posted November 16, 2015 09:59 PM            

I just want to know how you would describe King Arthur's personality good and bad and how you would describe Merlin's as well and any input that comes to mind....

I get the impression that King Arthur is brave and a fighter but if I go by Once a Upon a Time and how they portray him it seems he is willing to do unethical things to get what he wants. On one hand he is driven, ambitious and wants to protect and lead his kingdom. He starts off as good but then feels Merlin lied to him and resorts to more unethical means to get his way bc he has being on this mission for so long that quitting is not a option. He is a fighter and relentless and brave but also conniving and willing to use magic to get his way and keep his love Guinevera by his side who he treats as second place in importance to finding Excalibur. It seems he doesn't know when to quit, cut his loses and refocus his energy.

^All this is based on Once upon a time which I don't know how much of it has been altered.

Merlin is this guy who fell in love with the wrong girl but he was willing to give up immortality in a heart beat to be with her. He is very conscientious and all the decisions he makes and how they end up affecting others really weights on him. He ends up losing the woman he loves to her losing herself to the desire for power and revenge and succumbing to darkness. Merlin does not end up getting his happily ever after in love, having to accept this and live with that pain while still trying to do right by others. He is doing his best to help restore the kingdom.

Trying to understand the characters better so we can understand their influence astrologically better basically and would love to hear what you guys think..

Also what does Excalibur symbolize to each Merlin and Arthur?

I think Arthur lives for adventure and likes to feel he is on a mission, his real love is the quest, but then he perhaps loses sight of why he was on a mission/quest in the first place over time as he gets tired and impatient and turns to darkness about getting his way more than other more benevolent factors (that is how it has evolved so far in Once upon a time).

posted November 16, 2015 10:26 PM            

King Arthur is actually Ascended Master Morya and Merlin is Ascended Master Saint Germain. Mr Germain was also Christopher Columbus and William Shakespeare in his previous embodiments.

Excalibur is about how to use the sword (words) to become God. That's why it's called a the Sword Excalibur. Both are connected because King Arthur knew about the sword Excalibur, which is a great gift. Would you throw that away for your sexual desires?

posted November 16, 2015 10:42 PM            

From what OUAT is doing with it, sounds like their usual abomination storyline. I know enough of the classic mythology to find that head-desk worthy. Ugh.

Read the originals. Ask Ceri. She'll tell you which to go for. She's our resident Arthurian expert on all things Camelot.

posted November 16, 2015 10:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by athenegoddess:
King Arthur is actually Ascended Master Morya and Merlin is Ascended Master Saint Germain. Mr Germain was also Christopher Columbus and William Shakespeare in his previous embodiments.

Excalibur is about how to use the sword (words) to become God. That's why it's called a the Sword Excalibur. Both are connected because King Arthur knew about the sword Excalibur, which is a great gift. Would you throw that away for your sexual desires?

That's all I will say though.

---

That sounds completely insane -- and yet, there is SOME kind of undeniable recognition about it. Huh. That's fascinating. I used to study these links. Like how Joan d'Arc was the same soul as Johannes Kepler. Stuff I used to do with astrology back in my teens. Crazy stuff that was oddly very useful.

posted November 16, 2015 10:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hypatia238:
I just want to know how you would describe King Arthur's personality good and bad and how you would describe Merlin's as well and any input that comes to mind....

Trying to understand the characters better so we can understand their influence astrologically better basically and would love to hear what you guys think..

How do you view him and Merlin? How would you describe each?

---

If that's what they're doing with Arthur, they're dragging the original "honour before all" "knight in shining armour" type figure of lore to the mud. Even if he wasn't portrayed as bad, the start of what you wrote already sounds as if they're tarnishing the legend big time. Never trust re-imaginings, they're just that and done to sell things, not to be truthful or faithful to the original version/s. Or even the Victorian or whatever legends, as people here have talked about the addition of Lancelot, etc.

Read some books, there being several even just for children. I saw First Knight the first time maybe two weeks ago and while was half rolling my eyes at the shining armour and Hollywood-look knights that didn't reek of authentic anything, I suppose even that had more of the potential sides of Camelot than what you're describing OUAT now writing in.

