mordred enabler @orkneyism - Tumblr Blog

thesis statement of this blog

@mortiscausa‘s March to Camelot 2026 – Prompt 4: Divine

Galahad and King Mordrains

#my creepy unsettling boy <3 #like father like son amirite #this is giving holiness as an omen/curse for him which is always the hill i am dying on when it comes to galahad and the grail #galahad #art

katabay

Gueith Camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt. (Annales Cambriae, 537)

finally. FINALLY. getting into mordred's side of things, but first I wanted to spend a minute with medraut without mordred in mind to get a feel for things long gone so that I'll have a better grasp on where everything ends up wrt the french cycles etc before I start really breaking things down and examining the horror of family and pulling at threads to see what character unravels from all that.

Mordred, Judith Weiss

#medraut....#his narrative trajectory from medraut to mordred from someone who might have fallen alongside to one who made everything come crashing down #also on a less serious note #i need to Steal His Look #mordred #arthur #art

chiropteracupola

they should give you the day off work if you are thinking about lancelot too much. this should count as illness. need a yearly vaccination against having a case of lancelot.

sirgavvainet

Tristan and Isolde babies…

plannette-drawz

Here lieth Balan and Balin le Savage 🫡

March to Camelot prompt 3 !! Was gonna draw their tomb originally but it came out super boring So have this instead

toadlett

another one from @mortiscausa 's march to Camelot challenge: Heir! not drawn this horrible boy in a while.

#love it!!#march to camelot

currentlycryingaboutlancelot

i do like to make fun of lancelot a lot but it is like he was 1) knighted as a teenager 2) grew up inside of a lake and 3) is french. so honestly I feel this is kind of a situation where his general behavior becomes a lot more understandable. given the circumstances

#lancelot #grew up inside a lake with no community other than a commune of women living underwater and his cousin thing alone explains so much

need to change my tag system bc i've been using #sirknightname for so long to make sure what i post does not get lost in the middle of bbc merlin content but also i do NOT respect these guys like that

gawrkin

I find it interesting how Guinevere and Iseult, the two primary female adulterers of Arthurian legend, are usually portrayed as childless queens, with a lot of ink spilled on the thematic implications of such, especially on the former.

But at the same time, in the long history of Arthurian Legend, both Queens did had children at somewhere along the Legend's development.

From what I've observed, the attribution of children to both has a certain chronology to it:

In Iseult's case, she stayed childless throughout much of the legend's evolution until about the later Medieval period, where she was eventually given offspring with Tristan (Ysaye le Triste, I Due Tristani, etc.).

The ascribing of children to Guinevere, on the other hand, occurs at two periods. The first one is nearer to the earlier stages of the legend, at least before the Vulgate cycle (~1210 AD), with the child usually being a version of Sir Loholt. The second period occurs at the Late Medieval period and Post Medieval period, similar to Iseult, with works such as Alliterative Morte Arthur, Memorial das Proezas and Eachtra Melora agus Orlando.

In other words, at the start, only Guinevere was given a child and even that was not nearly as significant and was ultimately done away with. It is at the close of Medieval era that we start to see a trend towards fertility for both characters. If I could make a claim, I suspect the reasons for such are likely cultural and/or textual, rather than "biological".

joemerl

Interesting to note: those early legends where Arthur had kids, presumably with Guinevere, were before her affair with Lancelot was a thing. It's almost like once she became an adulteress, she had to stop being a mother.

A collection of interrelated thoughts on this matter:

I feel like people want to avoid a child of ambiguous paternity. Maybe because so many characters are defined by their lineage in these stories, the writers didn't see the inherent drama of a kid who might be Arthur or Lancelot's son. Also, it's hard to create a situation where Guinevere/Isolde's kid is definitely from their lover, but their husband somehow doesn't realize something's amiss.

Of course, you could have the opposite situation, where the kid is definitely from the husband; after all, Loholt is the main exception to this rule, and it's never suggested that Lancelot might be his dad. But, let's be honest...the medlit writers weren't writing about extramarital affairs because they cared about the married couple. King Mark exists to either graciously allow Tristram and Isolde to be together, or to be villainized for opposing them—either way, the inherent assumption is that Tristram/Isolde is the rightful couple. As far as I know, the medievals never wrote spicy poems about Arthur and Guinevere's relationship, and in some sources, like Le Morte D'Arthur, he doesn't seem to care about Guinevere at all—Gawain has to push him into war with Lancelot because Arthur is bizarrely disinterested in the news that they've been boinking.

