Table King Information

Table King Posts

Top Offers

Table King Posts in Q&A

The Round Table King Arthur question? I don't get what Arthur means by might fights for right and is that vision still used today? Also, do you think King Arthur's visions would be successful today?

artsmom74 replied: "Perhaps it means the strong and powerful fight for what's right. I think people have intentions of using an idea similar to that, but then there's the argument of whose version of "right" is good for everyone. His visions would be successful today if we could all reach a common ground, but considering the condition of the world today...I don't see it that becoming reality."

Don't understand the Round Table, King Arthur? I don't get what Arthur means by might fights for right and is that philosopy still used today? Also, do you think King Arthur's visions would be successful today?

Terry replied: "The words sound the same but the definitions are different both philosophically and in action. Today--"Right" today is a political stance. KA---"Right" was the correct, empathetic and ethical stance. Today, all is for profit, not betterment."

Krystal replied: "The king arthur stories are based on the romanticized ideals of the middle ages, and are more fable than history. The assertion that "Right makes Might" is a very poetic "good will always triumph over evil" statement. Arthur was a paragon, the man all men wanted to be but even in his own stories he is constantly undermined by the evils of the world, and eventually those evils were his death. The stories are simultaneously an inspirational and cautionary tale. His methods, while just and upright, never even worked in his own time."

was there any evidence of the Knights of the Round Table ever existing? did the knights of the round table (king Arthur's group) ever exist. what evidence is there to say they did?

Victor replied: "There is no evidence that King Arthur existed, nor any part of the Arthurian legend including the Knights of the Round Table. And it probably is just that: a legend. All European (and Asian and African) countries have a legendary leader from the time after an invader (the Romans in Europe) left their area, and before the next problems (Scandinavians in Europe) arrived. In all these stories, a golden age existed of fresh religion (Christianity in Europe), when harvests were bountiful, there was peace in the land, magicians solved problems, men behaved honourably, children were dutiful, and for all I know beer and wine flowed from springs in the ground ! The Arthurian legend in Britain and Northern France is part of the same pattern of beliefs and wishes. It reflects a desire to have some certainty in the future also, since Arthur is described as "the once and future king". He will return when the realm is in real danger at the end of the world. This has religious connotations with Jesus of Nazareth and also with the old rustic religion via Hearn the Hunter, both of whom are expected to do the same. The true moral of the Arthurian legend is not the richness of those societies, but the failings of humans to keep up with the goodness and bounty of God's gifts. So Arthur is maligned by his kinsmen, betrayed by his sister, and eventually killed because of his wife's infidelity. It's a good moral story but it never happened in reality."

aphrollo replied: "there has always been debates of king arthur's exsistence. however some evidence, for example, historical welsh manuscripts included battles of which king authur has fought. however, that is not convincing enough to be held as evidence of his exisistence. some dismiss him entirely as just a fictional character The Historia Brittonum ("History of the Britons"), a 9th-century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called Nennius, lists twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, or Mount Badon, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies, however, question the reliability of the Historia Brittonum as a source for the history of this period"

cernunnicnos replied: "Camelot is the ancient city of Camulodunum (fort of Camul - an old god). Today the modern city of Colchester is where this used to be. The 'Col' part of Colchester is a shortened form of Camul. It's the same with the Irish hero Finn MacCool with Cool in Irish being spelled Cumhail - no doubt refering to the same god. It was also common for Roman cavalry to use banners in the shape of dragons like wind socks and is probably where the Dragon motif for Arthur came from. His father was Uther Pendragon and the name Pendragon means chief dragon, he was most likely the highest ranked cavalry officer. If you mean has any actual evidence been found then no, but he was likely to have existed in some form. Arthur's remains were supposed to have been found during the middle ages and shifted to Glastonbury Abbey but this was probably a mediaeval hoax."

jazzie replied: "he is about as real as robin hod and his merry men and sinbad and 40 thieves"

Stefan replied: "There is some evidence of a powerful warlord named Arthur Pendragon who lived around 450 to 500 c.e. And it is generaly accepted that Arthurian Legends were based on his life. It is believed that there were 20 lesser warlords that swore loyalty to him, and that the "knights of the round table" were based on them. It's been said that they met once a year at stonehenge, and so called themselves "the men of the round stone". It's believed that the "Knights of the round table" was a mistranslation of this."

rohak1212 replied: "The story of King Arthur is, and always has been fiction. It was written by a man in prison hundreds of years after it supposedly happened. And if it had been true, I'm sure somebody would have found Camelot by now."

