User blog comment:Fimber/Things that went wrong in "The Death Song of Uther Pendragon"/@comment-7285162-20130415005522/@comment-5102537-20130602135201

''"Hello again!

Alright, my mistake about Morgause --- her backstory isn't that clear indeed. Still, it doesn't matter much in general."'' And hello to you, welcome back :-) On the contrary, it matters a lot because still some fans think that Uther ordererd baby Morgause to be killed because of the Great Purge which is a huge mistake since Morgause was born years before the Great purge. Uther is falsely accused of trying to murder someone, a baby no less. I think it matters a lot to set things straight.

''"On Nimueh

Oh now, you're certaily biased here. Why whould she do that? There was no one else there, whom would she deceive with that?''"

No, I'm certainly not biased. In "Excalibur" I believed what she said at first and I thought it was all a great misunderstanding. But later, in "Le Morte d'Arthur" it became clear that she indeed lied to Uther since Merlin, Gaius and Nimueh herself proved that she was the one who chose whose life had to be taken. Have you read the quotations I put above in my post? And you surely remember that she indeed chose Gaius when he offered his own life. So no doubt here whatsoever that she had the power to choose the one who has to die. She did it, Merlin and Gaius confirmed it and she didn't even object but smirked. I recommend you rewatch the episode and/or read the transcript.

''"Yes, she did now that *someone* close to Uther must die. Why did she still do it?

Well, I have a little theory on this subject, although it's just a guess. It seems almost everyone and everything of the Old Religion were aware of Arthur's destiny, and Nimueh with her gifts of prediction and knowledge of the lore and profecies certainly must have known. My guess is she was willing to make the sacrifice for The Once And Future King to be born. In the end, that was not a completely evil thing for Albion: while Uther with his Machiavelli-style reign could have been a suitable ruler for the moment, in the long term Camelot would crumble apart as soon as Uther showed weakness; it was up to Arthur to build something completely different.''"

Why would she sacrifice Igraine of all people? It makes no sense. She simply could have chosen another one and none of what happened would have happened. And Uther with his "Machiavelli-style" - in the dark ages with enemies and powerful kingdoms all around (e.g. Cenred and Caerleon) who would conquer other kingdoms at any time in order to gain power, territory, ressources and whatnot, a softie as king would have never worked. As much as we would like to see this, Arthur could have never united all the kingdoms only because he was such a kind and fluffy little boy. No real king would ever respect that. To Uther, peace was most important which he taught Arthur and which we saw when he united the Five Kingdoms in season two. Aside from the terrible Great Purge and persecuting sorcerers, he was a real good king who managed to keep peace for 26 years (aside from the wars waged by Morgana and Morgause with Cenred's help). The other kingdoms obviously supported Uther's ban of magic which they surely didn't do simply because they liked his claok so much but because they all had good reasons - aside from Cenred and King Align. And both kings weren't really the kindest ones, were they? Look at Sarrum who hated magic and was even 100 times worse than Uther. Arthur could have never united Albion by singing Kumbaya while playing the guitar at a campfire. A king in those times had to show strength, and sadly, what we call strength today, which is kindness, forgiveness and loving everyone just didn't work back then. And it doesn't even work today if you take a look at all the countries and states of our real world.

"Later we see Nimueh quite disenchanted with what she has done, and for a good reason: young Arthur was quite zealous looking up to his father. She even tried to lead him to an untimely demise, although she didn't quite kill him directly; after all, it was she who gave him life, and the series state quite clealry that what is magically *done* cannot just be undone."

Again, almost killing him made no sense because what lecture did he learn from it?

"Yeah, that's exactly what he had other people (e. g. Gwen) sentenced to death for --- trying to save someone's life with magic. ;) I still wonder why he hasn't executed Sir Leon for being healed by the Cup of Life: lying unconcious and dying, he had consorted with sorcerers! :D Pursuant to the laws of Camelot, Leon should have run his guts through with a sword after being healed, I guess, to undo the evil magical healing. :D" Yes, he sentenced others to death who tried to heal someone with magic, which is why I wrote that it was hypocritical. He broke his own law in order to save Morgana but demanded others to respect the law. Hypocrisy indeed. But also one step forward to maybe change because his love for Morgana was stronger than his hatred for magic. As for Leon, it wasn't his fault that he was healed, so why would Uther punish him for it? When he thought that Gwen healed her father, Tom wasn't sentenced either and Gwen was only sentenced because she was believed to have caused the plague in the first place.

