u/GCooperE

There seems to be a somewhat common belief that Eloise, being a woman in the Regency era, needed to marry for financial security, and that Violet's push for Eloise to get married is the case of a pragmatic Violet trying to secure a deluded Eloise's future and ensure she is provided for. The basis for this belief seems to be that single women (or at least, single women from families too high class for women to work) did not have money or property of their own, and that the money put aside for their dowries was intended entirely for their husband's use, not their own, and therefore, if they never got married, no money would go them, even if money had been intended to be for their use.

The dowry's primary purpose, above all things, was to ensure that a woman was provided for. In husband hunting, the larger the dowry, the greater the net you could cast over potential husbands. Once married, there would be marriage settlements, which would determine how much of woman's dowry or "marriage portion" could be accessed by the husband. The marriage contracts were the only way a woman's property would remain her own, and they caused a great deal of debate and haggling between families and lawyers. As a rule of thumb, a lump sum would be put on the woman. It would be invested, and her pin money would likely come from the proceeds (husbands might also contribute to their wives' marriage portion). Pin money was money a woman could access without her husband's say so. Whereas the husband could not access the lump sup of money (which might also be kept protected by trustees, such as male family members of the wife) he could claim interest from it, or money the wife earned or inherited after marriage. If the woman is widowed, that lump sum then ensures she is provided for, as she would live off the interest of that, and any other money her husband leaves her. For a woman whose income depended on her husband's profession, such as clergyman or lawyer etc..., a dowry large enough to live on was essential for her survival.

The point of the dowry wasn't ultimately "marry this woman and get a large chunk of cash as a reward" (although if families were looking for advantageous marriages that was a bonus), it was to ensure a livelihood for the woman, and if she married, making sure that whatever her husband did, whatever he earned, saved, or spent, she would at the end of the day have some financial security.

The dowry was money given to a woman at the point of marriage, but that isn't to say if she never got married, she wouldn't receive any money, or that spinsters had no property rights. I explained roughly how dowries worked in regards to marriage to demonstrate how the intent behind them was to provide for the woman. The point of that money was to ensure a woman was provided for. With such an intent, if a woman had a family who had means to provide for her, they would, whether that be through supplying a large dowry to attract husbands, or leaving her legacies in a will. The money that would go into the dowry did not magically disappear if a woman never married, and the family's desire to see her provided for and safe did not fade away if she became a spinster, unless the family in question was spiteful and dishonourable, or made some stipulation that she must be married in order to receive her inheritance (which was not standard practice, and more the set up for a romance novel than anything else.) If a family had enough money to provide a woman a lump sum to live off, they could, regardless of her marital status. There was no laws preventing them, and the social expectation was that brothers and fathers would ensure the woman's livelihood, as much as they could afford, which in the Bridgertons' case was a lot.

Provided Eloise's father or Anthony did their socially expected duty to Eloise, Eloise would in many ways be better off financially than her married sisters. Spinsters and widows actually had better property rights than married woman. Apart from whatever lump sum put aside in the marriage contracts, a married woman had no property rights. Everything she earned or inherited became her husband's property. This is because married women were "covered" by their husband's legal identity, and did not exist as their own separate entity. Meanwhile, an unmarried woman could own as much property and have as much wealth as any man.

Wealthy spinsters, living of their own fortunes, could and did exist. There was no law in place, no practise or crushing societal convention, that would place restrictions on what Eloise could inherit, or have settled on her as a single woman. Her family has the money. Her family has the intent to see her provided for. Her family have the means to provide for her, married or unmarried. Therefore, excepting some bizarre plot device to put pressure on Eloise to marry, unfounded by an historical fact, Eloise's financial status is secure.

We know there is money for Eloise's dowry. Therefore there is enough money for Eloise's general livelihood. As Anthony described Daphne's dowry as "ample" (therefore indicating that Eloise's was large as well), her dowry must be enough for her to live on, and live a genteel lifestyle. It would not qualify as "ample" if not.

