English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

it wasn't real

2007-02-17 13:59:26 · answer #1 · answered by epbr123 5 · 0 0

1) When an organization is built on an individual rather than larger principles, its lifespan is limited to the individual's involvement, which is why Arthur tried to make chivalry and other principles the working guidelines for the kingdom. Unfortunately, he started late.
2) Mordred's claim to the throne after Arthur split the kingdom in half. When that many people disagree and do so violently, they are likely to destroy everything they want.
3) The death of Camelot, the entire tale, was far more effective as a failed experiment than an actuality. Perhaps Merlin saw that, once things had failed to a certain point, and realized that the effect the "myth" of Camelot would have on World culture would be profound and eternal.

"Ask ev'ry person if he's heard the story;

And tell it strong and clear if he has not:

That once there was a fleeting wisp of glory

Called Camelot."

We won't forget... .

2007-02-17 22:27:29 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1 1

A couple of reasons:

1 - The search for the Grail had all the knights of the kingdom split up and gone off in all different directions.

2 - The struggle between Arthur and Mordred - really that meant that nobody won.

2007-02-17 22:06:33 · answer #3 · answered by catrionn 6 · 0 1

Don't know, but saw that in a High School Drama Play--Years Ago!
Good too!

Music Please:
In Camelot--In Camelot
Da Da Dadadadadadadada da--forget it, Toooo Loooonggg ago.
Ditto................

2007-02-17 22:04:04 · answer #4 · answered by maguyver727 7 · 0 1

Because after Arthur's death there wasn't anyone that had the skill, the respect, the loyalty or the sheer charisma to hold together such a kingdom.

2007-02-18 02:06:15 · answer #5 · answered by gotherunereadings 3 · 1 1

Which authur are you talking about?

2007-02-17 21:59:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Because he was part of what made it. I suppose it could have continued if the author wished, but, there is no historical evidence that he existed.

2007-02-17 22:00:11 · answer #7 · answered by crct2004 6 · 0 1

Pride, vanity and egos of equal strength to each other, but less than Arthur's?

2007-02-17 22:01:37 · answer #8 · answered by Terry 7 · 1 1

cause everyone else sucked

2007-02-17 21:59:34 · answer #9 · answered by halpinator36 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers