Board Thread:What If?/@comment-5674726-20130929195208/@comment-5674726-20130930175240

Fimber wrote: In case that the show wanted to make the viewers believe that she was hurt because she felt some kind of daughterly love for him and that she was actually right in being angry, Morgana was described as being more ignorant than she deserved. She was too intelligent and has lived for too long in the royal household to ignore that acknowledging an illegitimate child would be sociatal suicide, especially for a king.

We cannot ignore the fact that the show presented us with a very different situation as far as the question of the status of an illegitimate child is concerned.

It is made very clear that Morgana has a claim to the throne as Uther's daughter, albeit after Arthur. It is therefore highly probable that the law as it relates to children born out of wedlock is different to what one would expect - perhaps akin to the situation in Wales, prior to the conquest by England, where all children acknowledged by a father had equal rights of inheritance, regardless of whether or not they were born in wedlock, and the word "bastard" referred to an unacknowledged child. Based on what I have read, Camelot is often set in Wales, which would support the theory that children born out of wedlock have rights of inheritance.

Uther states that his reason for not acknowledging Morgana is for Arthur's sake. If Camelot was a society where a child born out of wedlock would be stigmatised, and where Morgana was much better off if she was believed to be Gorlois' daughter, he would have wanted Gaius to keep his mouth shut for Morgana's sake. Arthur would have had nothing to lose if he turned out to have a half-sister born on the wrong side of the blanket, while Morgana's position would be the one to suffer. Uther would have suffered minor embarrassment but it wouldn't be held against a king if he had an illegitimate child. At worst, there would be some disapproval over the fact that he cuckolded a loyal noble. There is no way that anybody would have expected him to be sentenced to death for adultery; adultery in a noble matron would be a taboo because no man would want to risk leaving his title and estate to a cuckoo but men wouldn't be condemned for adultery.

However, in a situation where being known as the daughter of the king makes Morgana the second in line for the throne after Arthur, as Gaius indicates is the case - and he certainly had no reason to lie - there is a threat to Arthur if he is known to have a sibling. Even if Morgana herself never conspired against Arthur, there would be a risk that the man she married would covet the crown and try to get Arthur out of the way so he could rule in her name. There is also the risk of Arthur being targeted if he makes unpopular decisions as a monarch and it is believed that Morgana will be a ruler more to the liking of the would-be assassin. The risks would be low, as long as Arthur is doing a halfway decent job of ruling.

Under other circumstances, it would be in Morgana's best interests if it was never revealed that Uther was her father but we are instead presented with a situation where her status would improve if her paternity was known, so rather than protecting her from scandal and disgrace, Uther is denying her the rights she should enjoy as his daughter because he chooses to put the interests of his other child first. In that case, it's very understandable that she would resent being disowned.

Unfortunately for Morgana, her need to have Uther take the step of acknowledging her worked against her. I can't see him being able to disown her if she told him that she had heard what he said while she was unconscious but he made his decision based on a belief that she did not know.

The one that really interests me is the question of what would happen if Uther had acknowledged Morgana when she was a child - time travel fanfic, maybe? - but I'll get to that later.