Search

Arthurian Romances

The World Pertaining to King Arthur

Tag

Arthurian Legend

The Thirteen Treasures of Britain by Human Odyssey

I was nicely surprised this morning when this amazing article was shared on my Facebook page Arthurian Romances! I’ve asked to post it here so you may enjoy it as well!

10983408_641831939275726_1119549952529808873_n

The “Thirteen Treasures of Britain” are famous artefacts from Celtic legend. The kings and heroes of Britain possessed these divine hallows during the divine age – a time when Arthur and Merlin protected the realm.

Rulers and chieftains were given these treasures as a sign of their sovereignty. Each treasure had its own way of testing a king’s worthiness: they were designed to be wielded by the righteous and the brave, often failing in the hands of the wicked.

The Thirteen treasures of Britain included:

1. The Flaming Sword (Dyrnwyn) of Rhydderch Hael; Only the king of the north could wield this weapon which was said to burst into a flame from cross to the point.

2. The Chessboard of Gwenddolen was renowned for its ability to play opponents by itself. The board was made of gold, adorned with 32 silver pieces. The knight, Peredur, once played against it and lost. Outraged at his intellectual unworthiness, he threw the chess board into a lake.

3. The Hamper of Gwyddno Garanhir acted like a food replicator. Any goods that was placed inside it was copied ten-fold. Once reopened, it would have a hundred servings to feed a whole army of people.

4. The Carriage of Morgan Mwynvawr was renowned for its speed. It was claimed that its passengers were swiftly transported to wherever their hearts desired. Some said it flew through the sky to its destination, other that it arrived at its target in the blink of an eye.

5. The Horn of Bran Galed was especially sought after by those who liked their drink. It could dispense any beverage its user wished for, including rum, wine, beer and ale. Bran the Blessed, who was the custodian of this artefact, later became a guardian of the Holy Grail.

6. The Halter of Clydno Eiddyn could tame any horse in the kingdom. It was kept at the end of Eiddyn’s bed. Whatever horse he wished for at night, would appear harnessed to the halter in the morning. This was a most prized possession for any horse-loving Celt.

7. The Knife of Llawfrodded Farchawg was so swift that it could serve up a hog-roast for twenty-four men all at once. It was great for a feast, but could also be a deadly weapon on the battlefield.

8. The Cauldron of Dyrnwch (a Celtic giant) could boil a most delicious stew, but it would only feed the most courageous of people. If a coward tried to boil meat in it, the flesh would remain uncooked. However, if a brave champion placed his kill in the pot, it would cook a sumptuous feast for him and his army.

9. The Tunic of Padarn Beisrudd was made to fit the kind and noble hearted. If a wicked person tried to adorn themselves with the armoured tunic, it would shrink in size, prohibiting the unworthy from its magical benefits.

10. The Whetstone of Tudwal Tudelud produced the most finely sharpened swords in the land. However, it would only hone the blade of a brave and fierce warrior. Any enemy struck by its finely polished blade was sure to die. However, if a coward sharpened his sword on its magical edge, it would blunt their weapon, rendering it useless in battle.

11. The Crockery of Rhegynydd Ysgolhaig produced the most wondrous feasts. It would fill itself to the brim with whatever food its master wished for, and was said to feed thousands of people during the harvest festival.

12. The Mantle of Arthur could conceal the user from his enemies. Whoever was robed in this magical cloth would become concealed to the outside world. Rather than a cloak of invisibility, it functioned more like a chameleon, blending in with its surroundings.

13. The Ring of Eluned was perhaps the most powerful artefact of all. Whoever concealed the stone of this ring would become invisible. They would not be able to kill anyone while concealed, for as soon as they took their hand away from the stone, they would become visible once again. This helped to ensure the ring wasn’t used as a deadly weapon in the wrong hands.

According to legend, Merlin the magician spent many years searching for all these divine artefacts. Eventually he procured all thirteen treasures from their owners and took them to his glass abode on Bardsey Island, Wales. When he eventually faded from this world, the divine age of Celts came to an end.

Some say the treasures of Britain can be found in Merlin’s secret tomb, but sadly its location has been lost in the annals of time. Others say the treasures are still with us, buried beneath Britain, waiting for a virtuous and noble soul to reclaim them.