Relatedly...for the people who just want these affairs to be romantic fantasies, I think throwing a kid in makes it too real. You can stubbornly insist that Isolde is right for running off with Tristram, but that becomes harder if she's also abandoning the child that she has with Mark. Or does she take him with her, and their romantic paradise includes Tristram having to his kidnapped cousin/stepson? If she and Tristram have a kid while she's still with Mark, does that mean she's passing an illegitimate child off as the kingdom's heir? I'm not sure the noble patrons are gonna like these implications.

orkneyism

so interesting... i think about guinevere's childlessness a lot usually but never made a connection with isolde as well. so, what i want to add does not apply to isolde really, but it might be an additional explanation as to why guinevere's association with loholt or any potential legitimate heir has gradually disappeared. but basically, i think in the case of anything after the vulgate, which establishes mordred as arthur's illegitimate son, giving arthur a child with guinevere just becomes narratively troublesome.

on the one hand, as has been pointed out, an ambiguous paternity means you end up with a reverse-mordred figure who is the heir apparent without being arthur's offspring. but even more importantly (i am aware i am interpreting this from a very anachronistic and feminist lens but bear with me), it is a way of laying the implicit blame at guinevere's door. the unspoken yet contextually implied fact that she "cannot" provide arthur with a legal heir (and even if she had been able to, the question of paternity would immediately arise) means that guinevere stood no chance of being depicted as a good mother. but having her childless creates the power vacuum required for the story to move forward. the ambiguity surrounding who is going to succeed arthur is what leads to an oversized influence of arthur's nephews both at court on the story level and to their importance in the romances. i do not mean mordred by this, who, in all honesty, is mostly just there until the guinevere-lancelot affair plot, but mainly gawain.

so when shit hits the fan and arthur goes to war with lancelot, again more for gawain's sake than anything, her childlessness becomes an unspoken factor that creates the conditions for leaving mordred in charge--independent of his portrayal as arthur's nephew or illegitimate son. it is also why arthur's death alongside most of his knights at camlann marks the beginning of rapid decline.

so tldr; basically, i believe in most medieval versions of the legend, for there to be a morte darthur/fall of camelot narrative, guinevere's childlessness is essential to the story structure.

gawrkin

For anyone who doesn't mind, here is a notable and painful bit of extra context to the previous:

(Source: Historia Brittonum, by Nennius)

(Source: Culhwch and Olwen)

(Source: Garel von dem Bluhenden Thal, by Der Pleier)

(Source: The Death of Duran, son of Arthur)

Beyond all the various projected reasons of stripping motherhood from Guinevere (and Iseult), there is also the potential avenue of having to consider the uncomfortable idea of Arthur and Guinevere's children predeceasing their parents.

Legitimate or not, I imagine the prospect of the early deaths of Arthur's presumptive heirs would have been a sore point for any Medieval Arthurian writer, because of how much of a hassle it is to square any of that with the romantic vision of Arthurian rule and the character of the Royal couple, not just as authority figures but as parents as well.

(The bit with Amr, in particular... if he is a legitimate son... then OOF)

And Arthur having a list of dead sons is one thing. Having Guinevere endure any of that is another; I figure it would have been a turn-off for noblewomen. "Too Real" as @joemerl puts it, especially when you consider mortality rates of those days.

#ohh thanks so much for the additional context!#haven't read the Der Pleier text and based on this excerpt.... now i have to #guinevere #iseult

agravaine

agravaine to get back into practice with digital art. i still dont like this but i'm glad i forced myself to finish it

#Him.#agravaine

gawrkin

I find it interesting how Guinevere and Iseult, the two primary female adulterers of Arthurian legend, are usually portrayed as childless queens, with a lot of ink spilled on the thematic implications of such, especially on the former.

But at the same time, in the long history of Arthurian Legend, both Queens did had children at somewhere along the Legend's development.

From what I've observed, the attribution of children to both has a certain chronology to it:

In Iseult's case, she stayed childless throughout much of the legend's evolution until about the later Medieval period, where she was eventually given offspring with Tristan (Ysaye le Triste, I Due Tristani, etc.).