Jallan replied: "That Camelot is based on Camulodinum is only one suggestion made by some scholars, and not by very many. There are linguistic problems in getting from Camuldodinum to Kaamelot, and “Kaamelot”' or “Kaamalot” and similar forms with a doubled “a”, both pronounced, is the normal early form. In an case, Camelot is seldom mentioned in Arthurian legend until the late prose French romances, indeed only in one French romance, “Le Chevalier de la Chariot'', and in one German romance, Wolfram von Eschenbach's “Parzival”. Whether Camelot in some sense really existed is a separate question from whether the Knights of the Round Table existed, who are mentioned in many romances that don’t mention Camelot. The name “Arthur Pendragon” is I believe a Victorian invention. That “Pendragon” is a title and applied to Arthur is not true in the medieval accounts. I believe it first appears in literature in Tennyson’s “Idyls of the King”. The word “Pendragon” means “head of the dragons”, not “Head dragon”. It may refer to a leader of the dragoons, that is to a cavalry force known as the dragons from their Roman dragon standards, long wind socks with a serpent face on one end. It is a surname of Uther in the medieval texts and never applied to Arthur or to any other character save in Robert de Boron’s “Merlin”. In Robert de Boron’s “Merlin”, Uther’s elder brother is named Pendragon rather than Aurelius Ambrosius. This is probably an error arising from a misunderstanding of Wace’s account where Ambrosius is usually just called “the King” and some lines referring to Ambrosius, and Uther Pendragon have been misunderstood: “Aureles primes rei sera E par puisun primes murra Uther, ses freres, Pendragon Tendre emprés la regiun.” That is: “Aurelius will be king first And through poison will die first Uther, his brother, Pendragon Will afterward hold the region.” Stories about Arthur meeting at Stonehenge and having 20 followers are not from medieval sources either. They may have been invented by some modern novelist. The Round Table itself is never mentioned in Welsh texts, save in “Y Seint Graal” which is a translation of two French romances and in Welsh versions of Geoffrey of Monmouth. So it is very doubtful that Welsh tradition knew anything about the Round Table except from French accounts. Ancient Celts dined sitting or squatting in a circle around a central hearth and did not use tables. Even the Welsh word for table is “bwrd” borrowed from Old English “bord” meaning “board” but used also with the meaning “table” as the medieval table was a board set on trestles. Presumably when the Welsh began adopting the custom of eating off tables from the English, they also accepted the English word. One can imagine some story teller explaining that Arthur’s warband ate setting in a circle and some of those hearing the account naturally imagined a table, as everyone, so they thought, ate off tables. Thus the Round Table may have been invented. And then the idea of an order of the Knights of the Round Table would have been invented. The Round Table is first mentioned in surviving texts in Wace’s “Roman de Brut” in 1155. Of course, if Arthur himself was a real person (which some deny, not without reason), he would have had a war band or a troop of soldiers. So Arthur's knights would be, in a sense historical. Early Welsh accounts refer to his followers Kai and Bedwyr, who appear medieval French accounts as Keu and Beduer and in the 14th century Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory as Sir Kay and Sir Bedivere. But most knights of Arthur listed in Welsh sources don’t correspond to the knights who appear in medieval French sources. A few do correspond, such as Welsh Caradoc Brechbras to French Carados Briebras, and Welsh Owain ap Urien to French Yvain son of Uriens. However the historical Owain flourished at the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the 6th century, long after the death of the historical Arthur. Again, such history as might appear is very garbled. The story of Carados in French sources is very fantastic. In some cases the Welsh seem to have identified heroes of French legend with heroes from their own tradition, identifying their Gwalchmai ap Gwyar with the French Gauuain, their Gereint ap Erbin with the French Erec li fils del Roi Lac, their Peredur with the French Perceval, and so forth. In short, while the idea of the Knights of the Round Table probably comes from the followers of the historical Arthur, very few of those historic followers (if any) would actually appear among the Knights of the Round Table in later legend which only emerges to our view around 1170 when Chrétien de Troyes romance “Erec et Enide” was completed. We don’t know that history might lie behind some of the Knights of the Round Table in medieval romances, because we don’t know enough of the true history of their supposed era. Similarly in most case we don't know what truth lies behind tales of Charlemagne’s knights. The suspicion is that most of the material that comes down to us is invention or borrowings from stories of other personages."