As the desired "goal" for women was to marry, their fortunes, the money put aside for them, might generally be spoken of in terms of getting them a husband and supporting them after marriage, because the general plans is for them to marry and have the money put aside for them put to use as dowries. But that does not mean the money disappeared if she never married or the desire of Eloise's family to see her provided for, which was the motive for giving her a dowry in the first place, would disappear too.

Now, is Eloise's dowry "her's" at this point in the story? That really depends on whether or not the money intended for her dowry was labelled as such by Edmund in his will. If so, then that money is hers. That's her inheritance, and it became hers when Edmund died. Currently, Eloise is underage, and her money will be protected and controlled by trustees, most likely her male next of kin, in this case Anthony, and perhaps her other brothers as well, (Georgiana Darcy was left under the care of her brother Mr Darcy, and Colonel Fitzwilliam). Once Eloise came of age, the money would be under her control. Now, a father or anyone leaving money to a woman might try to protect the money they leave a woman from fortune hunters by putting additional protections on it, (so if a woman was kidnapped and forced into marriage, or seduced by a fortune hunter and eloped without getting lawyers involved, her money would still have some protection) but this was not a necessity, and a woman could in theory control her finances as much as a man. She could partake in business deals, buy, spend, invest, as much as she liked.

As Edmund was depicted as a loving father and responsible family patriarch, it's highly improbable that he did not oversee the provision of all his children. Therefore, the most likely scenario, the one most in keeping with his reputation as a good man and father, is that since Eloise was born, money was being put aside for her, likely into trusts which would increase through investments, to ensure her future, and yes, be used as a dowry to attract husbands, which was the preferred outcome, but fundamentally, to ensure she had something to live on.

If for some reason Edmund never did put any money aside for Eloise, or specify in his will about what was to be provided for her, then that duty would have fallen onto Anthony. And this would, one hundred percent, no ambiguity, have been his duty. As head of the family, seeing to the security and welfare of his sisters was one of his most important responsibilities, and as we see throughout the series, one he takes extremely seriously. And the way to ensure Eloise was provided for was to have money legally earmarked for her provision. It would either have been dishonourable or a major oversight, and either way extremely out of character, for Anthony not to do so.

So to sum up, does Eloise need to marry for financial reasons? Is Violet's crusade for Eloise to marry a pragmatic endeavour driven by her desire to ensure Eloise is financially provided for? No. Eloise comes from a wealthy family. Eloise's family has a large enough fortune to ensure a lump of it could be put aside to ensure Eloise is provided for throughout her life. The laws of the time allowed money to be settled on women, and for women to inherit land and property. The expectation of the time would have been for the Bridgertons to provide for all the girls' futures, including the unmarried ones. It would only be a financial necessity for Eloise to marry if Edmund failed to make provisions for Eloise in his will, or Anthony failed to do so, which would have been failures on their behalf as heads of the family.

Eloise's family had the money to provide for her, married or unmarried. The laws at the time allowed them to provide for her, married or unmarried. The expectation of the time was for her family to provide for her, married or unmarried.

RE: The Show's accuracy. All the above is based on historical fact. Bridgerton has been drifting away from anything historical the longer the series went on, and it's reached the point where the writers are just saying whatever, and sometimes present circumstances as being the exact opposite of what was the case. For example, Benedict said that whereas it was improper for men and women to dance more than once together, but he points out a married couple who are getting away with it because they're married. This wasn't the case. It was a faux pas for husbands and wives to priorities each other's company too much when in a setting like a ball or a dinner party. This is because this was the time they were meant to spend entertaining and being gracious to their neighbours and society, they already had time to spend on each other at home. Another case, and this one so wrong it was laughable, was the seating chart lesson. According to Hyacinth, married couples were sat near each other, spinsters and old people were shoved off to the side, and debutantes and suitors were sat together to encourage courtship. No. This was just...no. Again, husbands and wives were always sat separately, because they were meant to be socialising. The host and hostess would be seated at the opposite ends of the table, and the most important guests would be sat beside the hosts. The less important the guest, the further they sat from the hosts. This was determined by social hierarchies (rank, title, lineage, social standing, profession) although if the dinner was held in honour of one particular person, perhaps a new bride being welcomed into the neighbourhood, they might receive preferential treatment. So yeah, Bridgerton has a habit of twisting things around and saying whatever, and I would only be half surprised if next season they announce that single women couldn't own property, but married women could, just to give Eloise a motive to get married, but this would be total bollocks.

