The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    KING ARTHUR WAS DISTRAUGHT

    By Richard Day on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 6:38pm |

    The barons were receiving most of the fruits from the King's war and the battles against the heathen Saxons.

    His Majesty's serfs were not doing so well.

    Merlin informed Arthur that true progress could not be witnessed in the foreseeable future unless the entire population shared in this new profit. The profit was realized per the battles against he barbarian Saxons.

    Gawain erupted. What the hell is all this then?

    Gawain always had this English Nobility take on things.

    If we fight for redistribution of this new Saxon wealth, if we eschew our barons, we shall all be libeled as communists, like Robin Hood.

    And yet Gawain, community is all, noted the King.

    But, we are not here in the fantasy of Robin Hood Sire. Replied Gawain.

    And the great feats of this new nation should be attributed  to blood lines shall be diluted from other tribes. Diluted, our bloodlines and our nation shall be diluted to the point where we shall never be English again.

    But my bloodlines arise from other places, said the KING.

    I am Roman and Celtic and English, in the end. I have been born from other places.

    My mother was indeed English and my father came from the Roman Empire.

    After all, we are all here accidentally in the end.

    But we must proceed purposely.

    I am not here to destroy the Barons.

    I am not here to destroy the successful.

    I am attempting to help make this nation a better place for the human race who reside here.

    Gawain, help us find a new way!

     

     

     

    Or....

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Bravo!


    by barefooted on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 7:08pm

    Hi Missy! hA

    We must all do better.

    And I will attempt to do better.

    Thanks to you and my other friends!

    hahahah


    by Richard Day on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 7:26pm

    Good one, Mr. Day.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 8:01pm

    Hi Oxy!

    How ya doin?

    Thank you!

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 8:13pm

    GOD WILLS IT!


    by NCD on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 11:23pm

    WHY NOT?

    HAHHHAAHHAAHAHAH

    You betchya.

    Why not?

    Thank you for showing up NCD

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 11:35pm

    Very 11th century exclamation.....when the knights of King Arthur lived.


    by NCD on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 11:45pm

    I read a whole bunch of books on this subject!

    Geoffrey of Monmouth (precursor to Oxford) certainly added to this fallacy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N8oMW2v8KJ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Geoffrey_of_Monmouth

    hahahahahh

    Arthur most probably lived in the fifth or early sixth century. Ash is the real historian in regard to this issue. And of course his first name is Geoffrey. hahahahah

    But, only in the 11th century, did HE survive. hahahahahah

    Why it took six hundred years for us to hear about it? I do not know.

    If you wish to have me bore you further....just ask   

    hahahahah

     


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 12:00am

    If you are interested, you might want to read Nennius, who provides the earliest account of Arthur--the passing references to Arthur in earlier Welsh poetry aren't stories or narratives. But perhaps you have already read it.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 8:07am

    Nennius was a monk, as I recall, existing  sometime in the early 9th century? and evidently surrounded by parchment. hahahhhahaa One page of his extant 'works' lists the twelve great battles led by Arthur as Dux Bellorum.

    Since we really cannot count on Bede who hints at an Arthur in the early 8th Century but never really names him, Nennius is our first Arthurian historian.

    With no cites. HAHAHAHA

    So we are stuck with Geoffrey of Monmouth some three hundred years prior to Mallory and Geoffrey leaves us with no supporting data at all.

    King Arthur is therefore a myth hidden in some legend lost to all of us. 

    Which makes me just love the legend 

     


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 1:49pm

    I think the majority of historians think that Arthur was  historical, although everything after Nennius is mythical, or 98 percent mythical.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 4:16pm

     

    Nicely done, DD.

    I don't remember if I've asked you this before, but have you ever read Will Cuppy's  "The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody?"   It was published posthumously in 1950.   I discovered it when I was in either the 9th or 10th grade.  Very dry humor about lots of historical figures.   I think you'd enjoy reading it.  


    by MrSmith1 on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 12:30pm

    I enjoyed this. Thanks. 


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 4:29pm

    So glad to see you back, and this was excellent, as usual!


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 10:08am

    Well thank you Cville. 

    Long time no see.

    Take care.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:46pm