Arthur doesn't know know who his father is and never meets him. Merlin spirits him off to be raised by Sir Ector

If I remember correctly, Merlin being given custody of the boy was his payment for using magic to mask Uther's appearance so he could have his time with Igraine

Of course, it's been a while since I read Mallory and the others, so I may be confusing things with my memories of John Boorman's "Excalibur."

Wait, I thought that Arthur got crowned when he drew the sword from The Stone. He was a servant for some guy and had forgotten the guy's sword so instead of going back for it, he grabbed some random sword from a rock.

Psst, Vortex watches Disney movies, pass it on.

Of course, that I recognize that...

oh, is that where I got that? har!

There are some instances in Merlin where I think they play with the mythology in interesting ways. But in later episodes.

In the Disney movie, Arthur was the second son of Sir Ector and had forgotten his brother's sword, so he ran around looking for one and found the sword in the stone. Then it was revealed that he wasn't Ector's son, but Uther's.

wrong thread

Mallory:

So upon New Year's Day, when the service was done, the barons rode unto the field, some to joust and some to tourney, and so it happened that Sir Ector, that had great livelihood about London, rode unto the jousts, and with him rode Sir Kay his son, and young Arthur that was his nourished brother; and Sir Kay was made knight at All Hallowmass afore. So as they rode to the joustsward, Sir Kay lost his sword, for he had left it at his father's lodging, and so he prayed young Arthur for to ride for his sword. I will well, said Arthur, and rode fast after the sword, and when he came home, the lady and all were out to see the jousting. Then was Arthur wroth, and said to himself, I will ride to the churchyard, and take the sword with me that sticketh in the stone, for my brother Sir Kay shall not be without a sword this day. So when he came to the churchyard, Sir Arthur alighted and tied his horse to the stile, and so he went to the tent, and found no knights there, for they were at the jousting. And so he handled the sword by the handles, and lightly and fiercely pulled it out of the stone, and took his horse and rode his way until he came to his brother Sir Kay, and delivered him the sword. And as soon as Sir Kay saw the sword, he wist well it was the sword of the stone, and so he rode to his father Sir Ector, and said: Sir, lo here is the sword of the stone, wherefore I must be king of this land. When Sir Ector beheld the sword, he returned again and came to the church, and there they alighted all three, and went into the church. And anon he made Sir Kay swear upon a book how he came to that sword. Sir, said Sir Kay, by my brother Arthur, for he brought it to me. How gat ye this sword? said Sir Ector to Arthur. Sir, I will tell you. When I came home for my brother's sword, I found nobody at home to deliver me his sword; and so I thought my brother Sir Kay should not be swordless, and so I came hither eagerly and pulled it out of the stone without any pain.

I couldn't get into it for quite a few episodes. I was having flaily "But but but but" anachronism head-go-boom stuff. And then I said to myself: "Fay, this is not England. This is NOT any particular period. This is cloud cuckoo land. Which, as it transpires, looks a lot like a Waterhouse painting, with lots of rich blues and reds and porcelain white. Also, man, get a load of the Uther/Morgana over there! Mmmm...tasty!" And then it was all fine.

I'm with you there (I just started watching it in boxset form, having missed most of it on TV). I did a course on Arthurian legend when I was studying Eng Lit, and generally getannoyed at silly reimaginings of such - but with this, it's fairly easy to suspend disbelief.

To be fair, there's that many versions of Arthurian legend already, from Mallory to Tennyson to Marion Zimmer Bradley, that it's become vague enough for playing with. (I do love how Arthur's considered a quintessentially English myth, but was actually mainly developed by the French.)

I suspend disbelief pretty easily, but this one takes the cake. And I just cringe at the complete and total shitting on the story. It's like when they make movies of Anne Rice novels. They take the characters and maybe a soupçon of the storyline and then fuck the story in the ass with no lube.

...well, but the thing is, there are SO MANY MANY MANY totally contradictory versions of the stories. I mean, Guinevere and Lancelot are comparatively recent additions to the legend, ffs - they're already pretty much Chloe from Smallville, they've just been around for a while by this point.

I found the colourblind casting admirable but very distracting, initially, but then I went with (a) there would be a fair few biracial Britons after the Romans buggered off (although probably not quite this many, and not in such a range of social roles, maybe?) and (b) it's not set in any real historical period or in Britain, really. Which worked for me, bur I grok that your suspension of disbelief may vary.