User blog comment:Morgana High Priestess/Which reign is better: Uther's or Arthur's?/@comment-5995315-20130123002810/@comment-5465618-20130125200702

I think you all forgot how much havoc Uther's reign caused because of his hate for magic. The people suffered much because of him -- with the monsters that attacked Camelot which happened quite often under his reign. Under Arthur's reign the people were better off. For instance Morgana last attempt to take over Camelot where it directly effected the people was in previous series. Most of  what happened after that caused harm to him, his wife, Merlin and the knights. The people did not suffer. If the writers had written this last series properly it would have been quite evident who was a better king. Uther was just a typical self serving king whom only cared for himself and those closer to him. If harm was to come to his kingdom and if he had to sacrifice his people to save his riches and kingdom he would do so in a New York minute. Also all but one of he knights that served under Arthur could not serve under Uther nor most likely they did not want to especially Gwaine. Moreover, Arthur could have walked away from the job a couple of times, for he was willing to sacrifice his crown for love. It was Gwuinvere that reminded him of how much the people needed him to be king. You see for  Arthur  it wasn't about power it was about peace, equality and justice for all. He always was willing to sacrifice himself for his people. Also it was Arthur that went out to fight the monsters etc. Uther just stayed at home ordering folks around -- Arthur was a doer he felt the need to stand by his knights to fight the enemy who and whatever it was. To me that says a lot about his ability to rule and how a king should rule. That is why he was defined as the Once and Future King -- he was a rare breed among men.