what are the weaknesses of the round table? how do the actions of Sir Lancelot, Sir Gaheris, Sir Gwaine, Sir Tarquine and Sir Bors show the weaknesses of the Round Table King Arthur created? ok no offense but Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods your answer has nothing to do with my question :l i also need to find quotes from the book the once and future king and explain why each of those knights' actions showed inherit weaknesses of the round table :DD

wize woman replied: "1.Despite the king's careful preparations, the idea of a Round Table failed and it became a place of open dissent. . . 2.Though, the Round Table represented the world, it was an imperfect world, because the knights were flawed (except for Galahad, who was spiritually perfect). The knights were imperfect and had human weaknesses. I hope it helps."

Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods replied: "This really sounds like one of those school questions meant to make you "open yuor eyes" and "find the deeper meaning". There is no deeper meaning. The chivalrous romantic epics of Arthur are pure fantasies, made up out of Alfred Lord Tennyson's dreams. The real Arthur was a post-Roman occupation Briton warlord who united the southern Celtic tribes against foreign invaders. He was Romanized, meaning that the Roman way of life was deeply enmeshed with the Celtic culture, and he therefore wore Roman armor, clothing, and bore Roman weapons. He commanded a sizeable force of calvary in order to move up and down the coasts at speed in order to repel invaders. France at that time did not exist, so there was no "Lancelot" - he and Guinevere were added centuries later to include the ideals of courtly love and chivalrous romance. There was no "Round Table", but there may have been a Roman style amphitheater for meetings and discussions. Such a room would have been circular, with ascending rows of seats so the speaker on the floor below could be heard by all - also giving rise to our saying, "the speaker has the floor" - as only the person standing on the floor could speak, if you were seated, you stayed quiet. The "actions" of the "knights" only show the weakness that the author wants to show you, and any teacher that believes this nonsense of Tennyson's needs to open a book on the history of Rome and the history of Brittania, circa the Dark Ages to realize what Arthur must really have been."

Jallan replied: "This is an odd question. You are quite right that Lord Bearclaw’s description of his own version of an Arthur that he believes might have existed has nothing to do with Arthurian legend which does exist as legend. He knows magically that the real Arthur was Roman not a Briton culturally (though Gildas claims that Ambrosius as the last of the Romans) and that his wife was not named Gwenhywfar. But White’s Arthur was mainly based on Malory and White’s own imagination, with almost no Tennyson influence. The Lancelot of the Prose Lancelot is a Breton by birth an breeding, his grandfather having moved from Great Britain to Gaul and his father being in the service of King Hoel of Little Britain, Lancelot was not a Frenchmen in the modern sense, and the authors in any case almost always refer to “Gaul” rather than to “France’', and to “Logres” rather than to “England”, being aware of the anachronism of talking about countries by names that came into use much later. Malory in his adaptation tends more the refer to France and England. It is as though Lord Bearclaw was ripping into a discussion of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet'' by pointing out that Hamlet in the earliest account is a dark-age prince of Jutland, not a prince of Denmark schooled at Wittenburg, and would point out that there are numerous historical errors in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth''. That misses the point of talking about the world of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” or his “Hamlet”. But this looks like the kind of question where the teacher has his or her own interpretation already set out and expects you to find it, whether it is right or wrong. In the medieval romances and Malory, the idea of knights battling for right isn’t much emphasized. But White very much makes Arthur’s idea to be the harnassing of might in the service of right. Lancelot messes up by falling in love with Guinevere. Sir Gawain is vengeful and careless in his use of violence. Sir Gaheris beheads his own mother. Sir Bors would rather die than fight his aggressive brother Lionel. So all the knights fall short of the ideal knight that would be necessary to make Arthur’s dream work. Sir Tarquine was an evil knight able to defeat all comers until he met Lancelot, which I suppose shows that might for right is likely to be defeated in the real world by might for wrong. White's Arthur suggests trying to bring in religion, but that Quest for the Grail happens at that time and is a disaster for most knights of the Round Table. Arthur then turns to law as a source for attempt to enforce right, but finds himself imprisoned by his own law codes. This rather breaks his allegory, as the burning of a Queen for adultery was not a medieval law or custom. Even Malory makes clear that this was a supposed ancient custom of Arthur’s day, not of his own day. I don’t know if this helps you."

