Talk:Mu of Baekje

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Parentage

Is there a historical basis for considering Mu to be the son of Wideok? Some content to that effect was inserted, but I removed it as unverifiable. -- Visviva 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Korean historians seem to think of King Wideok as his father because the royal power of the king had begun to fall during the reigns of Hye and Beop. BUT during King Mu's reign, there was a sudden power leap. The royal power of the king had been restored to what it was during King Wideok's. This could only mean that Mu's position to the throne as Wideok's son had allowed him to reclaim the power that his father had exercised over his subjects. If he was the son of Beop, the power of the king would've continued falling, but as i said before, it rose up instead. Yeah, i kno dat its a confusing concept, but its about the monarchial power.

Another thing, historians didn't say anything about the drama Seodongyo. Usually, if a historical drama distorts history to the point that it cant be considered history at all, the historians and scholars would yell at the director and writer of the drama. The historians did indeed say something, but they were talking in agreement and not in protest. That means that they thought that it could've been a possibility.--Kprideboi 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]