II by Saint Hildegard von Bingen

The Book of Margery Kempe by Margery Kempe.

Now the thing with Christianity in history and Arthuriana is that the lines between orthodox practice and the mystical was blurred. On an episode about charms, the Medieval Podcast (also available on any podcasting platform like Spotify) explains how people bought and used charms all the time, even within their Christian practice. To them, it was a part of their worship. They may have chanted some words over a sick friend while anointing certain parts of the body in the hopes it would aid in healing. Depending on the time and place, this may or may not have been openly discussed for fear of repercussions or accusations of blasphemy, but it was common enough for historians to have gathered a multitude of examples preserved in spell books. To a desperate Medieval Christian, one of these charms occupied a similar place to Pray the Rosary or Hail Marys in hopes of boosting the success of their endeavor.

So in a similar vein, that concept is sometimes stretched for the sake of an Arthurian story. What you end up with are characters like Merlin, supposedly half-demon, but baptized, therefore his purified magic and prophesizing is considered "Christian;" Morgan le Fay, raised in a nunnery, yet learned necromancy from the holy sisters; and Gawain, who obtained his sun powers, as well as his name, from the hermit that baptized him. At least, so it goes in the Vulgate.

In a way, these people are not magical through their own power, but channeling the divine with the help of their Christian education in order to bestow those benefits, often health, strength, or prosperity related, onto others. (You'll see a lot of real life examples in the contemporary sources I linked above.) Vulgate editor Norris J. Lacy and his translation team left a footnote on the Gawain passage explaining the history of the Gawain/Gwalchmai character that lead me to theorize that this passage might be an attempt by Anonymous to maintain those heightened magical powers while offering a palatable Christian explanation for it.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the characters are staunchly Christian, and yet the presence of a green-skinned knight astride a green horse who can survive a beheading is seen as marvelous, even miraculous, rather than monstrous. As Larissa Tracy explains in the essay Shifting Skin Passing as Human Passing as Fay, although the Green Knight is Othered by the court, he's not so Othered as to be held entirely apart. He's "tallest of men" and "half a giant." He is still one of the "in" crowd at least a little bit. So while his green coloring shocks the court, and calls to mind Otherworldly fay, in a way similar to the Lady of the Lake or other such beings, the Green Knight isn't viewed as an enemy of the crown so much as a chance for the court to prove its virtue. In the end, this Green Knight was indeed a man, Sir Bertilak, transformed by Morgan le Fay to take on the monstrous visage, and was indeed "one of them" all along. In this way, concepts which seem magical (read: Pagan) to the modern reader remain steeped in Christian ideals. This extends to Gawain's pentacle shield as well, sometimes misconstrued with a similar Pagan symbol, which the poem outright states represents the five virtues of knighthood or even the five wounds of Jesus Christ. Then again, Rhonda Knight's essay All Dressed Up With Someplace to Go: Regional Identity argues the opposite point, that there is indeed a divide. Knight asserts that the poet has intentionally heightened the dichotomy of insider/outsider, particularly as it relates to the Anglo-Welsh border between Sir Bertilak's Wirral and King Arthur's London Camelot. It's quite plain from the moment the Green Knight enters the scene there's a stark split between the two cultures, whether that be interpreted as the people of Wales and the people of England, or the Otherworld associated with Wales and the dominance of Christianity.

But anyway enough about Christians. Let's talk about my friend Sir Palomides and Islam.

A brief recap for anyone who's unfamiliar with Sir Palomides, he's a Muslim knight, referred to in the Medieval Christian tongue as a "Saracen," who vows to convert to Christianity for the sake of marrying Isolde, but curiously hasn't yet. His father, Esclabor, and both of his younger brothers, Segwarides and Safir, have already converted. Palomides is continuously ostracized for his religion/appearance throughout the narrative and considered lesser than Tristan. This is pretty much always the roles they play. Sometimes Palomides is treated with extreme cruelty, such as in the Post-Vulgate, where Galahad forces him to convert to Christianity at sword point, only for Palomides to be murdered shortly afterward by Gawain once his narrative purpose, ie successful conversion, has been fulfilled.

