Camelot vs. the Kennedy presidency What is Camelot? Is it a real time in history during which historic, strong, and mighty King Arthur of the round table was dominating the island of Brittan bringing calm with every battle he won against the tyrant Saxons with his loyal knights during ancient times? Or, more realistically perhaps, is it the idea of a time period where everything seems just right. Perhaps it is a time of peace, a prosperous, rich time of happiness for a country. Take the golden age of China for instance, during the Tang Dynasty when everything seemed perfect under a strong, kind and fair ruler. That could be considered China’s Camelot. Or the Renaissance Age in Europe, another example of a time period’s Camelot. Every country, time period, or …show more content…
However, what some people don’t really realize is that though calling a certain time Camelot sounds pleasant and fairy tale like, it really wasn’t as wonderful in the time of Arthur as it seems. Though King Arthur was a strong ruler with a beautiful castle, a large kingdom, and a panel of loyal knights, not everything was as fantastic as we would like to think. Mrs. Kennedy meant the term Camelot as a positive, assuring phrase, but as the Arthurian age and Camelot had many issues, so did the Kennedy presidency. First of all, though Arthur’s knights were mostly loyal, two of his most trusted knights committed the highest acts of disloyalty. Sir Lancelot, though one of the most noble and famous knights there was fell in love with Arthur’s wife, Guinevere. He went behind Arthur’s back with her and was one of the causes of the fall of the round table. Sir Modred was considered Arthur’s son, that’s how close they were. However in Arthur’s last battle, Modred turned on him and dealt Arthur a fatal wound. In the end they both died. As you can see, Camelot was by no means perfect, nothing