Ygraine - definitely! I don't remember if you've been following Sigune's comic, but she tells Ygraine's story there, and the poor woman is treated barbarously. Further, her young daughters know it.
But the paragraph where you say, about Mordred's mistreatment: I suppose that wasn't such a big deal back in those days. - I have to say I disagree. I've seen this argued before; that people in earlier days, with higher rates of child mortality, did not love their children as we do now. And I don't see how or why we should assume this. After all, Arthurian Britain was as much a Christian society as Britain today - arguably more so - and I don't think human nature changes that much in historical times. People are people. But that Mordred was completely without any legal status, and that people would consider him particularly a sinner because he was conceived in sin - that part is sadly true. The poor kid! But that was the point of this post, anyway; he's a victim of both of his parents, who are acting out their own agenda through him.
I haven't read the Cornwell book you mention. I'm afraid I've avoided that author because I don't like war stories. it does sound interesting, though. I can recommend another Mordred tale by a different author, though the title's similar: The Winter Prince by Elizabeth Wein. In this one, Mordred is tutor to Arthur's legitimate son and heir. It's clear to Mordred, as well as to the reader, that the older boy has the qualities of kingship while the younger one, the legitimate heir, does not. Of course, the book postulates that Arthur did have other children, which, as you point out, isn't part of the original legend. That makes Mordred's dismissal by his parents that much worse, in my mind.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 06:21 pm (UTC)But the paragraph where you say, about Mordred's mistreatment: I suppose that wasn't such a big deal back in those days. - I have to say I disagree. I've seen this argued before; that people in earlier days, with higher rates of child mortality, did not love their children as we do now. And I don't see how or why we should assume this. After all, Arthurian Britain was as much a Christian society as Britain today - arguably more so - and I don't think human nature changes that much in historical times. People are people. But that Mordred was completely without any legal status, and that people would consider him particularly a sinner because he was conceived in sin - that part is sadly true. The poor kid! But that was the point of this post, anyway; he's a victim of both of his parents, who are acting out their own agenda through him.
I haven't read the Cornwell book you mention. I'm afraid I've avoided that author because I don't like war stories. it does sound interesting, though. I can recommend another Mordred tale by a different author, though the title's similar: The Winter Prince by Elizabeth Wein. In this one, Mordred is tutor to Arthur's legitimate son and heir. It's clear to Mordred, as well as to the reader, that the older boy has the qualities of kingship while the younger one, the legitimate heir, does not. Of course, the book postulates that Arthur did have other children, which, as you point out, isn't part of the original legend. That makes Mordred's dismissal by his parents that much worse, in my mind.
Thanks for your comment.