The thing that really aggravates me about the "punishment" hike is that right before Nesta found out the IC were withholding vital information about her, holding votes to determine if she should know about her own abilities, she was fine. She was training, working, in the actual scene she was enjoying herself with Gwyn and Emerie, bantering with them. When she went to confront Amren, when she told Feyre about her pregnancy, she was acting out of anger, very justified anger, about what had been done to her. Regardless of whether Cassian went on that hike to punish her or "heal" her, she was either being punished or healed for expressing anger she had every right to feel and express.

Even if the intent was to punish her for showing anger in a damaging way, or "heal" her way of processing anger badly (although her telling Feyre in anger is nothing compared to the IC withholding information from Feyre), it's never balanced out with anyone recognising or showing her that she had every goddamn right to be angry. Instead she is just broken down and made to feel shame for the whole experience, not just how she expressed her anger, but the anger itself. She never gets catharsis or recognition from the IC for how they treated her. She actually goes and bloody kneels to Amren. The hike, the IC's whole treatment plan, the goal wasn't to punish or heal her, it was to condition here, to get her acting in the way that's most convenient for them.

It makes the conversation between Feyre and Cassian really frustrating as well, when Feyre tries to tell Cassian that she's furious with them for keeping the secret about her pregnancy, and Cassian instantly retaliates with "and we're furious with Nesta". Instead of taking accountability, they scapegoat Nesta, focus on Nesta telling Feyre in anger instead of facing any consequences for their behaviour. Nesta is their's and the narrative's scapegoat.

Ok, definitely over thinking this, but twice Azriel gives an object of significance to Elain, and twice that object ends up in the hands of another woman.

The first, Azriel gives Truth Teller to Elain to defend herself with. Elain gets in a surprise attack to Hyben with it, but she isn't the only person to use Truth Teller in that squirmish. Nesta takes Truth Teller and she's the one who cuts off Hybern's head * Nesta and Azriel go on to bond as allies, soldiers and friends. They train together, and go on dangerous missions together, and risk their lives together, and end up forming a very strong relationship as comrades. Azriel gives a weapon to Elain, but it ends up in Nesta's hands, and it is Nesta Azriel bonds with as a fellow soldier.

The second, Azriel gives Elain a necklace. The necklace is a romantic token, a gold rose necklace, exchanged in a sexual and romantically charged moment. It is very poignant, and the feelings felt between them are mutual. However, Elain returns the necklace, and Azriel ends up secretly giving it to Gwyn. He goes to bed that night, smiling at the happiness it will bring Gwyn, and with the narrative underlining just how fitting the description Azriel gave the necklace, a thing of secret, lovely beauty, was for Gwyn as well.

If I read too much into this, it would make me think that Azriel and Elain will get together in some form, for a while, or enter into some sort of romantic entanglement, and it will be poignant and significant for their characters, just as Elain stabbing Hybern in the neck, and their encounter on the solstice, were significant moments for them, but it won't last, and they will move apart, and it will be with others that Azriel ends up with long term. Just as how Truth Teller ended up in Nesta's hands and she became Azriel's friend and comrade, the rose necklace ended up with Gwyn, and she will be Azriel's love interest.

*I know there's a lot of debate if Nesta taking off Hybern's head made any difference, if Elain's blow had already killed him and Nesta just made it gory, or if due to the healing power of the fae; (which allowed Cassian to recover from having his actual guts fall from his stomach), meant that Nesta's was the killing blow. That the narrative and Azriel credits Nesta with killing Hybern makes me lean to the latter.

*There's also Bryce, who also used Truth Teller. She's the wild card in all this.

>Elain saw every single thing Nesta had done, and understood why.

Cassian's observation about Elain is very interesting, considering her earlier argument with Nesta.