RAW spoilers for who hasn't seen it yet? yeah Raw was over for you people in Australia haven't seen it yet

Den W replied: "You must be REALLY dedicated if you gave the WHOLE Raw show and made it cystal clear too. Wow! I'm really impressed!"

The Peoples Champ replied: "wow. thanks"

♪♫Susana♪♫ replied: "saw this already but thanks anyway!"

saumya w replied: "You Cheater! You Think I am Stupid? No I am Smarter! Look At The Time This Was Posted 15 Minutes ago! Raw Was Over Then!"

Nicky replied: "thanks a lot i skimmed through it though"

Devil May Cry 4 Wallpaper RAW replied: "I agree with dan. you are truely are a awesome fan who is dedicated to wrestling how did you just remember all that stuff from raw tonight. even i could not do what you just did how you ever thought going, into Sports Journalism for a job and become a Sports Journalist"

craigROHhustler replied: "great summary, thanks alot."

Jesus G replied: "It was cool."

polrox replied: "FUNNY HOW PEOPLE THOught you are the one who summarized raw"

10 points to the first correct answer ( All must be correct)? THE SMALL ROUND TABLE King Ondolph of Puggia was not as great a king as King Arthur of Britian. Ondolph commanded only six knights - Sir Pudno, Sir Mollix, Sir Baffin, Sir Coddle, Sir Morgid, and Sir Dollop. However, King Ondolph wanted to be as much like King Arthur as possible. So he had a round table built for his knights to sit at. ( Of course, it was a rather small round table, for there were only six knights!) When all six knights sat at the table, the strongest knight was across from Sir Coddle, who was to the right of Sir Baffin. Sir Pudno sat across from the fattest knight, and to the right of the strongest knight. The knight in red armor sat between Sir Coddle and the thin knight, and across from the knight who rode a white horse. And Sir Dollop sat to the right of the left-handed knight, across from the thin knight, and next to Sir Mollix. From all this, Can you figure out: 1) The name of the Strongest knight? 2) The name of the knight in red armor? 3) The name of the left - handed knight 4) The name of the thin knight? 5) The name of the fattest knight? 6) The name of the knight who rode a white horse? There are six names. The six names are: -Sir Pudno -Sir Mollix -Sir Baffin -Sir Coddle -Sir Morgid -Sir Dollop

happy1here replied: "King Knight?"

D fanelli replied: "billy bob you win.. The name of the knight is jimmy hendrix.....live long and strangle all in your way.."

Tracy bOo replied: "1) theres only 5 names in there! 2)Baffin in red 3)Caddle is left handed 4)Pudno is thin knight 5)dollip is fat 6)Mollix rides the white horse"

karina337 replied: "1-Morgid 2-Baffin 3-Coddle 4-Pudno 5-Dollop 6-Mollix"

no nickname replied: "1. Sir Morgid 2. Sir Baffin 3. Sir Coddle 4. Sir Pudno 5. Sir Dollop 6. Sir Mollix"

zrose86 replied: "1) The name of the Strongest knight? - SIR MORGID- 2) The name of the knight in red armor? -SIR BAFFIN- 3) The name of the left - handed knight? - SIR CODDLE- 4) The name of the thin knight? - SIR PUDNO- 5) The name of the fattest knight? - SIR DOLLOP- 6) The name of the knight who rode a white horse? - SIR MOLLIX-"

Emon replied: "Guess What,I Have The Same PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

select * from dbo.customers ? in this sql query i dont understand what is "dbo." for.. because typing select * from customers gives the result as well ( i'm using sql server express edition) further more if i create a table create table king etc..a commmand will run successfullly but i wont see a table named King in the object explorer and yet create table dbo.king will show the existance of a table dbo.king in the object explorer please i plead..help me out. thanks

maddi_rajagopal replied: "Though I am not into SQL Server, I will try to answer your question with my Oracle knowledge. 'dbo' would stand for the User/Schema name. You might have logged in as 'dbo' and a password right?"

Navneet Brar replied: "dbo is a database owner user of SQL Server having all permissions to create or delete database objects. Although you create a new user as member of sysadmin it belongs to dbo automatically. Even you cannot delete dbo user."

Help decorate my bedroom.? So my bedroom is a quiet big and has two areas to it. You first walk through a door which leads to the main part of my room which has my bookshelf with hidden area, wardrobe, 2 bedside tables, king single bed and fireplace. Then you go through the arch which is the sun room part of my room which has a small almost tv unit which has 3 open boxes, ontop is a decorative mosaic, laptop. Then opposite is my 2 bean bags with my very small table between them. Then is my desk and behind my desk is my school organisation area which includes plants (as it makes the room feel clean), whiteboard and pin board. All the furniture in my room is an off white while my walls are a dark cream which has a mix of coffee and light pink in it. All my bedcovers and bean bag covers are pretty dull.. i would like to know what colours to put into my room. Its not a modern room but in a way cluttered but clean room. i forgot to add im a teenager so i need the different areas in my room. the study area i use for studying. the bean bag area i use for relaxing, watching movies and going on the internet. My bed i use for everything but mainly sleeping and reading although i sometimes like reading on the beanbags.

Diana replied: "With a large and broken up room like that, you can be a bit daring (if you like) and go with a bold color to bring the room together instead of having separate spaces. A deep color with a lot of depth would also be nice, since it sounds like you're room is pretty neutral. Using matching Oriental rugs can add color into the room and unite the different areas but still keep them separate. Good luck!"

lil laur laur replied: "Look on they have a lot of things that would brighten up your room."

