| re: Andrew Burnap out of Camelot tonight |
| Posted by: juliabway 01:00 pm EDT 07/13/23 |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Burnap out of Camelot tonight - Delvino 12:35 pm EDT 07/13/23 |
|
Ahhhh I found this so distracting! A young king would NEVER have a celibate marriage. I get Sorkin was trying to go for the kind of Roosevelt political power marriage dynamic, but it's not the same thing. A king needs an heir, it's almost the whole point of having a king. In fact there's another musical currently on Broadway that deals with this very issue of royal wives and heirs!
I understand that the original Camelot book didn't mention why Arthur and Jenny have no children, but they were obviously truly married even if they didn't have a particularly passionate connection. Why couldn't Sorkin at least have had Arthur tell Jenny that they could wait a year or two before worrying about consummation, so she could be young before she's old (as she sings in the song)? Then Lance comes along and by that point Arthur can’t stand the idea of Jenny pretending when he knew she wanted someone else. Now, this wouldn't entirely make sense either, but at least it would explain why they are so hands off. It's weird that it’s never mentioned and we're supposed to assume a married couple isn't sleeping together. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Andrew Burnap out of Camelot tonight - mikem 01:10 pm EDT 07/13/23 |
| Next: |
re: Andrew Burnap out of Camelot tonight - Delvino 08:14 pm EDT 07/15/23 |
| Thread: |
|