Elain is depicted as being able to observe people, to watch their behaviour and perceive the reasoning behind their actions. However, in her confrontation with Nesta, she is able to push on every one of Nesta's pressure buttons, ignores Nesta when she directly tells Elain that she doesn't want her there, and doesn't want to talk about their father, expresses surprise that Nesta is angry at her for being part of the scheme to lock her up, lectures her about not needing to be so "miserable" about being locked up, until Nesta goes for the low blow, saying the cruellest thing she can think of in order to get Elain to leave.

(Not to get all Taylor Swift, but it reads very "And you poke that bear until the claws come out, and you find something to wrap your noose around").

Elain then leaves in tears and declares to Rhys that Nesta "isn't even trying to get better", even though Cassian, who is much more in the know than Elain, has said she's doing better, and would be right to say so. Elain didn't say Nesta was cruel or unkind to her, which would be true (however provoked), instead she takes Nesta's anger at Elain as proof that Nesta isn't making an effort, as though the only reason Nesta could not want to be around Elain and not be provoked by her is that Nesta is making no effort to heal from her trauma.

This whole scene makes Elain come across as extremely obtuse and emotionally unaware. For someone who sees everything Nesta does and understands why, according to Cassian, it's hard to reconcile Elain at once having benevolent intentions to Nesta in this scene, and being perceptive and understanding of Nesta's actions and motives. So is Elain not as perceptive as we're told she is, or is she not as kind as we're told she is? (Or is it just a failing in SJM's writing which is probable, but the least interesting explanation?)

Disclaimer: Yes, Nesta was also unkind and cruel in that scene. Nesta has been locked up because her trauma is making her lash out and act out. The other characters acknowledge when Nesta is unkind. The narrative acknowledges it. It's the contradiction between who we're told Elain is, and how she is acts in this scene that is frustrating and puzzling.

Why is it so overlooked that when Nesta received Gwydion, it was specifically because Bryce thought there was something about Nesta that meant she needed Gwydion?

>Bryce chuckled and drew the Starsword. Again, Cassian tensed, but Bryce just offered the blade to Nesta. The female took it, blinking. “You said you had an eight-pointed star tattooed on you,” Bryce explained. “And you found the chamber with the eight-pointed star in the Prison, too.” Nesta lifted her head. “So?”“So I want you to take the Starsword.” Bryce held the blade between them. “Gwydion—whatever you call it here. The age of the Starborn is over on Midgard. It ends with me.”“I don’t understand.” But Bryce began backing toward the portal, taking Hunt’s hand, and smiled again at the female, at her mate, at their world, as the Northern Rift began to close. “I think that eight-pointed star was tattooed on you for a reason. Take that sword and go figure out why.”

The entire exchange revolves around Nesta's experiences, Nesta's abilities, Nesta's identity. Bryce specifically said it is because of Nesta's tattoo, and Nesta being able to find the chamber with the star in the Prison, that made Bryce want Nesta to have Gwydion. Through Bryce, SJM is broadcasting loud and clear that there is a significance to Nesta's eight pointed star tattoo, and her finding the star chamber in the Prison. In the same chapter, we also had Ember embrace Nesta and say "you'll find your way". Nesta still has a story left to tell and places to go, and SJM has given Gwydion to Nesta as a part of that. Nesta wasn't framed in this chapter as receiving Gwydion as an interim keeper, to hold onto it until she can pass it along to someone else.

It just mind boggles me that that people can read that exchange, and think that Gwydion's presence in Prythian is going to end up being all about someone else. After all, SJM could have decided another character would have Nesta's role in CC3, SJM could have decided to give another character something about them that made Bryce decide they needed Gwydion. SJM could have had another character be the focus of the chapter where Gwydion is left in Prythian, where said character is told that they will "find their way" and that there are things about them that have unknown significance and having Gwydion will find out why. But SJM didn't. SJM decided it would be Nesta who would be told she would find her way going forward, and that she had a special connection to the eight pointed star, and that now she was to take Gwydion and find out what that is.

Bryce didn't give Gwydion to Nesta because Nesta was in Prythian. Bryce gave Gwydion to Nesta because Nesta was Nesta.