Talk:Queen of Hearts/@comment-4047575-20131203190343/@comment-5674726-20131207005741

''I think it would have been a good idea to point out that this was just the way society worked back then instead of trying to mix our morality with theirs and to make the audience believe that those who followed the rules of society back then were all evil and selfish. A more sophisticated look on it would have been better.''

I think that they did the series a disservice by making it so easy for Arthur to get his way when he put his mind to things that were previously out of the question.

It's unthinkable for a commoner to be knighted until Arthur does it, after which nobody has a problem with it and there is no resentment among the nobility over the fact that, with the exception of Sir Leon, the token noble - Gwaine doesn't count as his true heritage doesn't appear to have become known - the King's inner circle consists entirely of people of common birth. It is not only outrageous but also illegal for the Prince/King to marry a servant until he plows ahead with it, and apparently nobody has a problem with it, even when the King has surrendered territory to compensate the princess he jilted and when the servant is widely believed to have cheated on him the day before they were due to be married, which should have been a deal breaker, even for those who might have been able to reconcile themselves to the idea of a commoner Queen.

It would have been so much more meaningful if Arthur had had to truly fight for the changes he wanted to make and, equally importantly, if there were some battles that he wasn't able to win because the weight of opinion among his contemporaries was too strongly against him. Maybe he could knight commoners but there's a lot of resentment and an "us against them" attitude. And as I said before, it would have been a gutsy move if Arthur wasn't able to marry Guinevere in the end.

How many viewers would have seen that twist coming?