King Arthur’s Burial Cross

20130806-120906.jpg

King Arthur’s Burial Cross
The cross existed at one time and may still exist in some dark cellar or dusty attic. If found, it would be the only tangible relic in existence associated with King Arthur and could provide important clues as to whether or not it was his grave that was opened on that day in 1190.

Discovery of the Cross
he medieval historian, Gerald of Wales, tells us that sometime before he died in 1189, Henry II gave a message to the monks of Glastonbury Abbey regarding the location of the grave of King Arthur. He also tells us that Henry had gotten the information from an unnamed Welsh bard.

Gerald’s account goes on to say that the Glastonbury monks, presumably acting on this information, had uncovered a hollowed-out log containing two bodies, while digging between two stone pyramids standing together in the abbey cemetary. The log coffin had been buried quite deep, at around 16 feet down. A stone slab cover had been found at the seven foot level, and attached to its underside was an oddly shaped cross with a latin inscription on it, naming the occupants of the coffin as the renowned King Arthur and his queen, Guinevere.

Beside Gerald’s report written in “Liber de Principis instructione” c.1193, there were several other versions of the discovery of the grave and cross which appeared in various chronicles over the years. Each account was a bit different from the others and either included or omitted details which the others did not. At least five different versions of the inscription on the cross have been reported, and this inconsistency in the details of the story has led many scholars to think that a great hoax was being perpetrated by the Glastonbury monks for the purpose of generating pilgrim traffic to their abbey.

Adding to the suspicions aroused by the above inconsistencies, the case for a “monastic hoax” gains more strength when we consider that there were several obvious motives for it:

the monks’ beloved abbey church, the most glorious in all England and possibly in all of Christendom, had been destroyed by fire in 1184, just a few short years before.

the abbey’s greatest pilgrim attraction, the “Old Church,” England’s oldest Christian structure which dated back many hundreds of years, had been burned up with it.

the abbey’s chief benefactor, the recently deceased Henry II, was no longer in a position to finance their efforts to rebuild and the new king, Richard, was more interested in using his money to go “Crusading.”

A popular legend, current among the British people, claimed that King Arthur had never actually died and that he would one day return to his people when their need was great. While it is easy for modern people to discount a story like that, the twelfth century was an age of great credulity, and since no one could point to the location of Arthur’s actual burial place, the legend couldn’t be so easily discounted. Amazingly enough, no one had ever even claimed to know where the grave was, let alone try to identify it. A verse from the Welsh “Stanzas of the Graves” (aka The Graves of the Warriors of Britain), states:
There is a grave for March, a grave for Gwythur,
a grave for Gwgawn Red-sword;
the world’s wonder, a grave for Arthur
The historian, William of Malmesbury, confirms that the whereabouts of Arthur’s burial place is unknown, and that silly legends have been created as a result:
. . .tomb of Arthur is nowhere beheld, whence the ancient ditties fable that he is yet to come.
Given the immediate need for cash to rebuild their abbey, the death of their chief benefactor and a willingness to engage in questionable practices to serve what they believed was a noble end, it would take no great leap of the imagination to expect that the Glastonbury monks would come up with some other scheme to raise funds. In King Arthur, it would seem that they had a ready-made solution to their problems: a major legendary figure whose grave could attract all the pilgrims that the Old Church did, and, at the same time, enhance the abbey’s reputation for sanctity and prestige as the final resting place of saints and kings.

Having said all that, it must be noted that there are a few difficulties with the “monastic hoax” theory. First of all, if we are going to credit the monks with the imagination and effrontery necessary to perpetrate a hoax of this magnitude, then we should also expect them to be able to manage the public relations campaign that would be needed after the “discovery” of Arthur’s body.

Instead, we see several different accounts of the exhumation of the grave and, over the years, we get several versions of what was inscribed on the cross. The varied accounts of the inscriptions are as follows:
Ralph of Coggeshall, “Chronicon Anglicanum,” c.1225

“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”

Margam Abbey (Wales), “Chronicle,” some date it early 1190’s, others, 14th century

“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”

John Leland, 1542

“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”

William Camden, “Britannia,” 1607

“Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”

Monks of St. Albans, “Chronica Majora,” mid- to late-13th Century

“Here lies the renowned King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon”

Adam of Domerham, “Historia de rebus Glastoniensibus,” 1291

“Here lies interred in the isle of Avalon, the renowned King Arthur”

