The Sword in the Stone, and a time traveling Magician

  Hello Internet, welcome to History of Disney, where the Middle Ages are glorified like no tomorrow (thanks Eurocentrism). Now I must confess, as a kid I loved the idea of being a knight, slaying dragons and meeting wizards, and thus as a result I loved movies that were staged in the Medieval Era. So as a kid I grew up loving this movie, The Sword and the Stone. For those of you who haven't heard of this movie I'll give you a run down. Sword of the Stone was made by Walt Disney Pictures in 1963 and tells the story of a boy named Arthur and his adventure with the seemingly time-travelling wizard Merlin. It's a 60's take on a classic story, and we are going to compare this version to the actual tale of King Arthur and the sword in the Stone.

  The tale of Arthur begins in England as the king Unther Pendragon falls ill and dies. In the tale, Merlin takes the boy and gives him Sir Ector, who is a loyal ally to the king. When the king finally dies, the problem of the throne rears it's ugly head. Rival dukes and lords fought over who would rule the country. Soon the nobles asked Merlin for a solution, and Merlin creates the sword in the stone, saying that whoever pulls the stone will be the true king of England. Well like my valiant attempts to use "epigram" correctly in a sentence (AP Lang. joke for those of you who understand it), many nobles came forward to try and remove the Sword but all failed. The sword soon became forgotten and England fell into more disrepair. After a few years Merlin reveals himself to Arthur and they become great friends. The scrawny Arthur is taught that brains are better than brawn, and then we reach the climax of the story. It was decided that in order to find a king, the nobles agreed to hold a jousting tournament on New Years Day. The prize? Why none other than the crown of England of course. Arthur and his step-brother Kay go to the tournament, (Arthur as the squire) and realizes that they forgot Kay's sword at the inn they were staying at. Arthur runs to get Kay's sword but can't find it. He then proceeds to a churchyard and pulls the sword from the stone. Kay tries to take advantage of the situation and declare himself the one who pulled the sword. His father Sir Ector, decides to test kay to make sure he is the true king, by having him pull the sword himself. Kay fails and Arthur pulls the sword from the stone again and is made King of England, and the rest is history. (OK it's not actually history, its more of a legend really)

  So what about the movie? Is Disney accurate towards the Legend and keeps true to it's origins? Surprisingly yes, although there are some parts that Disney had to make up, because the Legend of the Sword in the Stone is actually really short. Arthur does grow up under Sir Ector and his step-brother Kay. Merlin does reveal himself to Arthur and they do become friends. Merlin does teach Arthur that brain over brawn  wins every time, there is a joust to determine who is the King of England, and Kay's sword being left the inn correct. They even got Arthur's description correct: a scrawny boy who was destined to become a squire at first. However, in the legend it is implied that Arthur was able to get in the inn and Kay's sword may have been stolen and in the movie Arthur can't gets locked out of the inn because everyone is at the joust. Also it is worth noting that in the legend Merlin had a huge part in Arthur's life and decided his fate from birth, but movie Merlin, didn't even know who Arthur was until he crashed into his house. The movie has also altered his age but a couple years: in the legend Arthur is 15 years old when he removes the sword from the stone, and in the movie he is around 12 years old when he becomes king. Despite some of these differences the movie remains somewhat accurate to the legend (Even with it's fourth wall breaking moments, like knowing that the Legend of Arthur would be made into a movie).

  There is one thing that bugs me though, would people real joust for such high stakes such as the crown for ALL of a kingdom and is jousting really as violent as they make it sound in the movie, swords and all? Well I did some digging and I found out that at one time jousting was actually a military tactic for heavy cavalry and became a sport around the 15th Century onward. So I guess that would explain the violence, and they are playing for high stakes after all. Jousts were used as ways to get honor from battle (wow honor seems like a big deal these past couple weeks) or, even at times, used to get money, land, and titles from a grateful liege. So is it possible that the title of King of England could be used as a reward for a tournament. It's quite possible, but we will never really know. It would make sense though when you look at the context of the tournament. England has been leaderless for 12-15 years and they need a king desperately. So therefore it would make sense for England to hang it's entire future in the hands of knights competing for glory. 

  This has been a fun ride through a movie that is not quite as  known in this generation. If you have never seen this movie before then I would recommend that you watch it. It is a really good movie after all.