Arthur was human and flawed in his own ways, there only being one Arthurian knight worth the Grail in their long long quest for it (and another getting a glimpse of it, but not worthy of being granted more. As I recall, Galahad and Gawain, but I mix the names up and could misremember the particulars), but I can't for the life of me imagine EVER adding the word "unethical" to anything even remotely tied to Arthur. Not really even his knights either, as an initial impression, although with that I have to admit it's been at least two decades since I last read the actual stories. And my impression or memory is that not even Lancelot really ever pulled anything unethical, despite whatever stories about him and Guinevere. My impression from years ago again, so possibly in need of adjusting, but the impression is that despite there not REALLY ever happening anything properly bad with the two, even that was so much "worse" than the rest of the stuff that it was scandalous or considered really bad for that alone, in comparison. Impressions, as said, but I suppose you asked for those as well.

And seriously, they have Arthur looking for Excalibur? That alone is such bullsh*t that you can freely ignore EVERYTHING they claim about him. READ THE LEGENDS. Even Wikipedia should have the facts (FFS, at OUAT if pulling such crap, gaah now from me), same as whatever websites out there I assume. Excalibur I recall hailing from the Lady of the Lake, gifted or presented to him and after his death returned to her.

No, I had no idea that I'd consider falsifying facts about something like that as big an outrage as my text probably makes it sound, but yeah, the way you've described it, apparently it is in outrage territory to someone like me, having first read some stories around the age of ten at least. Or so I imagine.

I have no idea what they're selling as Merlin but if you described a character like that to me, I wouldn't have any clue that someone was describing Merlin to me. There are stories about his possibly having half non-human origins or something such, the red and white dragon tales with him as a child if I recall correctly, and stories from the end of his "career" about being enchanted by a woman, to his detriment or entrapment, however you might describe it all... but as said, I wouldn't recognize Merlin from your OUAT facts. BS.

If you want one look at the character of Merlin without reading anything, there was that mini-series thing with Sam Neill playing him, Miranda Richardson as Mab. It still took liberties with the legends (adding in Mab and "fair folk" etc.) but sounds a lot closer to the "facts" than what I'm now reading about OUAT. Possibly descriptively enough, I can't remember their Arthur one bit though, despite remembering Helena Bonham Carter's Morgan(a), his (half)sister. I would never describe myself as a fan of Arthur or anything, but as said, apparently react strongly against tarnishing the underlying impression even so.

All that with some legends describing Merlin as a love sick or horny old man running after a young girl/woman in the end as well, according to some. Nimue or Vivian, the names differ or different myths have a different woman for the same name as I recall, but she's described as his undoing in the end, enchanting him into sleep inside a tree, for his magic, or whatever there was. Not everything is flattering in the older stories either, but at least they're the actual stories and legends, not new twisted fabrications.

Do NOT base anything astrological on the OUAT versions if anything as per your texts here. There have been many texts here about Arthur at least, from Ceridwen if nothing else, and I imagine Merlin (and perhaps the influence of Magion along with that, if coming from IQ, or IQHunk if old enough posts) somewhere along as well. In one form or another. Read more of those and the facts, ignore OUAT. Even if even I posted about the asteroid Rumpelstiltz (and possible contacts to Bella style asteroids) after OUAT originally started, since it brought the character more to the forefront.

But Arthur turning to darkness in any way or anything even remotely tied to evil? Not possible. Not the image in my mind, built on what I read all those years ago. Hence, as said, calling it the writers tarnishing his name or what he stands for. Arthur and darkness in the same sentence is an abomination, unless talking about him standing against anything such. Arthur is light. Human failings and flaws or not, sleeping with his sister (duped or otherwise, weakness levels in stories varying) and begetting Mordred (the dark figure here) or not, a world where Arthur would ever choose anything dark doesn't exist as per my understanding of the figure, or what Camelot was and stood for. Impossible, other than by human failings. NEVER chosen, if knowing it's darkness or bad.

posted November 16, 2015 10:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
That sounds completely insane -- and yet, there is SOME kind of undeniable recognition about it. Huh. That's fascinating. I used to study these links. Like how Joan d'Arc was the same soul as Johannes Kepler. Stuff I used to do with astrology back in my teens. Crazy stuff that was oddly very useful.

How'd you come upon the relationship of Arthurian legend to this other mythology? That's fascinating to me.

---

I have asteroid Arthur conjunct my SN at 16 Virgo.

