Board Thread:Series 5 Discussion/@comment-5995315-20130207171053/@comment-5995315-20130209151624

ReganX wrote: Also in the finale, we discover that the monarch who will lead Camelot in a golden era of peace is Gwen, not Arthur. The flaw with that is that, even if we assume that Gwen legalised magic - which would lead to another set of problems - there's no way that she would be able to fulfil the part about uniting Albion. It would have been a stretch for the rulers of the other kingdoms to unite under Arthur's rule as some kind of High King or whatever. They'd be much less likely to decide to surrender their sovereignty to a woman, particularly one who was born a commoner.

Even keeping Camelot at peace would be a huge struggle, given their weakened position. They had no allies fighting with them against the Saxons, so it's highly unlikely that they'll have help from other kingdoms when more of them arrive on Albion's shores.

What you're saying is true, but I think Gwen also has some important advantages. Uther and Arthur both set up a series of treaties among the kingdoms, and these could serve as a basis for Albion.

Albion wouldn't have to have any High King. It could start out as a loose confederation. Gradually the kingdoms, including Camelot, would dissolve into Albion, and Albion would one day dissolve into the united kingdoms Arthur set as a goal. Since we know this "united kingdoms" exists today, we can have hope that somehow, in some way, Gwen succeeded.

In the short term, keeping the peace in Camelot might not be so hard. Even if Camelot was left weakened after Camlann, the Saxons were driven off. In order to pose a threat, they would have to have another leader to organize them like Morgana. That's asking a lot. The Saxons are disorganized barbarians facing a unified, organized political entity in Camelot.

Anyhow, just my thoughts ...