For this break down, I'm ignoring that portrayal of Palomides as well as the Prose Tristan because they suffer from the issues I already outlined regarding Medieval Christian's malicious depiction of non-Christians. And I hate them</3 We'll be turning our attention to Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory instead as Palomides is slightly more nuanced there. (Very slightly. "The Good Saracen Sir Palomides" is a loaded sentiment, but Malory was a Medieval Englishman imprisoned for his crimes and writing through his madness. We work with what we have.) The copy I linked is translated by Dr. Dorsey Armstrong, not only because it's very good, but because she authored one of the essays I'll be sharing on the subject. She also has a 24 part lecture series on Arthuriana that I highly recommend.

In Le Morte d'Arthur, and the earlier published La Tavola Ritonda as well as Byelorussian Tristan, Palomides is treated a teensy bit better. In most versions of the story, Palomides misses an appointment to duel with Tristan out of cowardice or dishonor. But Malory has written a scenario in which Palomides missed the appointment not out of subservience to Tristan, but because he was jailed elsewhere and couldn't physically make it. He still gets his ass kicked by Tristan, but Malory's change shifts implicational blame of Palomides to circumstantial blame of his situation which serves to create a more sympathetic character. So while Tristan's perception of events remains the same, Palomides is given a narrative excuse which maintains his honor and integrity in the mind of the reader. Yet as Dr. Dorsey Armstrong points out in her essay, Postcolonial Palomides, after Tristan discovers Palomides suffering a bout of grief-induced madness, Palomides's ability to communicate breaks down, and Tristan is unable to understand him. Palomides occupies a space that his fellow "Saracen" knights, such as Priamus of Tuscany, don't. He's Othered by everyone in the narrative yet gains renown among the Christian knights in part because of his extreme desire to join the Round Table, while resisting the necessity to conform to a religious order and community which does not otherwise accept him. Unlike his father and brothers, Palomides seems more aware of, and resistant to, the predatory systems which dictate their conditional acceptance.

Race as a concept did not exist in the Medieval world, rather it was intrinsically tied to religion. That said, colorism was always present. "Saracen" is a term used to refer to Arab people, but according to Hamed Suliman Abuthawabeh, the etymology of the word itself stems from the color brown, ie referential of skin tone. As it relates to fiction... Ever wonder why the Holy Land of the Middle East in Arthurian Legend, where Galahad, Perceval, and Bors seek the grail, is called "Sarras?" Now you know. This concept is not limited to Middle Eastern characters either. Black people in Medieval stories are referred to as "Moorish," ie from the "Moorlands." To that end, ever wonder why Aglovale's half-Black son is named "Morien?" Or how about Parzival's half-Black brother Feirefiz, who's described as having a mixture of "white and black skin," half his father's "fair country Anjou," half his mother's "heathen land Zassamank" with a face two-toned "as a magpie." (Author Wolfram von Eschenbach and translator Jessie Weston's words, not mine).

The fact is non-white, non-Christian characters are often reduced to their skin color, not only in what labels are applied to them as people, but their religions and falsified homelands as well. The cost of a modicum of respect is total assimilation. It's all or nothing for these characters, and even then, it's not a guarantee. Aside from the especially harrowing treatment of Palomides in the Post-Vulgate, this concept appears yet again in the poem The Turk and Sir Gawain, in which Gawain continuously oscillates between foe and friend with an unnamed Turkish knight, only to conclude the story by violently converting this individual through beheading. The Turkish knight is reborn, now Christian, and at last gains a name and identity, Sir Gromer. The expectation put on Pagan knights is so great they must submit to their white comrades and allow them to, literally, kill their former selves to be worthy of personhood in Christendom.

