The Knights (Sons of Camelot Book 1) (2024)

Between Two Worlds

A young knight's loyalties are tested because of a conflict between the kingdom of Camelot to which he serves King Arthur and the world of fairys because of the woman he loves.

I found the story good, but some smaller parts are a bit boring to me. I would not mind to read more.

The Knights story is worth five stars to me for its enchanting creation of a world sublimely magical. The characters are beautiful and handsome as well as frightful as one would expect in scenes so otherworldly that they are at times breathtaking. Author, Kim Dragoner has created a setting so real that it was effortless to see the story unfold, feel the emotions and experience the trials. I have a profound appreciation for the way in which the author illustrates every aspect of her writing with brilliant skill. I am eager to read more in this series.

I was curious about one aspect of the story. First, I would like to clarify from where my observation has surfaced. Arthurian Legends are prime in my heart. I have a deep love of the stories that evolved from that long ago written work. It is one that has survived over the centuries longer than any other novel except, perhaps one that has been rewritten so many ways as to become fiction rather than truth. What novelist would not wish to create a work so great that it would live through time and still spring forth in so many different versions?

So, here is what puzzles me a bit. Recorded history says that the Roman conquest and their occupation of Britain took place and ended around 400AD when the Roman Soldiers were recalled to Rome. Roman culture vanished quickly once they departed Britain. After that time, the events faded into the realm of misty fiction. King Arthur is said to have been a Roman Soldier himself. It's not clear if he would have been a warlord who stayed behind and remained to continue his father Uther Pendragons attempt to unite the unruly clans of Britain. This put Arthur on the scene sometime after 500 AD. It would seem that he would not have been involved in traveling to Rome to fight Romans as the novel, The Knights, suggests.

I am an avid reader, especially anything written about Arthur. I am also an author of one novel about his life and have myself taken liberties with the original story and embellished it for my own entertainment. I have a deep appreciation of a writer who can create a work of fiction based on such a well-loved story and make it their own. It becomes, after all, fiction. As I mentioned, I was merely curious about the few places in The Knights where it is told that King Arthur was off in Rome fighting when I would have believed he would have been in Britain fighting Saxons who plagued the shores of his home. Perhaps it is of no consequence and simply falls within the realm of fiction. If that was the intent, I am fine with it. I would just like to know what the author would say.

A new series about the Sons of the Round Table......

We thought the Round Table ended when King Arthur died but there was a lot going on before that day happens. With all of his knights off on missions Arthur calls the next generation of knights to duty. Lots of adventure and romance in this one. Arthur is still the king and he will not let Mordred break his country apart. Highly recommended.

Very enjoyable and interesting spin on the Arthurian legends, with the children of the round table being the main focus of the story

🎁 FREE on Amazon today (10/27/2020)! 🎁