Gerald of Wales, “Liber de Principis instructione,” c.1193

“Here lies buried the famous King Arthur with Guinevere his second wife in the isle of Avalon”

Gerald of Wales, “Speculum Ecclesiae,” c.1216

“Here lies buried the famous King Arthur in the isle of Avalon with his second wife Guinevere”
Shouldn’t we expect that if the monks had been willing to risk this deception in the first place, that they would have made sure that everyone was telling the same story? Another troublesome thing is that while the fortuitous timing of the “discovery” of Arthur’s grave might seem highly suspicious to us, the monks didn’t follow up by doing what we might expect them to have done if they were really trying to pull off a hoax. We would expect them to have launched a major publicity campaign, announcing the discovery to the world. We would expect to find evidence that a major influx of pilgrims had been planned for. We would expect to find documentary and literary evidence that Glastonbury had, in fact, become a more important place of pilgrimage than it had already been.

Surprisingly, we see none of that. Other than a few mentions in monastic chronicles through the years, there is no record of any “advertising blitz.” There were no new structures built to enshrine the bodies or to house or otherwise accommodate the pilgrims. And there was nothing written to suggest that the “discovery” at Glastonbury attracted any unusual attention, at all.

From their grave, the bodies of Arthur and Guinevere may have been translated to a tomb inside the newly rebuilt Lady Chapel, which had been completed in 1186. After the discovery in 1190, nothing is heard of the tomb or the bodies until many years later when they are reported by the “Annals of Waverley” to be in the treasury in the east range of the abbey church, awaiting a move to a more fitting location. The bodies remained there until the year 1278, when Edward I came to Glastonbury to preside over their re-interrment in a new marble coffin, underneath the high altar, in the recently rebuilt great abbey church (a marker indicates the spot where the tomb stood; see photo above). Arthur’s cross was laid on top of the tomb for all to see, and there it remained for about 250 years.

The final disposition of the bodies is unknown, but they probably didn’t survive the Dissolution of the abbey by Henry VIII and his zealots during the English Reformation in 1539. The burial cross did, though. It was seen and handled by John Leland around 1540 and illustrated for the 1607 edition of “Britannia” by William Camden. It was last reported in the possession of one William Hughes, an official of Wells Cathedral, sometime in the early eighteenth century.

The story of the cross doesn’t end there, but continues on to the present day. There have been several reports in the 20th century that the cross has been found, but in each case, the reports have proven to be false. Those erroneous reports don’t mean that the cross does not exist, only that it hasn’t been found, yet. It may, even now, be gathering dust in an attic or a cellar, or perhaps lying unseen underneath a pile of logs in an outdoor shed. But, if it were to be found, it would be our only tangible link to the strange events at Glastonbury over 800 years ago.

What We Know About the Cross:

A cross was found during the excavation of a grave site next to the Lady Chapel at Glastonbury Abbey.

The date of the discovery was reported as taking place in 1190 (Adam of Domerham) and 1191 (Ralph of Coggeshall). This discrepancy can be accounted for by allowing for inaccuracies in the calendar that was in use in the late 12th century.

Adam of Domerham said that Arthur’s grave was discovered 648 years after his death. If we take Geoffrey of Monmouth’s word for it, the date of the Battle of Camlann and, presumably, his death was 542. The simple addition of 542 + 648 = 1190.

The cross was said to be “leaden”.

The cross was fastened to the underside of a stone slab located seven feet down (the actual bones were found at the 16 foot level), and the inscription was turned in toward the stone slab.

There are five different reported versions of how the cross was inscribed (see above).

Gerald of Wales’ account states that the inscription was on one side of the cross. He also says that the inscription included a reference to Guinevere. Camden’s illustration of the cross shows the inscribed side, but there is no mention of Guinevere, there.

The letterforms used in the inscription are not consistent with any known fifth or sixth century script, but are more likely to be of the tenth century.

The earliest and most contemporary account of the dig is by Gerald of Wales (aka Giraldus Cambrensis, aka Gerald de Barri).

Ralph of Coggeshall’s account states that Arthur’s grave was located, accidentally, while digging a grave for a monk whose fervent desire was to be buried between the pyramids.

