Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-110.33.239.213-20121226023324/@comment-5674726-20130929140435

Ongard Odin wrote: ReganX

This is all true and a very good point, however what you're forgetting is that it had been what? Seven years since the time Tristan and Arthur discussed taxes, it has been confirmed that between the Fourth and Fifth Season, Camelot is prospering, therefore it can be assumed taxes are not as great as they were, after all these taxes were around during times of war and also whilst the kingdom was recovering from war, by Season 5 it had recovered.

Actually, it was in Season Two - peacetime - that Arthur described the level of taxation as being so high that people could barely get by. It would be necessary to increase taxes in times of conflict but it is very clear that, even in times of peace, the level of taxation is high. After Season Five, the cost of rebuilding and providing for the dependants of dead and injured soldiers would have to be added to that, increasing the burden on Camelot's coffers.

The only difference during the three year gap between Seasons Four and Five is that Morgana is not in the picture. Bandits and the like would still have to be dealt with so it's not as if there would be any significant reduction in the cost of maintaining Camelot's military. We also must not forget that, during her second brief reign, Morgana ordered that the crops be burned. That alone means that Camelot would have to shoulder the cost of importing supplies from other kingdoms. Even if we assume that King Rodor, Queen Annis and Lord Godwin didn't gouge Arthur in terms of prices, they would not have been in a position where they could afford to not charge him for supplies to feed his people and to plant for the next year.

By the end of Season 5 there has been war and we can assume that taxes are back at the level they were when Tristan complained, meaning although things will be bad, the kingdom will endure. Also they now have the support of Annis, Godwin and all the other allies that have come to love Arthur, they would provide military and possibly financial support as he has for them.

When did Arthur provide military or financial support to Annis or Godwin? Neither saw fit to support him at Camlann, when he was up against a force that vastly outnumbered his own. Annis' assistance to Arthur was limited to allowing him safe passage in her kingdom, which is a far cry from committing her own military or financial resources to assist him. Arthur has provided military support to Nemeth, to resolve a problem that only arose because King Rodor was Arthur's ally but Nemeth was either unable or unwilling to help at Camlann. If they wouldn't support Arthur, there is no reason to assume that they would support Guinevere.

Now as for the supporting of Guinevere, she has been around for seven years now, she has proven herself a strong queen (though her affair with Lancelot could be used as an argument against this), true some of the lords might rebel, but many would also support her out of love for Arthur and for the fact that she is the Queen he chose. For those who do not, they have the Queen, her supporters and the allies of Camelot to answer to.

Onto the topic of only Merlin and Gaius having evidence of Arthur choosing her as his successor, I think thats more than enough, Gaius is a respected member of the court and was made a freeman by Uther he is well known as an advisor, physician and friend to the crown, he also has alot of contacts from his work, he knows alot of people nobles and otherwise.

Then we have Merlin, well people know the truth now. Merlin is Emrys, they would learn the truth of what he has done for Camelot and he would be seen as a hero or perhaps even a legend of the people, he would be loved by the people and to call him a liar would not go down well for the nobles.

Four years, and there was very little shown of her doing anything that would lead the nobility to believe that she is capable of ruling the kingdom alone, much less that she would rule it in such a way that they would be content with her rule. Gaius may be a member of Council but he is also a commoner and, more than that, known to be a friend and staunch supporter of Guinevere's. It is perfectly believable that he would lie if Arthur had named one of the nobles. It could also be argued that, if Arthur had meant for Guinevere to succeed him, he would have taken steps to secure her place as his heir in the event of his death before, yet it is perfectly clear that he had taken no such steps.

As for Merlin, the revelation that he is Emrys - assuming that there was any such public revelation; the tone of the end of the finale would suggest that Merlin may never have returned to Camelot - would be a double-edged sword. The idea of one man wielding so much power would frighten people, and rightly so. The revelation that Arthur had a very powerful sorcerer living by his side for so many years could also be used to call all of his decisions into question. Was he truly acting of his own free will or was Merlin using magic to manipulate him into doing things like knight commoners and marry a servant, things that he would never have dreamed of doing before Merlin showed up?

It could be in their best interests not to advertise the fact that Merlin is a powerful sorcerer.

I'd say that the best case scenario is that Guinevere was able to hold the kingdom together while she lived, balancing the competing interests of various groups enough for them not to tear the kingdom apart between them. Camelot would be greatly weakened and would never be the major player it was in Uther's time, or even Arthur's so she wouldn't have been in a position to unite Albion or to be a driving force behind change but if other, more powerful monarchs were building treaties of peace and friendship, Camelot may have been included.