u/GCooperE

So the new blurbs have definitely ramped up speculation about there being a betrayal within the Inner Circle.

My guess is that there's gonna be suspicion of an informer or something like that working within the IC, or someone going rogue against Rhysand's authority.

I don't think Nesta will be the traitor, but I think fingers will point towards her, with the actual traitor perhaps exploiting the fact Nesta's relationship with the IC is strained in order to pin stuff on her and cause division. I think this will climax in Nesta leaving/fleeing from the Night Court, and going to the Prison with Gwyn and Emerie to rediscover the Dusk Court in A Court of Forgotten Melody.

I think the book will end on a cliffhanger with the real traitor being somebody everyone trusts, and perhaps overlooks, like Elain or Mor, possibly being manipulated/enchanted by Koschei.

Whenever I see people discuss Eloise's arc, and how the show will justify having Eloise settle down and become everything she didn't want to be but has told been told her entire purpose as a a woman is to be (wife and mother), I've seen the word "agency" come up quite a lot.

Basically, the argument is that Eloise doesn't not want to be a wife and mother, she just wants the "agency" to reject it. So all her fighting, all her rebellion, isn't her wanting a different sort of life (even though she has said so a million times), she just wants "agency" to pick it. Putting aside how weak that is, how unsatisfying it is for a story about a woman fighting tooth and nail to be respected for her choice to lead a different sort of life, only to end up in that life but it's ok because she "chose it", Eloise isn't a real person. Eloise is a fictional character and can never have "agency". She doesn't have "choice". She chooses what the writers choose for her. Most crucially, the underlining belief which makes her society push women into domestic roles is that women are inherently inclined to domesticity, to marriage and motherhood, on a biological and spiritual level, and that a sensible, informed woman, won't need to be forced into marriage and motherhood because naturally she will "choose" it.

The show might purport to be feminist because it will claim how important it is that women "choose", but it has a good chance of ending up deeply sexist, pushing a gender essentialist narrative, because it will also be pushing the message that while it's important women have "a choice", it's just as important she makes the "right choice" (marriage and motherhood) and that naturally, left to her own devices, a woman will make that "choice". That yes, a woman should have "agency", not to reject marriage, but to choose marriage in her own time, which she will, because only immature, misguided or selfish (all labels pinned on Eloise more than any of the female characters who want marriage) women don't want marriage and motherhood, because that's what women are naturally made for.

A narrative all about Eloise fighting against being forced into the traditional lifestyle chosen for women, only for her to discover once she's not being forced into that society was right all along and it is her true calling, resulting in her "choosing" it, is not feminist just because she has agency. If anything, it's more sexist than an arc in which Eloise is forced into marriage, because it will only be granting her "agency" so she can vindicate gender essentialist views that women are naturally designed for marriage and motherhood, and once they get their head out of their arses they will realise that.

For the show to avoid this, it needs to show that Eloise's lifestyle and romance is fundamentally different to the one that she has been fighting against. And I don't mean surface level, shallow stuff like "Phillip likes how sassy she is" or "he lets her read books!", but stuff that differentiates their relationship on a structural level, where Eloise maintains these freedoms irrespective of Phillip's love or affection for her, preferably breaking a lot of rules to do so, and manages to lead a lifestyle where domesticity is not at the centre of things. Where she does get to go out and experience the world and change the world, and not in a role or a way that is palatable for society and fits into accepted role for women of her time, but in a way that gets people's backs up and causes trouble.

I don't expect the show to do any of this. The show will basically follow the book plot, and then have every interview us the word "choice" and "agency" about fifty times to try and sell it as super feminist, there will be a lot of stuff about how Eloise broke the rules to go meet Sir Phillip and how daring and rebellious it is, and the fact she only broke the rules to facilitate her essentially settling down into the sort of life society has chosen for her, not to escape it, will be brushed over, she will have some sassy lines, make a couple of speeches that don't add anything to the plot, be a quirky "not like other mums/wives, oooh isn't she rebellious she pranks the kids and teases Sir Phillip, such a feminist!" character, while fundamentally settling down to lead the exact lifestyle we've been told for four seasons she doesn't want, with her sparks of true rebellion which we saw in the earlier seasons be used to gush about how much more mature she is now. Maybe they will throw a charity plot in where she helps some generic starving kids or something, so she can be "achieving something" while still fitting into her established social role (charity work being one of the few ways women were allowed to influence society), with the message being it's ok to be a feminist and try the world....provided you don't do it in a way that makes anyone angry or uncomfortable, or requires you transgressing out of you allotted social sphere.

(And yes, it is a romance and Eloise will fall in love. Not disputing that. But the show could have used that romance to validate Eloise's rebellion, to act as a catalyst for her to break even more out of her allotted social role, not to be reconciled to it).

(Sorry in advance for the length of the rant, I peaked in GCSE English).

I think a big split among fans when it comes to liking/disliking certain characters is the split between those who put the biggest priority when it comes to manner and attitude.
Nesta is openly hostile and her manner is consistently rude and unpleasant. This means that there’s little benefit of the doubt to give her. She’s rude and mean and that’s that. Obviously, a lot of fans dislike her for that, especially when she’s rude to their favourite characters.
But for fans who prefer self-awareness in characters, there’s a bit of preference for the fact there’s no false face to her, no presenting niceness while being subtly unkind. She also faces consequences for her moments of unkindness, instead of having them waved away or shrugged off, forgiven in the name of what TVTropes calls Protagonist Centred Morality.
Meanwhile, with various members of the Inner Circle, there are moments when they treat Nesta in a way that is not blatantly unpleasant, but put Nesta into uncomfortable and unpleasant situations just as much as her meanness does to others.