"I've never had a problem with that before, it always seemed quite consistent.

''In "Merlin" it never took a life in order to heal a scratch or an ingrown toenail, did it? ;)''

The bite of the Questing Beast is a rather different matter: it's not just a blow to the head, it is that particular power of life and death that kills unless someone else takes the victim's place (the Old Religion cares not *who* exactly must die, it just fancies taking a life one way or another)."

When Morgana was dying from her scull fracture, it wasn't just a scratch. When Arthur almost died two times and when Balinor and the sorcerer (forgot his name) healed him, it wasn't a scratch either. Both would have ultimately died if they hadn't been healed by magic. The life-for-a-life-policy was quite clear in "Le Morte d'Arthur". A life has to be taken in order to heal or create another. So I think that it was only done by Nimueh and/or the Questing Beast and it all vanished when both were dead.

"I thought I explicitely mentioned that the magical creatures do not count for my thesis. After all, they are monsters, not humans. Valiant was never a sorceror, the Trickler was coerced by an evil King, and Cornelius Sigan was freaking executed becasue he had become "too powerful" --- seems like a reason for revenge to me." Align, the Witchfinder, Cenred  and the bandits weren't magical creatures but humans (oh, and I forgot the assassin who wanted to kill Arthur). The Sidhe, the pixies, the Anhora and the ghost of the druid boy weren't monsters. And Cornelius Sigan had nothing to do with Uther whatsoever but with one former king of Camelot. The creatures, monsters as you say, were created/invented/used by the Old Religion which wasn't quite a club of charity-lovers. And Valiant and Trickler/Align were good examples for those humans who abused magic.

And they all didn't attack Camelot out of revenge on Uther.

"You ladies mentioned Nimueh and Morgana kill innocents? Well, that wasn't out of the blue for the sake of greater evil, it's Uther who taught them this: he regulary killed their loved ones/kin/subjects and made them stand aside and watch. They both wanted him to feel the same."

No, Uther didn't teach them this. Nimueh was a High Priestess of the Old Religion, the very magical source that caused mayhem and destruction over centuries and maybe even milleniums. The Diamair is the best proof for an ongoing fight between the Old Religion and humans since it/she/he told Merlin that its/his/her entire race was wiped out over the centuries and Uther had nothing to do with it because he didn't even exist at that point of time yet. Nimueh chose Igraine to die and didn't stop at innocents, something which she surely didn't from Uther because Uther wasn't a religious leader or a god whom everyone follows. It's always simple to blame others for the own wrongdoings instead of taking responsibility. The difference between Uther and Nimueh and Morgana was that Uther was convinced that all magic was evil and that there were no innocents, whereas Nimueh and Morgana knew very, very well that they killed and harmed true innocents. Morgana even admitted it when she talked to Uther in the cell. Morgana and Morgause killed thousands of innocents by their attacks on Camelot only, being fully aware that those people were completely innocents.

"You gotta be kidding me! Do you really, really expect someone to speak against the tyrant, especially in a society ruled by fear and oppression?" Yes, of course! Even Gwen and Gwaine told Arthur what they thought of Uther. And why would Gaius say those things if they weren't true? Why didn't the show prove to us at any point of time that magic did not destroy the land before Uther took the throne and that it was all a lie? Because it wasn't. It's part of the story that magic had always been a destructive force that was used at the wrong ends.

"He had a good reason, didn't he? Especially after being deliberately subjected to some visiting with-hunter's particulat "methods" by his "friend" Uther."

The Witchhunter wasn't Uther's invention and it was clear that one day or another he would show up or being called to Camelot. When Gaius "confessed" in front of the court, Uther had no other choice than to execute the law and Gaius was old enough to know that. I'm disappointed that the friendship of the first season was ignored and changed later. Gaius stayed in Camelot on free will and he had reasons for it. He also was convinced in season one that Uther was a good king and he even granted him that he wasn't always wrong. I would have liked a continuation of this former friendship that the showrunners later ignored.

"And one final question. Who do *you* think Uther should have done having returned as a ghost?"

I actually don't understand your question. Do you mean "what" I think he should have done?