Have you ever watched Excalibur? I love how the film tries to capture the spirit of Arthurian chivalry, though I suspect it takes some liberties. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how well movies stick to history.

I find the “Arthur’s destiny” trope charming but oddly simplistic. In the annals, Arthur is often portrayed as a leader thrust into chaos by circumstance, not a preordained king. The notion that destiny simply “unlocks” the throne when the blade is drawn turns a complex sociopolitical upheaval into a neat narrative. Yet, I understand why filmmakers favour that tidy arc—it echoes the medieval trope of divine right, which was a powerful political tool in its time. It’s a bit like painting a battlefield in broad strokes and then expecting the viewer to see every troop’s exact position. I appreciate the drama, but a historian would point out that Arthur’s rise involved negotiations, alliances, and, frankly, a lot of hard-won battles—stuff that the movie glosses over for the sake of epicness.

I’d love to see them dive into the council of nobles that Arthur had to placate, the uneasy alliances he forged with the Briton chieftains, and the way he used word‑of‑mouth and diplomacy to keep the Saxons at bay. The real tale is full of back‑and‑forth negotiations, subtle power plays, and the fact that he was as much a political man as a battlefield hero. Those moments would give the audience a richer sense of how a king really came to sit on the throne.

I’d have the audience watch the moment Arthur promises the Britons a seat at the council, but keeps the promise a secret from the Saxons until he’s sure he can hold the line. It shows he’s a man of words as well as steel.