for anyone familiar with the story of Arthur and Excalibur? here's a recap of the story below if anyone wants reference, what I NEED IS HOW THIS STORY RELATES TO REAL LIFE ENGLISH LIFE IN THE 15th CENTURY (1400s) REGARDING LIFESTYLES, CUSTOMS, BEHAVIOR, SOCIAL ASPECTS OF LIFE, POLITICAL STRUCTURES, ETC ETC. Much discontent exists after Uther's death with many people vying for power. At Merlin's insistence, the Archbishop of Canterbury invites all the lords and powerful men of the land to London at Christmas where the true king would be chosen. In the churchyard in London was a huge stone with a sword in it with the inscription, "Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born of all England." No one could pull out the sword, until Arthur's adopted brother, Sir Kay, loses his sword, and Arthur pulls the one out of the stone. Ector admits that Arthur is not his son by blood and kneels in allegiance. After numerous "proofs" of his righteousness as king, pulling the sword named "Excalibur" in and out of the stone at Candlemas and Easter, he is crowned. Six Kings from the North, Lot, Uriens, Nentres and others, contest Arthur and refuse to bow to his throne. Merlin acts as defender and promoter of Arthur, as well as controller of situations by providing counsel. A battle between Arthur and his followers and the six Northern kings ensues where Arthur proves his might and prowess by killing many men with Excalibur. Merlin advises Arthur to join with King Ban and King Bors to fight the six kings who will come back to fight again. Arthur pledges to help Ban and Bors fight Claudas if they will align themselves with him. The men of Ban and Bors prove themselves worthy through jousts and tournaments with Arthur's knights. Arthur, Ban and Bors gathered their armies and secretly rallied together, at Merlin's advice, in the forest of Bedegraine. The six kings who fled after Arthur's coronation gather additional forces in five more Northern kings, bringing a force of fifty thousand men against Arthur at Bedegraine. Arthur's forces are told by Merlin when and where the eleven kings would strike, and are able to attack them by surprise at night when they were sleeping. Merlin provides counsel and battle strategy for Arthur, Ban, and Bors, and mighty (and gory) tales of battle ensue. Arthur proves himself in battle, doing "so marvelously in arms that all men had wonder." The feats of individual knights are recounted. Much explanation is given of the stages of battles and the valiant fights of Arthur's army. Many men die, but the 11 kings are still alive, and King Lot unites them all against Arthur by having them swear loyalty to each other. Merlin comes in, rebuking Arthur for not stopping the battle, claiming that out of 60,000 men Arthur has only left 15,000 alive. He counsels them to withdraw because the 11 kings will not be overthrown at this time, but predicts three years of peace. Arthur rewards his knights, Ban and Bors. King Arthur sees Lionors, an earl's daughter, when she comes to pay homage, and he impregnates her with a child named Borre, who will become a knight of the Round Table. King Rience makes war on Arthur's friend, Leodegrance, and so he, Ban and Bors depart for war in Northern Wales. Arthur's army fights King Rience, who flees after ten thousand are killed. Shortly after, Arthur sees the King of Cameliard's daughter, Guenever. Ban, Bors and Arthur part, leaving Ban and Bors to protect the north. Merlin prophesies the demise of the eleven kings (at the hands of Balin and Balan) who have gone back to their kingdoms to fight other battles against invaders. Arthur sees Margawse (Lot's wife who was sent to spy on Arthur.) He slept with her, not knowing that she was his half-sister, (Igraine and Tintagel's daughter). This union begets Mordred, Arthur's child. Arthur then dreams of griffins and serpents fighting him, but after a long battle, he slays these creatures. To forget the dream, Arthur goes on a hunt and chases a huge hart (a large male deer) until his horse dies. While he waits for a new horse to be brought to him, a strange beast comes followed by a knight named Pellinore. The knight's horse had been killed by the beast, so Arthur gives him the horse that had been brought, and Pellinore continues to follow the questing beast. Arthur offers to take up the quest for Pellinore, but Pellinore believes that the beast can only be captured by him or his kin. Merlin comes to Arthur in the guise of a 14-year-old boy and an 80-year-old man and predicts the destruction of the kingdom because Arthur "laid" with his own sister. Merlin also predicts his own "shameful" death by being "put into the earth quickly." To find out if Merlin is right about Margawse, Arthur sends for his mother, Igraine, who testifies that she did not know Arthur was the son of the king since Uther had been disguised when he came to her. Griflet, a squire, enters the court and asks Arthur for a knighthood so that he could fight the knigh