Gerald of Wales’ account, said that the grave site location was given to the monks by Henry II, after it had been specifically revealed to him by a Welsh bard. It stated also that there was only one coffin (actually a hollowed-out log, split into two sections, one each for Arthur and his queen) and that the cross specifically mentioned her by name.

Adam of Domerham, writing in 1290, and John of Glastonbury, around 1350, tell us that there were two tombs and add the interesting detail that while the digging was being done, the grave site was surrounded by white draperies or curtains.

The Margam account stated that there were three separate coffins (one each for Arthur, Guinevere and Mordred) and that the wording on the cross did not mention Guinevere.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to use the term Isle of Avalon, but he didn’t equate it with any geographic place. The first equation of Glastonbury and Avalon came in Gerald of Wales’ account.

There are three common elements in the five inscriptions: King Arthur, burial or interrment and Avalon. The following syllogism can be constructed using those common elements: Arthur’s last resting place is the Isle of Avalon, Arthur lies in Glastonbury, therefore Glastonbury is the Isle of Avalon.

The only drawings of the cross (that we know of) were done by William Camden for the 1607 and 1608 editions of his historical work, “Britannia.” There was some variation in the shapes of the letters between the two editions.

The usually reliable John Leland, writing in “Assertio Inclytissimi Arturii,” having held the cross in his hands during a visit to the abbey around 1542, said that it measured nearly a foot in length.

The cross was attached to the top of the marble coffin in which Arthur and Guinevere’s bones were reinterred in 1278 by Edward I.

The cross remained there until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1539, after which it spent the next hundred years or so in the Reverstry of the parish church of St. John Baptist, Glastonbury (Bodleian Rawlinson B.416A, folio 10v, see Carley, p. 178 )

The Cross disappeared from view and wound up, in the early 18th century, in the posession of a certain Mr. William Hughes, Chancellor of Wells.

The Arthur Cross Rediscovered? A 1981 hoax involving a fake cross.

Bibliography:
………………………………..

Ashe, Geoffrey, King Arthur’s Avalon: the Story of Glastonbury, Barnes & Noble, 1992

Barber, Richard, King Arthur: Hero and Legend, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1961

Carley, James P., Glastonbury Abbey, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1988,

Chambers, E.K., Arthur of Britain, Cambridge: Speculum Historiale, 1927, 1964

Newell, W. W., William of Malmesbury on the Antiquity of Glastonbury, PMLA, XVIII (1903)

Thorpe, Lewis, trans., Geoffrey of Monmouth: The History of the Kings of Britain, Penguin Books, 1966

Thorpe, Lewis, trans., Gerald of Wales: The Journey Through Wales and The Description of Wales, Penguin Books, 1978

Morgan Le Faye

Morgan Le Fay

Morgan Le Fay: popularly known as Arthurian sorceress, benevolent fairy, priestess, dark magician, enchantress, witch, sea goddess, shape-changer, healer, and the sole personage of Avalon the Isle of Apples, not to mention daughter of Ygerna (Igraine) and Gorlois, half-sister to King Arthur, mother of Mordred, lady-in-waiting to Guinevere, wife of Uriens, lover of Sir Accolon, fancier of Sir Lancelot, and ‘as fair a lady as any might be’.

Morgan Le Fay was first introduced into Arthurian legend by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the Vita Merlini (c. 1150) but her true origin, as with many Arthurian characters, leads back into Celtic mythology and inevitably develops with each new rendition of the tale. Morgan Le Fay’s character is interesting enough, but so is her name.

The name ‘Morgan Le Fay’

In Celtic terms, Morgan (or Morcant) is a man’s name. The feminine version is more correctly Morgain (or Morgue or Morgne). Also Morrigan equates with Morrigu of Irish mythology. According to Celtic tradition the Morrigan (a Triple Goddess of Celtic myth, thought of as the Goddess of Death) flew over battles, shrieking like ravens and claiming dead soldiers’ heads as trophies. Or the answer may lie in Uriens – in early Welsh literature Modron (a version of Matrona) was the daughter of Avallach, wife of Urien, and mother of Owein. The Welsh and Arthurian story lines were later merged, forming a link between Modron and King Arthur. Further, there was a sixth-century Cumbrian ruler called Urien Rheged who presided over a loose coalition of kings (according to some accounts there was also an Arthur, son of King Aedan of dal Riada). Urien had a loose ally: Morcant Bulc – a man – who eventually plotted to assassinate him, which could have been Sir Thomas Malory’s inspiration for the plot in Le Morte d’Arthur where Morgan Le Fay attempts to kill Arthur and Uriens.