I learned about it because I use this magic and know how it works. Saint Germain is very real and will tell you things if you really want to know.

posted November 16, 2015 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hypatia238:
...but also conniving and willing to use magic to get his way and keep his love Guinevere by his side who he treats as second place in importance to finding Excalibur. It seems he doesn't know when to quit, cut his loses and refocus his energy.

---

Additionally, since the quest was for the Holy Grail, that kind of trumps anything "wordly" even if he and Guinevere would've had long good married years between them before the start of any such a quest for something "otherworldly" or on an entirely other level than other things around. You may see how or why spiritual views about the Arthurian legends exist, since they had the quest for the higher spiritual something present already in the original (or older, at least) texts already. There are many different versions and they don't all gel together the most neatly, but the quest is definitely for the Grail, not Excalibur, which was given to him long before anything such.

Just noting, because striving for the Grail would technically "trump" any earthly marital things, anyway. Whatever your possible views about spiritual marriages and higher contacts like that on the whole, the Grail is a symbol for the higher type of thing here. Even if you had a marriage and marital life as the reality while looking for the higher thing, technically or theoretically it isn't what you're "supposed" to strive toward or focus on or try to gain into your life if after the highest ideals, or all that blah blah blah. Christianity is either slapped on something older or otherwise influences the stories, hence, the Grail being the thing that's sought.

posted November 17, 2015 12:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
Oh, Lord. Not that show. No offence to the creators -- they're a swell couple of guys. I'd just take everything they do mythologically with an ocean of salt. I'm not even sure why they'd be doing Arthur. Whaaa? I mean, Sword in the Stone is the only Arthurian Disney property, and it was very cheeky.

From what OUAT is doing with it, sounds like their usual abomination storyline. I know enough of the classic mythology to find that head-desk worthy. Ugh.

Read the originals. Ask Ceri. She'll tell you which to go for. She's our resident Arthurian expert on all things Camelot.

---

posted November 17, 2015 12:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
How'd you come upon the relationship of Arthurian legend to this other mythology? That's fascinating to me.

---

There are books and websites listing who Ascended Masters were in previous lives, whether in St Germain's case or whoever else. It's nothing unusual to see such mentions of Arthur and Merlin on Ascended Master lists, the past lives or "versions". Very common in certain sorts of "esoteric" literature, or whatever the right word for any of that.

posted November 17, 2015 12:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keela:
If that's what they're doing with Arthur, they're dragging the original "honour before all" "knight in shining armour" type figure of lore to the mud. Even if he wasn't portrayed as bad, the start of what you wrote already sounds as if they're tarnishing the legend big time. Never trust re-imaginings, they're just that and done to sell things, not to be truthful or faithful to the original version/s. Or even the Victorian or whatever legends, as people here have talked about the addition of Lancelot, etc.

Read some books, there being several even just for children. I saw First Knight the first time maybe two weeks ago and while was half rolling my eyes at the shining armour and Hollywood-look knights that didn't reek of authentic anything, I suppose even that had more of the potential sides of Camelot than what you're describing OUAT now writing in.

Arthur was human and flawed in his own ways, there only being one Arthurian knight worth the Grail in their long long quest for it (and another getting a glimpse of it, but not worthy of being granted more. As I recall, Galahad and Gawain, but I mix the names up and could misremember the particulars), but I can't for the life of me imagine EVER adding the word "unethical" to anything even remotely tied to Arthur. Not really even his knights either, as an initial impression, although with that I have to admit it's been at least two decades since I last read the actual stories. And my impression or memory is that not even Lancelot really ever pulled anything unethical, despite whatever stories about him and Guinevere. My impression from years ago again, so possibly in need of adjusting, but the impression is that despite there not REALLY ever happening anything properly bad with the two, even that was so much "worse" than the rest of the stuff that it was scandalous or considered really bad for that alone, in comparison. Impressions, as said, but I suppose you asked for those as well.

And seriously, they have Arthur looking for Excalibur? That alone is such bullsh*t that you can freely ignore EVERYTHING they claim about him. READ THE LEGENDS. Even Wikipedia should have the facts (FFS, at OUAT if pulling such crap, gaah now from me), same as whatever websites out there I assume. Excalibur I recall hailing from the Lady of the Lake, gifted or presented to him and after his death returned to her.