The same can be said of Jewish characters in Arthurian Legend. They're not often the focal point, but they do pop up from time to time. In La Tavola Ritonda, there's Dialantes the Jewish giant, as well as the beautiful Hebrew damsel of Aigua della Spina, who's curiously married to a Christian knight. Then of course there's the rampant antisemitism in Chrétien de Troyes's Perceval, as well as the continuations, which blame "the treacherous Jews" for killing Christ, while also casting Joseph of Arimathea as a Christian knight who brought the Holy Grail to Britain. Furthermore in The History of the Grail portion of the Vulgate, Joe is said to have "converted to the faith of Jesus Christ" while keeping it secret for fear that "the Jews would have killed him." Tons of revisionism happening. The bulk of the Vulgate makes little to no mention of Jewish people, good or bad, as it's mostly tied to the grail story. That said, when it does come up again in The Death of Arthur, it's a slippery slope into every other prejudice, as the term has become synonymous with evil, particularly as it relates to women.

I couldn't possibly outline the entirety of Medieval Christianity's relationship with other religions in a single tumblr post. Here's a link to my huge folder about Race & Religion in the Middle Ages. The essays and books there discuss this subject in a general sense but there's a sub-folder with Arthurian specific essays to learn more about Palomides, Priamus, Gromer, Morien, Feirefiz, and other characters or texts that touch on race/religion.

Despite all of the above, it's not all bad. Sometimes an author was anti-racist toward the non-Christian characters, yet limited by their time. (Think how Herman Melville portrayed Polynesian Queequeg in Moby Dick, positively, but used phrenology to compliment the shape of his skull by comparing him to that of white people. Not up to modern standards, but an attempt at progressive for its time nonetheless.) Looking at Dutch Arthuriana, while Morien's name is an insensitive indication of his unnamed "Moorish" mother, the only characters in the story who treat Morien poorly, such as the boatmen who refuse to ferry him, are openly condemned, even threatened, by the Knights of the Round Table, including Gareth.

I don't know what to call this writing technique, but it's used (and sometimes underutilized...) today. Essentially, as a means to indicate to the reader that the views of the antagonistic (in this case, xenophobic and anti-Black) character isn't shared by the author, they include another character who refutes and combats the negative behavior and who accepts the oppressed party as they are. However rare, it does happen in Medieval texts.

Last but not least, I'd be remiss to omit the Hebrew King Artus from this discussion. It's an incomplete story, but sets out to retell the Arthurian Legend from a Jewish standpoint. All the characters are Jewish and all religious allusions that were once Christian have been rewritten as Jewish. It has a thorough analysis by the translator and tons of footnotes to indicate the Jewish references throughout the text.

Regarding religion in modern Arthuriana like BBC Merlin, Druids aren't actually present in the Legends, with the one and only exception being The Adventure of Melóra and Orlando, which does refer to Merlin as a Druid! There's also the connection made between Merlin and Stonehenge in The History of the King's of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth; the word "Druid" is not used, but Merlin describes his own ability to manipulate the stones as "mystical." One has to remember that Druids didn't write down their own history, as it was their way to memorize religious practices and not document anything. All we know about them comes from outside sources, such as Greeks and Romans as well as Christian missionaries come to convert them. As Christianity took hold and figures like Saint Patrick "drove the snakes [Druids] out of Ireland," much of that history was either lost or purposefully maligned. Did the Druids actually participate in human sacrifice? Who knows! Bearing that in mind, we must acknowledge the influence of the several revivals of Druidism and recent boom in Neopaganism; a lot of popular interpretations of Arthurian Legend are just that, the creator's interpretation, and not necessarily indicative of what the historical people would have been doing. To learn more about that, there's Druids: A Very Short Introduction by Barry Cunliffe which I found helpful.

When it comes to Merlin, or Myrddin Wyllt, his character is potentially based on a few different people who really existed, but there isn't a name given to whatever religion they practiced in anything I've read. While the time period did have clearly delineated religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (and then Islam), Mithraism, Druidism, etc, there were just as many people who prayed to Jesus Christ while simultaneously leaving out offerings for the local spirits. Most religions come with regional differences, various sects, or shift gradually over time. Saint Patrick himself is said to have had a "fluid identity," as his autobiographical work The Confessions paints him in a fairly positive light as a peaceful missionary, while Dr. Janina Ramirez indicates in her book The Private Life of Saints that other sources characterize Saint Patrick as an aggressor. Some scholars even believe Saint Patrick may have been two different people, combined over the centuries, similarly to Myrddin Wyllt. Modern Arthurian books and shows really lean into a dichotomy between Christianity and the "Old Religion" for the sake of entertainment. But bouts of unrest weren't as fantastical nor made up of two wholly separate, well-defined teams.