Jallan replied: "Your story is just a summary of the early chapters of Sir Thomas Malory’s “Le Morte d’Arthur”. But Malory just very slightly abridges and adapts sources that date back earlier. The account from the beginning to Arthur becoming king, including the story of the sword in the stone, was written by a Burgundian named Robert de Boron at the end of the 12th century or the beginning of the 13th century. Malory makes no changes worth mentioning. A modern English translation of this work by Nigel Bryant appears in his “Merlin and the Grail'' (=-Mz3sEURhiQC&dq=intitle:Merlin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Grail+inauthor:Nigel+inauthor:Bryant&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=nDKYSbiGDIj0Mvvp-YUM ). The end of this work corresponds to Malory's Book I, chapters I to VII (as divided by Caxton). About 1335, Robert de Boron’s “Merlin” was expanded into a longer work telling the tale of the first three years of Arthur's reign, up until Merlin’s imprisonment and the war between King Ban of Benoic (Lancelot’s father) and King Claudas. This work was obviously intended to provide a sort of prequel to the already existing “Prose Lancelot”. This expanded work is now often known as the “Vulgate Merlin” (meaning the “common Merlin” or the “ordinary Merlin” story which is part of the “Vulgate Arthurian Cycle”, that is, the “ordinary Arthurian cycle”.) It is available on the web at and is translated into modern English in Volume 1 of Lacy's “Lancelot-Grail" ( ). A late middle English translation is available at . A version of this translation consisting of excerpts, editorial linking passages, and notes is available at . Malory's Book I, chapters VIII to XVIII (as divided by Caxton) corresponds to the early portion of the reign of Arthur as found in the “Vulgate Merlin”. About the same time that the “Vulgate Merlin” was being written, another writer was creating a vast Arthurian romance which he called the “Book of the Grail” but which is generally known today as the “Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle” because it was written after the “Vulgate Arthurian Cycle”, though it is not certain that the “Vulgate Merlin” did not overlap. IBut there is nothing that indicates that either writer knew of the other. The section of this work containing Robert de Boron’s “Merlin” and the early history of Arthur is generally known as the “Post-Vulgate Merlin”. The “Post-Vulgate Merlin” is found on the web in a version drawing on the Huth manuscript at (volume 1) and at (volume 2) . This has been translated as part of Lacy’s “Lancelot-Grail” in volume 4 (http://www.amazon.com/Lancelot-Grail-Arthurian-Vulgate-Post-Vulgate-Translation/dp/0815307489/ref=cm_lmf_tit_12 ). An adaptation was made in Spanish and is called the “Baladro Merlin”. This Spanish adaptation is rendered into modern English at . The part of the “Post-Vulgate Merlin” covering Arthur’s early reign is adapted by Malory in Book I, chapter XIX to Book IV, chapter XV (as divided by Caxton). Another more recently discovered manuscript of the “Post-Vulgate Merlin” is the so-called Cambridge Manuscript which contains some material inserted at the beginng of Arthur’s reign corresponding to the beginning of Arthur’s reign in the “Vulgate Merlin”, mainly Arthur’s first battle, his getting aid from King Ban and King Bors, the Battle of Bedegraine, and an extremely reduced and somewhat modified account of Arthur’s coming to King Leodegan’s aid. In short, for the early part of his work, Malory mostly drew from a manuscript closely related to the Cambridge manuscript of the “Post-Vulgate Merlin”. Mallory retells French works of the 13th century, even though it is an English work of the 14th century, and I don’t believe you can find any change made by Malory that indicates any particular English 14th century influence. Malory was aware that he was adapting and abridging a tale that was supposed to take place long ago, as did the earlier authors. You could write a paper about how Malory’s account of Arthur reflects society of the late middle ages, say from the 12th century up until his own time in the later 15th century. But Malory doesn't update his sources, Even one mention of guns may not be an update, because guns originally meant “siege engine”. It was short for the female name “Gunhilda”, which was seemingly used as a nickname for such devices. Malory includes all the material about tournaments in his retelling and these tournament always pictured as melees. But melee tournaments died out in the 14th century, and even the joust was on its last legs in Malory’s day. The Battle of Bedegraine in Malory (and the “Vulgate Merlin”) is an idealized medieval fantasy battle in which no-one important (of high birth) is killed or even seriously injured or even mentioned. Commoners are unimportant. Fourteenth century battles (and even 11th, 12th and 13th century battles) were not like that. Archery was increasingly important, but archers play no part in battles in the French romances, or in Malory’s version of them. Arthurian romances provide a very knight-oriented version of society. Peasants, farmers, merchants or any commoners are barely recognized. Birth is extremely important and matters. Tor is a good knight because his father is a king while his half-brother are the sons of a peasant. That King Pellinore took Tor’s mother “half by force” and stole her dog is swept under the table. Gareth is also a good knight because he comes from a knightly family. The same is true of Perceval; though he also was not brought up as a knight he is instinctively one of the best knights because of his ancestry. Blood will out. Sir Marhaus refuses to fight with Tristam until he is convinced that Tristram is sufficiently well-born. This attitude was not peculiar to the fourteenth century, and was seen both long before and long after."