No, I had no idea that I'd consider falsifying facts about something like that as big an outrage as my text probably makes it sound, but yeah, the way you've described it, apparently it is in outrage territory to someone like me, having first read some stories around the age of ten at least. Or so I imagine.

I have no idea what they're selling as Merlin but if you described a character like that to me, I wouldn't have any clue that someone was describing Merlin to me. There are stories about his possibly having half non-human origins or something such, the red and white dragon tales with him as a child if I recall correctly, and stories from the end of his "career" about being enchanted by a woman, to his detriment or entrapment, however you might describe it all... but as said, I wouldn't recognize Merlin from your OUAT facts. BS.

If you want one look at the character of Merlin without reading anything, there was that mini-series thing with Sam Neill playing him, Miranda Richardson as Mab. It still took liberties with the legends (adding in Mab and "fair folk" etc.) but sounds a lot closer to the "facts" than what I'm now reading about OUAT. Possibly descriptively enough, I can't remember their Arthur one bit though, despite remembering Helena Bonham Carter's Morgan(a), his (half)sister. I would never describe myself as a fan of Arthur or anything, but as said, apparently react strongly against tarnishing the underlying impression even so.

All that with some legends describing Merlin as a love sick or horny old man running after a young girl/woman in the end as well, according to some. Nimue or Vivian, the names differ or different myths have a different woman for the same name as I recall, but she's described as his undoing in the end, enchanting him into sleep inside a tree, for his magic, or whatever there was. Not everything is flattering in the older stories either, but at least they're the actual stories and legends, not new twisted fabrications.

Do NOT base anything astrological on the OUAT versions if anything as per your texts here. There have been many texts here about Arthur at least, from Ceridwen if nothing else, and I imagine Merlin (and perhaps the influence of Magion along with that, if coming from IQ, or IQHunk if old enough posts) somewhere along as well. In one form or another. Read more of those and the facts, ignore OUAT. Even if even I posted about the asteroid Rumpelstiltz (and possible contacts to Bella style asteroids) after OUAT originally started, since it brought the character more to the forefront.

But Arthur turning to darkness in any way or anything even remotely tied to evil? Not possible. Not the image in my mind, built on what I read all those years ago. Hence, as said, calling it the writers tarnishing his name or what he stands for. Arthur and darkness in the same sentence is an abomination, unless talking about him standing against anything such. Arthur is light. Human failings and flaws or not, sleeping with his sister (duped or otherwise, weakness levels in stories varying) and begetting Mordred (the dark figure here) or not, a world where Arthur would ever choose anything dark doesn't exist as per my understanding of the figure, or what Camelot was and stood for. Impossible, other than by human failings. NEVER chosen, if knowing it's darkness or bad.

And yes, as I also recall, Camelot "falls" in the end, human failings ending things, but Arthur and Camelot still stand for things so much shinier or upright as ideas that they've lasted for centuries as legends, and are the epitome of the good knights, whatever the original time era was or wasn't. The quest for the Holy Grail alone should illustrate what they were after, what or how high the ideals were, what the aspiration was toward. That there were failings and things fell apart for inner reasons as well as Mordred or whatever other reasons whoever wanted to give to it all is another thing. The ideals were higher than anything else in the legends.

---

THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT. I THOUGHT I IMPLIED THIS ON THE ORIGINAL POST BUT I GUESS IT WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH BUT I WAS NOT PLANNING ON MAKING ASTROLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS BASED ON THE ONCE UPON A TIME SHOW AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. I HAVE READ ONLINE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS MYTHOLOGY BUT THEY ARE BRIEF AND AM SEEKING MORE TO INCREASE MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT WHICH IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. I WANT IMPRESSIONS YOU GUYS HAVE BASED ON THE ORIGINAL MYTHOLOGY OF THE CHARACTERS. EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS THREAD AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS MYTHOLOGY FROM EACH OTHER.

I AM AWARE THAT ONCE UPON A TIME DOES ITS OWN THING. I THINK THAT IS THEIR PLATFORM AND BY NO MEANS ARE THEY TRYING TO MAKE ANYONE THINK THAT THEIR SHOW IS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL STORIES, I HAVE ALWAYS ASSUMED THIS AND THOUGHT I MADE THAT CLEAR IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

posted November 17, 2015 12:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by athenegoddess:
The one you go for cannot be found in print, Auby. True magic cannot be found outside of yourself. Then you will know which is true.. when you don't need to read about it anymore.