Wow this got long. I think we'll leave it at that. I hope that answers your questions! Take care!

In which I treat obscure characters like they have their own fandoms, No. 1

The Melora + Orlando ship should be called Valor. I can think of a few reasons why:

It’s a biblical reference, which seems in keeping with the story’s themes, considering that Melora has the Lance of Longinus. “A woman of valor who can find? She is to be valued above rubies” is quite fitting, given Melora’s association with a carbuncle (another red stone).

Both of their names contain “or”.

Melorlando is a bit of a mouthful. Valor, on the other hand, is easy to say and sounds adventurous.

The back of my Siege Perilous

Going from left to right and down, the symbols stand for Galahad, Percival, Ragnell, Blanchefleur, the Grail Heroine, the Lady of the Lake who gives Arthur Excalibur, Guinier, Gawain, Dinadan, Ector de Maris, Morgan le Fay, Caradoc Briefbras, Griflet, Isolde, Vivian, Taliesin, Tristan, Brunnisend, the Nine Witches, Laudine, the Three Queens or Morgause, Kay, Dagonet, Merlin, Palamedes, Sebile, Guinevere, Igraine, Melora, Yvain, Mordred, and Arthur.

If you’re confused about some or all of them, here’s my rationale/what the symbols are: 

Galahad and Percival have slightly different Grails. I think Ragnell is found sitting under a tree, and another story has Gawain in a relationship with the queen of Avalon, isle of the apples. Blanchefleur means “white flower”. The square with the spiral in it is the Grail Heroine’s box of hair. The sword under the wave is fairly obvious. That is the drinking horn from Guinier’s chastity test. Gawain’s is a SGatGK reference. Dinadan’s is an aro ring. Ector de Maris, Griflet, Kay, and Palamedes all have symbols or patterns from their attributed arms. Morgan le Fay takes Arthur to Avalon on a boat. Caradoc has to be saved from a serpent which is wound around his arm. The torch is a Wagner reference. Nimue traps Merlin, whose symbol is the bird who shares his name, so she is represented by a birdcage. Taliesin got his wisdom from a cauldron, and there’s a cauldron in the Preideu Annwfn. Tristan plays a harp. The formation of the relationship between Brunnisend and her eventual husband is defined by their dire yet mutually exclusive needs for a good night’s sleep. The Nine Witches’ symbol seemed cool and has a threefold element. Laudine has a magic fountain. The evolution of the nature and deeds of Anna/Morcades/Morgause/etc. seemed to sort of go with the Maiden, Matron, Crone archetype and I really couldn’t think of anything else. Dagonet eventually became a jester. Yblis, who has a magic mantle, is Sybil scrambled, and there is a strong modern association between magic and capes. Guinevere is sometimes given authority over the knights of the vergescu. My justification for Igraine’s is particularly weak and would take too long to explain. Melora wields the Lance of Longinus. Yvain befriends a lion. Mordred has a broken table because he helped break the Round Table. Arthur is King.

Fun fact: Assuming you don’t count Tancred, there is no proof that Dagbert ever successfully drowned anyone.

Arthur, Lucan, Bedivere, and Griflet Incorrect Quote

Arthur: Would you die for me?

Lucan: Of course, my liege. If I had to.

Arthur: Would you die for me?

Bedivere: As the Marshal of Camelot and a man of honor, it is my duty to do whatever is required of me by the throne.

Arthur: Would you die for me?

Griflet: No. That would be stupid. I would hold you in my arms as you died, then burn all your possessions.

Arthur: Out of grief?

Griflet: Yeah. Grief.