John T. Ryan OBVIOUSLY DONE ON a less than grand scale, this juvenile series representation of 'Life in Camelot' gave our 1950's television viewing a little break from all of those Westerns. Based on those Mythic , Tales and the Arthurian Legend, the series owns a limb on the same family tree as CAMELOT, Excalibur and Hal Foster's Newspaper Strip of PRINCE VALIANT.TAKING THE SPOTLIGHT away from Arthur, Guinevere, Merlin and Gallahad and the other boys, Sir Lancelot became the main character (obviously, duh!) and the various stories revolved around his Knoghtly deeds; as well as how a Knight of the Round Table handles the everyday problems that plague all of us.WE WELL RECALL one episode in which a young, beautiful Princess fell for Lancelot; even though she was betrothed to some other nobleman. The show centers on his efforts to portray himself as an ignorant buffoon; in order to put back on track to marry the other, younger guy.THE SUPPORTING CAST was at least adequate for representing the employees of the Camelot Castle. Arthur looked regal, Guinevere stately and the other Knights appeared to fill out their rank well. Sir Kay, a portly chap, was used in comic relief. Only Merlin looked in authentic to us; being a skinny white bearded guy in a bath robe and 'dunce cap!'WE DON'T REMEMBER the name of the actor who portrayed Lance, but we do remember that he was a rather handsome, noble looking sort. Our older sister, Joanne, who was in High School by then, said that he was cute.WELL, THAT'S GOOD enough for us!

oxbridgeup There are many things historically wrong with this series; for starters, the longbow (think Robin Hood) didn't come into use until the 13th century or thereabouts, whilst it's generally conceded that if Arthur were a historical person, he lived about the 8th century. The costumes are all wrong --- again more close to those of Robin's time. Knights in armour didn't just "mount up"; they needed a hoist to get on a horse. The writings of Euclid were unknown to the Arthurian age; so Merlin's lever was an anachronism. In several scenes men remained seated when women (even the Queen) were standing -- definitely a no-no until the 20th century. There are other, lesser faults, but, in general, this was a Robin Hood setting with "men in armour" instead of tights.

ronevickers Looking back on these episodes of the Sir Lancelot legend, it recalls fond memories of a more innocent age, when TV series such as this one, and Robin Hood, William Tell, the Buccaneers etc, etc were king. Nowadays, the obvious budget restrictions on the production are clearly apparent but hey, who cares, it is still a marvellous little series. It has lots of plus points - joyous and carefree adventure, authentic settings, neat story lines, strong ensemble cast, and a splendidly energetic Sir Lancelot, played by that fine actor William Russell. Highly recommended for children and adults alike, and in many ways makes one wish for the values of an age gone by to return.

bkoganbing I'm not sure who it was who said that the most important historical fact in the 20th century is that the UK and the USA spoke the same language, albeit very differently.As in our first full decade of television, in the fifties, the British went back to their past and crafted a nice series of adventure programs for the kids and occasionally the grownups. We in American had westerns, over in the UK I guess you could call them "medievalers."Although The Adventures of Robin Hood was the most popular, probably due to the presence of Richard Greene who had a good list of film credits and was popular here before, other shows got exposure in America at that time.The Sir Lancelot show was one of those. I had a play collection of knights at the time this came out. William Russell was a stalwart Sir Lancelot who did battle with all kinds of villainy for 30 minutes every week. I used to repeat those programs with my knights.It was good to see those shows then, it gave Americans a fine appreciation of British culture.