‘Le Fay’ is an ancient word for a fairy and to this day, apparently, the Breton name for a water-nymph is a ‘Morgan’.

The possible roots of the Arthurian character Morgan Le Fay therefore run deep into early British mythology and can be traced across several hundred years up to her final act as one of the three women who transported the fatally wounded King Arthur in a barge to the Isle of Avalon to be healed (outcome unrecorded). A speculative summary, based on Welsh and other Arthurian legend, suggest an identification with Modron and also with the river goddess Matrona, possibly derived from the Irish goddess Morrigan. Given the superstitious Christian attitude to supernatural women in the medieval era, the more she is humanised, the more the name Morgan Le Fay descends into an easy literary metaphor for devious, sometimes evil mischief.

Nonetheless the much-maligned Morgan Le Fay never becomes purely evil. Her attractive qualities remain – a healer, she is associated with art and culture, she is sexy, and in the end is worthy of redemption.

Morgan Le Fay pre-Malory

In Monmouth’s Vita Merlini, Morgan was the chief among her nine sisters: Moronoe, Mazoe, Gliten, Glitonea, Cliton, Tyronoe, and Thitis, and Morgause. She could change shape at will (and to be young or old, beautiful or ugly, or an animal or other object) and to fly with wings, hence – ‘Le Fay’, or Faerie. There was no suggestion of a blood relationship between Arthur and Morgan – she was simply his healer. In Chrétien de Troyes’ Erec and Enide, Morgan le Fay was a friend of Guingamar, Lord of Avalon and one of the guests at the wedding of Erec and Enide. Chrétien descibes her as a giver of healing ointments but she is more typically portrayed as a wicked enchantress who learned her crafts in a Christian nunnery, powers which were subsequently extended with the help of Merlin. She was referred to later as Arthur’s sister (and again as a healer), and in Le Chevalier au Lion her ointments cured Yvain’s madness. Neither Geoffrey of Monmouth nor Chrétien de Troyes described her as the wife of Uriens.

In the The Vulgate Cycle (1215 to 1235) Morgan Le Fay is however married to Uriens. She is also Queen Guinevere’s lady in waiting and fell in love with the King’s nephew, Giomar, but Guinevere put an end to the romance. Morgan responded by betraying the Queen’s affair with Lancelot to King Arthur. She had herself become infatuated with Sir Lancelot though he consistently refused her attentions, despite being imprisoned by her several times. The suspect nature of Morgan Le Fay’s character appears to have been fuelled by the Cistercian monks who wrote the stories of the Vulgate Cycle, prejudiced by the earlier concept of the Morrighan. They undoubtedly considered the idea of a non-religious female healer to be the mark of blasphemy.

In another well-known work – the anonymous late 14th Century poem ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’ (the Green Knight was, like Morgan, a ‘shape-shifter’) – she was the instigator of the plot which began the story. Here, the Virgin Mary (as the female archetype representing spiritual love, obedience, chastity, and life) is contrasted with Morgan Le Fay’s representation of courtly love, disobedience, lust and death.

Morgan Le Fay in Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur

In Le Morte d’Arthur Morgan Le Fay is fully established as wife of Uriens, sister of Arthur, but is not, truly, a major character. Her best-known part in the tale is as follows:

When Uther Pendragon married Igraine (Book 1), Morgan was the youngest of her three daughters from her previous marriage to Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, who had been slain by Uther’s army just before he raped her at Tintagel Castle (and begat Arthur). Morgan was then sent to a nunnery. According to Malory’s timescale, at the time of Uther’s death two years later, Morgan would have been between thirteen and sixteen and already married to Uriens. At any rate, when the young King Arthur waged war against the five kings Morgan had a grown son, Uwaine, who was close to knighthood.

King Arthur and Morgan Le Fay first came face to face when he sent for Igraine to verify his parentage. At that stage there are no indications of any feelings either way between Morgan and Arthur, but at the burial of Lot and the eleven kings (Book 2) Merlin told Arthur, “Sir, take care with the scabbard of Excalibur, for ye shall lose no blood while ye have it upon you, no matter how many wounds ye have.” Arthur passed the scabbard to Morgan Le Fay for safekeeping, but she loved another knight more than she did her husband (or King Arthur) so she secretly had made a replica of the scabbard and gave the real one to her lover, Sir Accolon of Gaul to protect him.