What is the most I can sue my landlord for for breech of contract? My lease states to amend or teminate the lease there must be 30 days notice. My move in date is the 15th (this mon) I've already had this worked out for the last 3 months and paid the first months rent and security paid. My landlord today (12th) is saying he hasn't received approval form his mortgage company to make his primary residence a rental unit and they won't allow it. He's trying to argue with them but he told me the worst case scenario would be i can not move in. My lease from my current place ends the 15th and I will have no place to go.. literally out on the streets. I have all my stuff i purchased for my new place like dining room table, king size bed all in the garage of my old place. If my landlord breeches the contract I am literally screwed, I have no place to go, no place to put my belongings, no option to extend my lease at my old place, no place to live at all. How much can I sue this bastard for is he decides to screw me... his lack of responsibility to get approval from his mortgage company to rent the unit is horrid. The lease agreement with payment (1st months rent and security) has been in place for well over 3 months. If i can't move in he literally is screwing me so bad I have no plan B. In a case where there's damages plus the anguish I'm going to have to threw I'm probably going to have to miss work as well... How much can I get. This is a serious breech of contract 2 days before move in literally putting me on the streets on the 15th. I understand you guys are landlords but this guy literally has royally screwed me... his lack of responsiblity getting approval is horrid. Actually landlord, he claims he had approval from his original mortgage company. He states his mortgage company got bought out and now he's in the process of a modification. So actually his claim is that he does legally have the right to rent the place, but his new mortgage company says he doesn't. So if anything he was under the impression he could legally do this. The problem: he has no documentation from the old company proving he was given this approval. Also does this play into the damages aspect? The man was hooking me up he has a 1600 sq ft luxury condo 2br 2bath granite counter tops jacuuzi tub the works... all for 600 a month utilities included. His reasoning: He had it rented for 2,000 they backed out and he had to move out of state so I signed quickly. I said all I could afford was 600 a month with utlilities included and he agreed keep in mind this place would rent for 2,000 a month assciation fees are 300 alone hes paying. So this was the best deal someone could get. Does the fact that I will not be able to find anything EVEN NEAR comarable living conditions for $600 a month utilities included play a factor or no? This was the deal of a lifetime... he seems like he wants me to move in but he says if he doesn't have the approval he could lose his house. It's like he has to pick the smaller loss it sucks. Also landlord move in's generally are done on the weekend thus not missing work. This will cause me to miss work. And I don't have 3 days honestly he never even said I can't move in he said it's worst case scenario. I don't see the scenario getting better... as I understand he would have to have something in writing to make it formally known the lease was being terminated. My sitution is still in the air thus is never has been yet... it's liable to come down to the actual move in date to get a definitive answer. So... from that honestly I won't have any notice in writing until the day I move in. Breech of contract being established on move in date.

ignant_slob replied: "You can sue him for any monetary losses you underwent from not being able to move in on the agreed upon date, plus expenses you accrued to obtain that money. So storage fees, any extra rent, moving fees, lawyer fees, money lost from taking time off from work, etc. These are things you can definitely be compensated for. The emotional burden you suffer as a result may or may not be awarded you. I'd go for the amount of rent you'd have to pay him for a year as the amount to ask for on that. You gave him money on good faith that he would have a specific place to rent to you on a specific date. That he did not have this place to rent to you no matter what the reason amounts to a fraudulent claim on his part, too. So it could also be considered a matter of fraud and you might have a claim for damages in that respect."

Trace replied: "Look in the local phone book under Government, find the district attorney and call and get an appointment with an ADA. Or better yet go to his office and ask to see an ADA. I wouldn't ask for the district Attorney though, he will be much upset. Unless you live in Louisiana, where they will laugh at you for not shooting him - or they might get PO ed that you didn't shoot him and put you in jail for disturbing the peace officers. If on the other hand you live in Texas, take what you can get and leave the state. Don't head east - that's Louisiana where being from Texas is enough to get you arrested."

Landlord replied: "You can only sue for actual loss, up to your states limit. You get nothing for anguish. You should be able to recover the rent and deposit and cost of housing you for a reasonable amount of time to find a place, about 2 weeks from the date he informed you. This would include storage fees for those weeks. You would not get moving, rent, time from work, etc etc as one other poster indicates, as you would have all of those expenses where ever you went. You will also have to prove that he did this maliciously. The fact that he can not legally rent to you pretty much covers his hind end in this. You have 3 days. You are over reacting, you should be able to find something this weekend, it is not like there is a shortage of available rentals out there."