The ascribing of children to Guinevere, on the other hand, occurs at two periods. The first one is nearer to the earlier stages of the legend, at least before the Vulgate cycle (~1210 AD), with the child usually being a version of Sir Loholt. The second period occurs at the Late Medieval period and Post Medieval period, similar to Iseult, with works such as Alliterative Morte Arthur, Memorial das Proezas and Eachtra Melora agus Orlando.

In other words, at the start, only Guinevere was given a child and even that was not nearly as significant and was ultimately done away with. It is at the close of Medieval era that we start to see a trend towards fertility for both characters. If I could make a claim, I suspect the reasons for such are likely cultural and/or textual, rather than "biological".

joemerl

Interesting to note: those early legends where Arthur had kids, presumably with Guinevere, were before her affair with Lancelot was a thing. It's almost like once she became an adulteress, she had to stop being a mother.

A collection of interrelated thoughts on this matter:

I feel like people want to avoid a child of ambiguous paternity. Maybe because so many characters are defined by their lineage in these stories, the writers didn't see the inherent drama of a kid who might be Arthur or Lancelot's son. Also, it's hard to create a situation where Guinevere/Isolde's kid is definitely from their lover, but their husband somehow doesn't realize something's amiss.

Of course, you could have the opposite situation, where the kid is definitely from the husband; after all, Loholt is the main exception to this rule, and it's never suggested that Lancelot might be his dad. But, let's be honest...the medlit writers weren't writing about extramarital affairs because they cared about the married couple. King Mark exists to either graciously allow Tristram and Isolde to be together, or to be villainized for opposing them—either way, the inherent assumption is that Tristram/Isolde is the rightful couple. As far as I know, the medievals never wrote spicy poems about Arthur and Guinevere's relationship, and in some sources, like Le Morte D'Arthur, he doesn't seem to care about Guinevere at all—Gawain has to push him into war with Lancelot because Arthur is bizarrely disinterested in the news that they've been boinking.

Relatedly...for the people who just want these affairs to be romantic fantasies, I think throwing a kid in makes it too real. You can stubbornly insist that Isolde is right for running off with Tristram, but that becomes harder if she's also abandoning the child that she has with Mark. Or does she take him with her, and their romantic paradise includes Tristram having to his kidnapped cousin/stepson? If she and Tristram have a kid while she's still with Mark, does that mean she's passing an illegitimate child off as the kingdom's heir? I'm not sure the noble patrons are gonna like these implications.

orkneyism

so interesting... i think about guinevere's childlessness a lot usually but never made a connection with isolde as well. so, what i want to add does not apply to isolde really, but it might be an additional explanation as to why guinevere's association with loholt or any potential legitimate heir has gradually disappeared. but basically, i think in the case of anything after the vulgate, which establishes mordred as arthur's illegitimate son, giving arthur a child with guinevere just becomes narratively troublesome.

on the one hand, as has been pointed out, an ambiguous paternity means you end up with a reverse-mordred figure who is the heir apparent without being arthur's offspring. but even more importantly (i am aware i am interpreting this from a very anachronistic and feminist lens but bear with me), it is a way of laying the implicit blame at guinevere's door. the unspoken yet contextually implied fact that she "cannot" provide arthur with a legal heir (and even if she had been able to, the question of paternity would immediately arise) means that guinevere stood no chance of being depicted as a good mother. but having her childless creates the power vacuum required for the story to move forward. the ambiguity surrounding who is going to succeed arthur is what leads to an oversized influence of arthur's nephews both at court on the story level and to their importance in the romances. i do not mean mordred by this, who, in all honesty, is mostly just there until the guinevere-lancelot affair plot, but mainly gawain.

so when shit hits the fan and arthur goes to war with lancelot, again more for gawain's sake than anything, her childlessness becomes an unspoken factor that creates the conditions for leaving mordred in charge--independent of his portrayal as arthur's nephew or illegitimate son. it is also why arthur's death alongside most of his knights at camlann marks the beginning of rapid decline.

so tldr; basically, i believe in most medieval versions of the legend, for there to be a morte darthur/fall of camelot narrative, guinevere's childlessness is essential to the story structure.

#take everything i say on generalizations about medieval arthuriana with a grain of salt tho because i am saying all this as a nerd #who is too into fall of camelot stuff #im unfortunately not someone who actually studied this #but thinking about guinevere as the black sheep who just survives it all and takes refuge in obscurity makes me insane on a regular basis #guinevere #arthuriana #isolde