Following the war with the five kings, Arthur, Uriens, and Accolon went on a hunt (Book 4). Their horses exhausted, they found themselves near nightfall by a great lake where they saw a silk-clad ship approach. Venturing on board, they were greeted by twelve damosels, banqueted, then shown separate chambers. Once in a drug-induced sleep, each was magically transported away, Uriens back to Camelot (where he awoke beside Morgan), Arthur to the prison of the evil Sir Damas (minus his sword and scabbard), and Accolon to a well close to manor of the good Ontzlake, younger brother of Sir Damas.

Morgan Le Fay’s wicked plan

Despite being brothers, Sir Damas and Sir Ontzlake had become mortal enemies, the younger offering to resolve their differences in combat but the latter always refusing, preferring to elect another knight to fight for him. But Damas was too hated ever to find such a knight. At this point a damsel came to Arthur with an offer from Damas that he and his fellow-prisoners would be freed if he would take on the fight, to which Arthur agreed. The damsel was of course ‘false’, having been sent by Morgan Le Fay.

At the same time a dwarf came to Sir Accolon by the well, sent by Morgan to remind him of his earlier (secret) promise to fight an unspecified knight whenever she chose the moment. Accolon would bring her the knight’s head and Morgan Le Fay would become Queen. And now was the moment. The dwarf gave him Excalibur and the scabbard, sent by Morgan, and Accolon made himself ready for combat, on behalf, as it turned out, of Sir Ontzlake against his brother. As Arthur in turn readied himself another damsel came, once again sent by Morgan, and gave him a sword like Excalibur and its scabbard, from which he took reassurance not knowing they were nothing more than poor replicas. The whole monstrous ruse, evidently, had long been planned by Morgan Le Fay so that she could replace Guinevere as Queen.

Nimue, the Lady of the Lake, saves King Arthur

The duel, watched by Nimue, the Lady of the lake, was prolonged and bloody and Sir Accolon, boldened by Excalibur, almost won after Arthur’s useless sword snapped off at the handle. Nimue took pity and with the help of her enchantment Arthur was able to deal such a blow to his opponent that the real Excalibur fell to the ground and he leaped to it and took it in his hand. About to kill Accolon, he asked his name and Accolon confessed all, and thus was spared but died from his wounds soon after, prompting Arthur to despatch his remains to his half-sister at Camelot as a warning.

In the meantime Morgan would have slain her husband, confident of Accolon’s success with Excalibur and the scabbard, but Uriens was saved at the last moment by the intervention of Uwaine, his son, by whom Morgan would herself have been slain had she not agreed to leave Camelot forever. She rode to the nunnery where Arthur was recovering from his wounds and tried to steal back the real Excalibur and scabbard while he slept, but was only able to take the scabbard because the sword was in his hand. When Arthur awoke he set off with Sir Ontzlake in pursuit of Morgan, but she cast the scabbard into a deep lake. She then used her shape-changing powers to disguise herself and her entourage as standing stones to escape further pursuit.

Morgan Le Fay then retreated to her domains (still Book 4). En route she came across a knight leading another bound knight, Manassen (a cousin of Accolon) to be drowned in a fountain for adultery with his wife. For her lost love, and because Manassen swore his innocence, she released him and let him bind and drown his accuser.

At this point Morgan fades somewhat from the mainstream of the story. She went to occupy her lands in Gore, and then to her Castle of Tauroc. To thwart any reprisal by Arthur she sent a damosel to give him a rich mantle embellished with precious stones (in atonement for her sins). But the mantle was laced with poison – Nimue intervened to save Arthur, who made its bearer put it on, who fell down and burnt to coals. Uwaine was later suspected by Arthur of being instrumental in Morgan’s earlier escape from Camelot, and was banished from the court.

The Royal court appears to have thought Morgan Le Fay dead, until King Arthur came across her residence while out hunting one day, and the two were reconciled. In later life she moved to the Isle of Avalon, where she and her allies, the Queen of Northgalis, and the Queen of the Wastelands (and also many damosels, including Nimue) took her dying half-brother to be “healed” after his last battle.

20130219-042423.jpg

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: