User blog comment:Morganaforever/Are Arthur and Morgana siblings after all?/@comment-3325613-20120106195747/@comment-82.44.101.249-20120108104808

I get what you're saying, but... she wouldn't have any right though, in terms of actual practice of inheritance. An illegitimate servant or lowly-born person would have no rightful claim to the throne whatsoever, regardless of who their father was, and nobody at the time would think otherwise. From a modern perspective, though, I definitely get why you think that Morgana is more deserving because you think Arthur's not Uther's 'proper' child, but for all the other characters it's unrealistic to think Morgana has any claim on the throne. Even if Arthur actually wasn't Uther's biological son, he's been raised as such which means nobody would know or be able to prove he was anything else which means there's no way he'll be seen as less of an heir than his illegitimate, villainous, unrecognised half-sister.

Also surely 'blood' is not just about the biology of it... Perhaps Morgana and Uther share genes, but in reality which one of the two would you say is more Uther's child? Morgana's always resented him and never viewed him as a true father (or maybe she did? I don't know), while Arthur's always loved, respected and tried to do right by him. I don't think biologically having 'Pendragon blood' is a be all and end all for who deserves the throne...

Not that I don't think Morgana's awesome and deserves a better life ;)