This is the third volume of the trilogy, with Arthur descending into old age with no heir, plagued with his once-beautiful wife, the spoilt, self-centered, somewhat stupid and nymphomaniac Wenhafer, from which he is estranged. It finishes with his last victory and death, as ke kills Modred, his kin who is trying to "take the throne from him".
One of the most interesting feature of this book, and of the previçous ones, is the author's take of the well-known characters of the Arthurian legends:
- unlike in Cornwell's books where he is both a coward and the arch-traitor, Lancelot is absent, because he was a latter addition.
- Gwaine is the philandering son of King Lot of the Otadini (historically Votadini, situated originally just North of Hadrian's walls) who has all of Lancelot's martial qualities but cannot resist a pretty face. His son is a self-rightous, prude, cruel and fanatically Cristian Galahad, a mighty warrior
- The twins, Balan and Balyn, are presented as Arthur's grandchildren, with Taliesin being Merlin's eldest son with Nimue (who is all-good and perfectly well-balanced, unlike in Cornwell)
There are however a number of elements that are a stretch and difficult to believe. Here are a few:
- If Arthur did have some 20 years of peace, it is unbelievable that he would not have done something about producing (and designating) his heir during all that time
- if his relations with his wife were as atrocious as described in the book, and she had failed to produce that heir while dragging into her bed numerous lovers, it is simply unbelievable that Arthur would have nothing to dispose of her, perhaps brutally and permanently, especially since nowhere in the trilogy is he presented as being in love with her. His fears of getting to ressemble his father are unlikely to have swayed him.
- the role ascribed to the "bloody cup" is interesting. Inferring that it was the cup used during the Last Supper is likely to have been a latter addition, just like the claims surrounding Glastonburry and regarding Joseph and early Christians that would have arrived in Britain during the first century AD: extremely unlikely
- the relations between Church, King (or warlord, rather), tribes and Roman settlements are hardly mentioned in any detail at all. Cornwell does a much better job and more credible here
- it is also very unlikely that Artor, once knowing what Modred was up to, would have failed to execute him and let him escape to lead his uprising. Such a blunder is hardly credible from such a caracter that had survived so long against all odds
- another element: the final battle pits Modred's Brigantes, the Picts and King Mark's troops against Artor's men, together with the Ordovices, Cornovii and a few others. Although presented as vastly outnumbered, this may be a bit of an exaggeration since Artor would have had no qualms in drawing troops from all of the forts and from the South after beating the Saxons...