---

posted November 17, 2015 12:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keela:
Additionally, since the quest was for the Holy Grail, that kind of trumps anything "wordly" even if he and Guinevere would've had long good married years between them before the start of any such a quest for something "otherworldly" or on an entirely other level than other things around. You may see how or why spiritual views about the Arthurian legends exist, since they had the quest for the higher spiritual something present already in the original (or older, at least) texts already. There are many different versions and they don't all gel together the most neatly, but the quest is definitely for the Grail, not Excalibur, which was given to him long before anything such.

Just noting, because striving for the Grail would technically "trump" any earthly marital things, anyway. Whatever your possible views about spiritual marriages and higher contacts like that on the whole, the Grail is a symbol for the higher type of thing here. Even if you had a marriage and marital life as the reality while looking for the higher thing, technically or theoretically it isn't what you're "supposed" to strive toward or focus on or try to gain into your life if after the highest ideals, or all that blah blah blah. Christianity is either slapped on something older or otherwise influences the stories, hence, the Grail being the thing that's sought.

Doesn't mean OUAT's version is right in having Arthur possibly ignore Guinevere or treat her wrong, if that's what they've written in, but you may see the logic of the highest possible thing to attain versus the marriage that exists whether the ideal or highest possible is ever found or gained or not. It's not through Arthur it's found in the legend, but of course it's his Knights of the Round Table and the quest starts from there.

---

ok so in the original mythology Arthur is not obsessed with finding Excalibur and neglecting his marriage leading Guinevera to feel tempted to be with Lancelot who is showering her with attention?

How is their marriage like then? and why does she feel tempted to be with Lancelot? bc usually you wonder off to other arms for a reason..

posted November 17, 2015 12:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by athenegoddess:

Excalibur is about how to use the sword (words) to become God. That's why it's called a the Sword Excalibur. Both are connected because King Arthur knew about the sword Excalibur, which is a great gift. Would you throw that away for your sexual desires?

---

Interesting angle, so Excalibur represents something spiritual like finding God in ourselves? the quest for enlightenment?

posted November 17, 2015 12:55 AM            

"King Arthur, or Artus, king of the Celts, contrary to today's depiction of having been a hero or the like, was absolutely not a courtly king in shining armor, nor a good-hearted and noble hero. King Artus was a fierce sixth-century clan leader, a “war king”, who led his pagan warriors in bloody battles and raids. He was a slaughterer and kept the name the “Boar of Cornwall”. His “knights” truly were bloodthirsty murderous thugs as you say. Artus himself was Merlin’s protégé, a pupil of Merlin the druid, for seven years."
http://www.theyfly.com/The_Truth_About_Merlin.htm

So there is a lot of versions of the mythology of King Arthur and then there is the historical truth and I just want everyone to give me input so we can all learn together more about this...

posted November 17, 2015 01:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hypatia238:
"King Arthur, or Artus, king of the Celts, contrary to today's depiction of having been a hero or...

Artus himself was Merlin’s protégé, a pupil of Merlin the druid, for seven years."

---

Yes, the older origins for Arthur as a potentially historical figure seem to hail to Celtic times, but the version known to people is the Knight of the Round Table stuff. The legend or myth is what people know.

On that front there is also talk of Merlin having been more of an honorary title type thing instead of a name, with myrddin or some such spelling for it originally. Or as per some people's theories, either way. The Welsh side coming in with that, different possibilities and with many different people possibly having had the title of "myrddin/merlin" (spelling by memory here, not sure of it) over time.

posted November 17, 2015 02:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keela:
On that front there is also talk of Merlin having been more of an honorary title type thing instead of a name, with myrddin or some such spelling for it originally. Or as per some people's theories, either way. The Welsh side coming in with that, different possibilities and with many different people possibly having had the title of "myrddin/merlin" (spelling by memory here, not sure of it) over time.

---

Oooooh. I'd heard that one, too. That's always interested me.

posted November 17, 2015 02:59 AM            

He's got it exactly parallel his MERC. We're talking 0º00 here. 18º37N. Gemini. So, parallel his 8H MERC, but in Gemini in his 7H. Square his 9H PSYCHE and sextile 4H SATURN, both 2º.