User blog comment:Fimber/When family is what destroys you/@comment-67.239.100.57-20121123082221/@comment-5102537-20121124104629

I agree Alfons. You put it very well.

Easy, easy, Aithusa's Lord, no need to get angry. It would be great if we could agree but it's no problem when we don't. It's only a bit irritating when we are talking about different things sometimes. For example here:

''“Arthur hid much of his doings and beliefs from his father, so Uther presumed Arthur would follow his teachings and was proud of his son. Do you think Uther would have been proud of his son during life if he knew Arthur “bargained with a sorcerer” in “The Labyrinth of Gedref”?''

While you say that he disapproves of all these things, I said that disapproving of things/actions or hurting and trying to kill someone are different things. When I disapprove of the things my daughter is doing, I certainly wouldn't haunt her as a ghost and try to kill those close to her I disapprove of, let alone attacking her. Moreover, I showed you examples of Uther praising Arthur and telling him how proud he is of Arthur even when Arthur acted against Uther's traditions and standarts with Uther being aware of it. Maybe some people think that he either likes everything that Arthur did/does or he disapproves of everything and threatens him because of that. The problem is that some fans think in extremes simply because the show falls into extremes. I'm sure you have been criticised in your life without those people threatening you.

What you said about parents doing anything for their children but not loving them enough, I have to disagree. If you are willing to give up your life, to die for them, there is no way of not loving them enough or, as you say, of neglecting them emotionally and socially. It's illogical to give up what's supposedly more important in order to save the ones that are not important enough. If you are willing to die for someone, you don't neglect them emotionally but on the contrary, you put them above everythig else. Uther didn't die a martyr and he didn't die for Camelot but for and because of his children. You have completely ignored the fact that Morgana's betrayal was the reason for Uther being destroyed. I have to say again that this wouldn't have been possible if Camelot was more important because he gave up this very thing, Camelot. It's disappointing that you didn't see this. Uther didn't die because he thought that everything will be so fluffy and Arthur is such an obedient puppy on a string. As I wrote before, when he wanted to sacrifice himself for Arthur in season one and two already, Arthur wasn't ready to be king yet. If Camelot was more important to Uther, he wouldn't have risked to leave the kingdom in the hands of someone who isn't ready and who would probably jeopardize it. He would have saved the kingdom, himself and later tried to produce a new heir. He also could? have nominated a successor, someone he trusts. Chances were good that Arthur would die on a mission. Then what? Camelot would have no heir and Uther's legacy would be no more after his death? There's always a plan B if things, not the own children, are so important as you say. The way you describe it, Arthur was only a tool he used, a thing that he treasured as long as it served its purpose. That's a very harsh and also a wrong look on Uther's character. It would match the criteria of a psychopath (Uther, I mean, not you).

"I never said he directly threatened anything, but he said it nevertheless. Even Tony Head said that if Uther had found out about Morgana’s magic he would have had her executed. (No, this isn’t proof that my position is true, I’m not saying that, it just makes me feel better that somebody else thinks that Uther, if he had to, would put his own ideas first!).

This was said sometime during season two or in the beginning of season three and it's obvious that they changed their mind when they showed Uther not wanting to kill Morgana but having a mental breakdown due to her betrayal, magic and hatred. He didn't even go after her or even mentioned her in "The Death Song..." when returning as a vengeful ghost. Fact is, he didn't want to kill her and that's all what counts and it's what described his character.

''“Merlin would have let Uther die if it wasn't for Arthur.” If you wanted to we could argue what constitutes a just war. If Merlin didn’t know Arthur, or if there was no prophesy concerning him would Merlin have fought against Camelot? Would it be just for sorcerers to wage war against Uther for their freedom? As long as innocents are not targeted? (Which people like Morgause and Morgana think is perfectly fine.) Just kidding I don’t want to argue this point! But, oh my, would that open up a can of worms!''

What Merlin would have done if he didn't know Arthur is a question we can't answer. But we can answer the question if Merlin had let Uther die if Arthur didn't love his father because it was demonstrated that Merlin only saved Uther to save Arthur's peace of soul. He wouldn't have if Uther wasn't Arthur's father because it was clear in that Overman-story that Uther's life was of no importance for Merlin whatsoever. I still find it disturbing that the so called hero, the cute and smart and kindhearted messiah of the show dismisses the life of a fellow human being as being not worth to be saved but only because another one would be devastated - in a family show.

''” This is Uther’s point of view!!! Of course he would say that."''

No it's not. Gaius told it Merlin in season one already, Arthur told it Merlin in "The Disir" and we have been introduced to numerous dangerous creatures and sorcerers that were created or that had the agenda to destroy, fight and defeat non-magical humans. If it was only a story told by Uther, Gaius, who witnessed it all, wouldn't have confirmed it and at least one of the sorcerers or even Merlin would have objected somewhere along the way to let the viewer know that it isn't true. The show clearly wants to demonstrate to us that magic indeed almost destroyed the land back then and there is no indication whatsoever that it's just a fairytale told by Uther.

What you wrote about magic being restored, of course, your reasons are the reasons that we all have thought should be happening in the end. That was before we learnt throughout the seasons and then in "The Disir" that the Old Religion is NOT a club of fluffy peace lovers but a very dangerous, demanding and cruel religion that expects people to serve and to obey, that blackmailed Arthur to submit at the threat of losing everyone and everything he loves, that threatens and kills innocents, that was responsible for chosing Igraine to die and therefore for the Great Purge, that predestined Merlin's and Arthur's future and fate which proves that the Great Purge was intended, too, otherwise they would have no fate. If the show wants to demonstrate that the magic-users should be living in peace and freedom but that the Triple Goddess and the old ways of the religion are the things that caused the wars and problems, fine. That would be logical. Merlin could then try to eliminate the Triple Goddess and replace her and build a peaceful source of magic. As of now, it seems that the show can't decide whether the Old Religion should be brought back or not. Fact is, the Old Religion with the Triple Goddess, the Afanc, the Questing Beast, the Lamia, the curses, sorcerers like Nimueh and Cornelius Sigan and all the other evil people and creatures is not what should dominate and rule the land again - and it's what Uther tried to destroy and free the land from. The Great Purge and all the crueties are to be condemned, but he wasn't so wrong with outlawing magic after all.

"Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is not what was going on. I give up. This is so inaccurate. Arthur was the one that broke the peace contract? (I won’t even touch the other points in your statement.) That was not the case!? Caerleon broke it by invading Camelot. Below are some lines from the episode:

No, Caerleon put it in danger but it was Arthur who broke it when killing him which caused the war. Annis and Caerleon didn't go to war with Camelot. Maybe they had planned it, sure, we don't know. But still the peace contract was intact and there was no war when Caerleon was captured. Arthur's actions caused it because the execution of Careleon made Annis gathering the troops and declaring war. If Annis had declared war without the execution of his husband, then it would have been Annis/Caerleon and not Arthur. If it hadn't been Arthur's fault, he woudn't have confessed and admitted that he made a mistake and he wouldn't have offered his own life to avoid the war.

"No wonder all the heroes in “Merlin” aren’t heroes in your book. They don’t have a chance because they are getting blamed for what they didn’t do."

No, I only blame them for they really did whereas you blamed Uther for being responsible for Igraines death even though it was Nimueh/the Old Religion who killed her and Uther had no idea that she would be the price.