Talk:Knightfall (TV series)

Language of the plot summary

The writer of the plot summary oddly uses the word "elope", as far as I can tell, to mean "engage in sexual intercourse". I haven't changed it because, for all I know, that is a perfectly acceptable use of the term. But I have never seen it before myself. I merely draw it to someone's attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.95.130 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 69.156.95.130 (talk). According to the Merriam-Webster website, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elope, ELOPE, an intransitive verb, has these 4 meanings:

1a: to run away secretly with the intention of getting married usually without parental consent

1b: to run away from one's spouse with a lover

2a: to slip away : ESCAPE

2b: to leave a health-care or educational facility without permission or authorization

In the case of definitions 1a and 1b, where two people are involved, the consent of both eloping parties is strongly implied and fleeing together to another place is the key concept. For just the act of secret intercourse, fleeing need not be involved at all. So, having not seen Knightfall myself, which is it - clandestine sex (no eloping necessary) or actually eloping (running away to parts unknown with the lover)? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Added: (And if they really do elope, where do they go and are they pursued, found, and dragged back?) Wordreader (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Credible source?

I am skeptical that this paragraph, under the Reception section:

"On the self proclaimed "Community Watchdog" website, Things You Should Be Told, Knightfall was listed as second on the list of "Entertaining but Historically Inaccurate Movies & Series of All Time". Its ranking as Historically Inaccurate was second only to the movie Braveheart which coincidentally covers the same general time period and overlapping historical events and people. [69]"

would be considered a relevant, credible, reliable source.

Furthermore, the References link does not work (https://www.RedDogWatch.com/thingsyoushouldbetold. Missing or empty |title= ) and I cannot search out a website by that name at all.

For these reasons, I would like to delete that paragraph from the Reception section, but I am afraid of how it will effect the References numbering. Can somebody who understands how such things work help out? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Landry as Treasonous

Were the Knight's Templar a treasonous bunch? I know of no evidence to suggest that. They were investigated for blasphemy by the papacy. The investigation found that they were testing initiates by seeing if they would "spit on a crucifix" (which was a tactic used by Muslims who captured Christians). Blasphemy was and is always a Mortal Sin as defined by the teachings of the Catholic Church. Hence, the Knight's Templar, as a result of the investigation, were dissolved by the Pope (one cannot tempt another to commit Blasphemy - as it is always forbidden).

To say that the Templars were a treasonous bunch (Treason against France and France's King) is not accurate. King Phillip did try to suppress them, but suppression was probably the right thing to do as they brought a curse upon the land as a result of their Blasphemies (Sin against the Third Commandment (Do not take the name of the Lord in vain). And yes, Blasphemy was against the law in France prior to the French Revolution.

To imply that the Templar's were anti-monarchial is before its time. Knightfall does just that, and thus does little service to the truth. The Anti-Monarchial French Revolution, Robespierre, and the Reign of Terror by the REPUBLICANS would play out hundreds of years later in actual history.

Also, note that Landry is a common western France name from near Loudon. This is the same general area that the pro-monarchial Joan of Arc was from, who lived in the same era (middle ages). The people of that area of France were nothing near Treasonous against their beloved King!!! Hence, another disservice to truth of this series titled "Knightfall". 98.183.82.205 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Holy Grail

The formation of the military order "The Knights Templar" had nothing to do with the Chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper (the so called Holy Grail). The pope approved the order to exist in order to provide protection to Christians who were on pilgrimage to The Holy Land (

people took pilgrimages in those days; not vacations to the beach).

The Last Supper did two important things: 1. It instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders. 2. It instituted the Sacrament of The Eucharist.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist are more holy than the Holy Grail could ever be. So why does modernity lie when they misrepresent the mission of the military order? True history of the order has nothing to do with the "Holy Grail". These fantasies about Jesus that people come up with is at least borderline blasphemy in itself. 98.183.82.205 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)