Okay so forgive me if anyone else has posted similar metas but college has made it very hard for me to keep up with fast updating tags so here are some thoughts and musings I really wanted to share.
So we know that something is rotten in the state of Camelot that has to do with Arthur, and we know from traditional accounts that Camelot and the Order of Round Table should have fallen because Lancelotās affair with Guinevere is a thing of the past. Now OUaT plays really fast and loose with the original stories, yes but this is kinda a BIG thing to change. So part of me is wondering if they actually haven't.
Now in at least some tellings, Arthur really wanted to ignore Guinevere's betrayal and just let her and Lancelot do their thing. There are even tellings where for a time, he did. And it wasn't until Mordred's interference that it became public knowledge and Arthur had to intervene. There was really no option to pardon either of them, even if Arthur would have wanted that, cheating on the King is considered treason. So the fact that not only is Camelot still standing but that Guinevere is back by Arthur's side and not hiding in the convent is a little weird. But what if that's not Guinevere?
If Arthur is really Arthur and not Mordred using family resemblance to masquerade as his father, then there's probably some corrupting force in play. Now when Camelot fell there was a climatic battle at a little place called Camlann, where Mordred dies and Arthur gets fatally wounded but is whisked to Avalon to be healed and someday return to the Britains by none other than Morgan la Fey, perhaps the best known Arthurian villain. Morgan being a powerful sorceress would be more than capable of using a glamour to pose as Guinevere and control and mislead Arthur with some magical help. I will admit that this is very similar to what was just done last season with Zelena, so while I'd hope that they wouldn't just repeat plot lines, it's something I can see them doing.
Another tangentially related issue I had was with the Siege Perilous. The Siege isn't just nominally reserved for the purest of heart, it is magically so. In legend, when the Round Table was brought to Camelot, Merlin set the chair aside for the one who would eventually succeed in the Grail Quest (Percival or Galahad, depending on the age of your source). This reservation was so strong that anyone else who tried to take the seat would perish on the spot. Even Lancelot in all his brashness never even tried to take it. If the Siege is still deadly in Once, which I'm going to assume it is for the sake of the meta, that seems like an awfully big omission for Arthur to make, but now that we know that Arthur is not what he seems there is a possible reason. An Arthur who is not entirely himself, or even possibly under someone else's control might have an ulterior motive to place David in the Siege. What if Arthur (or Morgan) was trying to kill him by giving him the seat, and the plan backfired? Could it be that David will hold some role akin to Grail Hero?









