Talk:1521: Sword in the Stone

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

In Arthurian legend, whoever can remove the Sword in the Stone is the lawful king of England. Arthur is an orphan being raised in secret; he notices the sword, removes it, and is proclaimed king. The sword is sometimes identified as Excalibur, although in other versions Excalibur was acquired by King Arthur from the Lady of the Lake. The most familiar version of this story is The Sword in the Stone by T. H. White which is based on Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory. Having a woman remove the sword would introduce difficulties. The Dining Logician (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Megan being transgender is preposterous. The comic mentions a throne, not a king. The proposition that the character needs to be a man is far fetched and a bit sexist. The legend usually mentions a ruler, not a kind per se. Even if it were a king, that is a baseless statement. Legends are up to interpretation. If a woman pulls out a sword it is possible that she be crowned Queen without having a king. Case in point, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria -of England; they both have seen the glory days of Britain. 07:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)BK201

And there was Jadwiga of Poland, female who was crowned king. --JakubNarebski (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It's clearly Megan. Perhaps Aurthur has returned in female form (definitely not transgender), but it's unmistakably Megan. Djbrasier (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Why should she even represent Arthur. Anyone who could take the sword out would get the throne. I think the explanation should say it is Megan and that she has taken the role Arthur had once. Also the idea that the new princess can get the throne even if she has younger brothers may be important here as written by another user below. --Kynde (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree it's Megan; she has different priorities than Arthur and has more sense than to accept the throne. And siblings are irrelevant. Whoever took the sword out was to be king, regardless of whether they had a brother (even an older one). Arthur's elder brother (ok, adopted, so Arthur was even lower...) was given the sword, but he didn't pull it out so he didn't get to be king. This was not the English monarchy after all. The surname Pendragon shows that. The English had not arrived to push the British off to the west coast. 16:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In a visual novel, King Arthur is a girl. -- 08:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Came here looking for this, wasn't dissapointed. More people should know about Fate! 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
C'mon, nobody mentioned Pterrys short story "Once and Future" yet? 13:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Should be lawful king of Britain. King Arthur was fighting against the English. -- 08:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If there were a real Arthur (dux bellorum or whatever) this is true, however in the legends things are much more complicated and inconsistent, so England is as good as anything else. -richardelguru

Actually, they're not. They are very consistent that Arthur fought the English, at twelve battles. I'm REALLY tired of the way Americans get this wrong - England is NOT Britain! Adge (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor point, but Vallum Aelium was built to control the Picti, the Scots of the Dál Riata came much later and Scotland (Rìoghachd na h-Alba) is traditionally founded in the late C9CE. -richardelguru

I doubt it's a coincidence that this comic was published the day before a UK general eating contest that is widely predicted to be heading for the most complicated hung parliament in history. The monarch is a purely ceremonial head of state in practically all respects, but does (in theory) have the responsibility to "ask" someone to form a government (in practice, the person asked is determined by who holds the parliamentary majority, but there are huge arguments raging about who will "legitimately" hold such a majority, the leader of the party with most seats or the leader who can rustle up the biggest coalition). 09:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much more likely explanation for the timing of the comic. Don't have time to change the text myself right now ... --RenniePet (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The punchline could also be about how it would be way too much hassle to try to lay claim to the throne in modern times, challenging the British royal family and all - Megan would probably be treated like a lunatic. 11:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arthur is a long haired boy [1], [2]. The comic shows a boy, not a woman. 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The original Arthur is certainly a boy, however this comic is in the xkcd universe and in modern times, so if it looks like Megan, it's Megan. There's nothing in the comic itself that hints at the gender of the character. -boB (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I just thought that the joke was how distracting Wikipedia can be and that Megan/Arthur here gets addicted to reading Wikipedia articles of even the most obvious things in the least appropriate moment. "Oh cool, the throne of England? Isn't that that European country. Let's see how big it is. Oh, wow, 120,000 square kilometers. What's that in miles? Hmm, alright. Huh, kilometres is spelled like this according to the international spelling? What is that?" etc etc, you get the idea :p Maplestrip (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The title text would seem to go against that explanation. 13:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's Megan. The new princess is the first woman who can inherent the throne without being leapfrogged by younger brothers. Before the Succession to the Crown Act ( if Megan had pulled the sword out one of her brothers would have gotten to be King. (signed by jan) (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This and the eating contest tomorrow seems like the main reason for this comic. Forget Arthur for anything else than explaining the idea with the sword.--Kynde (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

She put it back because she discovered this country is a shithole. 14:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That was how I interpreted it. Nothing about the election, Princess Charlotte or the British monarchy, it's simply a contrast between the way the throne of 'England' is portrayed in the legend - an illustrious ultimate prize bestowed upon the worthy from on high with bombastic fanfare and supernatural mysticism - and the reality of England being a drab backwater not worth ruling. 20:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Maybe it's because I watched today episode 191 of The Big Bang Theory, where a British described England as "Cold, gloomy and easily accessed by a Frenchman through a tunnel." (that last part is context specific). Nonetheless, I've seen the depreciation of England in other media a few times. 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Is England that bad? It’s only 360 days of rain and depression a year, boarding schools, a drink-spiking crisis, a high cost of living, and a failing economy! /s (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's Megan. - RecentlyChanged (talk)

I removed the reference to Megan becoming "heir to" the throne, as that implies she is next in line, rather than immediately ascending to the throne Miamiclay (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, wait: if the character is "heir to" shouldn't we label / call him "Heiry"? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

My peronal take: Megan could technically abdicate the throne, letting it return to status quo or having the next-in-line take the turn. That way, Megan can keep Excalibur while not having to worry about ruling the country. -- 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think using the term "yellow press" to refer to the news accounts of the birth of Princess Charlotte is uncalled for as this is a valid news event.  Certainly there are some publications and media outlets that will take this completely over the top, but to lump reputable and long-honored papers such as the Times of London, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and many other publications in with the likes of the Daily Sun, the NY Daily Post, the National Enquirer, and Fox News just isn't right. 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that this comic also referred to the relatively low amount of power exerted by the British Royal Family now compared to long ago? BowtieMaster (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)BowtieMaster

Sign it with four tildes, your signature broke the page before. 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this comic is set in the same 'reality' as the legends, and in the legends King Arthur is killed by his illegitimate son, wouldn't accepting the throne be more dangerous than it would be in reality? The Dining Logician (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The legends also say that Arthur never actually died, and was instead taken to Avalon where he was healed.

On "transgender megan"- implying that transwomen are actually males is rather transphobic. 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As a Whovian, I think the reason why she puts it back could be because she has had foreknowledge of King Arthur picking up the sword and becoming King of England, so she could attempt to keep history as is when she puts it back. 01:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we STOP arguing over ambiguous legends on whether some parts are true canon or not? With this many interpretations of it, we might as well conclude there's NO ONE CANONICAL VERSION! 15:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But I have a new headcanon: in this version, the sword was returned, and Megan just found it randomly. 15:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)