The Mor and Nesta fan divide is a big one. To those who side with Mor, in their first encounter Mor compliments Nesta’s dress in an attempt to be friendly, to which Nesta slut shames her in response. To those who side with Nesta, Nesta has already been violated, having had her humanity stripped away from her, and is now living among near strangers who she is on uneasy terms with, to say the least. Mor, aware Nesta has been violated, starts touching her without permission, and goes as far as to joke with Cassian about ripping Nesta’s dress off her. Meanwhile, Nesta’s body language shows evident signs of discomfort, which Mor either ignores or does not notice. To regain control of the situation, and her body, Nesta says something cutting to Mor.

The most generous reading to Mor in this scene is that she is genuinely trying to be nice to Nesta, and did not see Nesta was uncomfortable. This reading is somewhat challenged by the fact Feyre perceives Mor in this scene dropping hints to Feyre she wants them to go shopping together, so Mor’s motive here isn’t to be nice to Nesta, but to reach out to Feyre, using Nesta as a conversation piece. Furthermore, Morrigan is over five hundred years old, and has over those years brought victims of assault to the Library, making it hard to believe that by now she wouldn’t be aware of the fact that many people don’t like to be touched without permission, or might lash out if their boundaries are crossed, especially victims of assault.

The fairest reading might be that Morrigan was being thoughtless and inconsiderate, while Nesta responded by lashing out in order to regain distance between them. 
Sympathy for the characters here might depend on whether you believe Nesta, being the one who acted with intent to be unkind and rude, escalated the situation needlessly, and the responsibility was on her to use her words to say she was uncomfortable, or whether you believe that Morrigan’s thoughtlessness created the situation in the first place, that thoughtlessness is an unkindness in itself, and that as Morrigan was not only centuries older than Nesta and not recovering from a recent violation, and was on home soil surrounded by friends (therefore having the balance of power put in her favour) she had the responsibility to ensure Nesta, a guest and a victim of recent assault, felt safe and respected. 

Another example of a character acting in a way that presents as being affable and well-intentioned, but actually causing Nesta distress and discomfort, is Feyre and Cassian’s attempts of “reaching out their hand”. We’re told that for a year they’ve been trying to reach out to her, to help her recover from the war, but in ACOFAS we see that this materialises as Feyre pressuring Nesta to come to a big family event, in Feyre’s home (where Feyre has painted pictures of everyone she cares about except Nesta), with Feyre’s friends, where Nesta is ignored and ostracised. Cassian himself blanks Nesta through the night, and only bothers to talk to her once she leaves, where he responds to her rejecting his gift with insults and accusations of being unlovable.

There are no attempts to meet with Nesta on neutral ground, to partake in the things she enjoys, and even when she does turn up, there is no effort to make her feel welcome or include her. “Reaching you their hand” seems to translate to “pressure her to come to family events, do nothing to make her feel welcome, act insulted when she doesn’t fit neatly into our lives and our circle”.   

Fans here will disagree as to whether or not Feyre and Cassian were acting in good faith to Nesta, trying to bring Nesta into the fold, only for Nesta to reject their efforts while making no effort herself to fit in, and Feyre showing Nesta more sympathy than Nesta deserves due to how harsh Nesta was to Feyre in the cabin, or whether Feyre and Cassian had the right to go low contact with Nesta if they desired, but didn’t have the right to insist she come to their big group events, where they know she will be uncomfortable, do nothing to ease her comfort, then resent her for rejecting their attempts of “help”. 

Elain and Nesta’s talk in the House of Wind is a big cause of division, with the sisters either being framed as Elain being sweet and concerned for Nesta, only to be cruelly attacked, or Elain being oblivious and self-centred, pushing Nesta’s boundaries and trigger points until Nesta lashes out in self-preservation. 

Elain in this scene speaks a great deal about acting out of love and concern for Nesta, and because she is younger than Morrigan, she also has more an excuse in explaining why she doesn’t consider how distressing her presence and conversation can be for Nesta. The stuff she tries to say could come from a place of affection and love, and in another context might be comforting, therefore a good faith reading of her motive could be assigned to her actions. In contrast, Nesta acted entirely with intent to harm when she accused Elain of being the cause of their father’s death, therefore no good faith reading can be applied.

However, fans more critical of Elain might take into account that we’re told that Elain is actually very perceptive, and is able to see and understand the motives and actions of others, therefore, she should have been able to perceive that Nesta’s boundaries were being crossed. In this scene, Nesta is locked in the House of Wind. She cannot leave at will. Elain can. Elain chose to go to see Nesta in the House of Wind, and could choose to leave when she wanted. Therefore, the power imbalance was in Elain’s favour. 

When Nesta talks about how she feels about Elain going behind Nesta’s back to pack up her things, and not even being present for the intervention, Elain responds by talking about how Feyre “warned” her that this might happen, showing the two sisters have been talking about her behind her back, further highlighting how isolated Nesta is. She then invalidates and dismisses Nesta’s feelings by saying that just because the circumstances leading Nesta to her confinement weren’t the best, it doesn’t mean she has to be “so miserable about it”. This is particularly galling, considering how when Elain completely shut down after being thrown in the cauldron, Nessta tended to her, without judgement or resentment. 

The subject then turns towards their father. Nesta makes it clear that she does not, in any way, wish to talk about their father. Instead of respecting that, Elain keeps on pushing the subject. This is the moment where Nesta lashes out at Elain. Compared to the earlier incident between Nesta and Morrigan, Nesta doesn’t even go straight for the jugular here. She tells Elain she doesn’t want Elain present, that she doesn’t want to talk to her, and she doesn’t want to talk about their father. Elain disregards all that, and so Nesta lashes out because it’s the only way to get Elain to stop. 

Elain’s response is then to declare to Rhys (who already thinks poorly of Nesta and is in a position of power of Nesta) that not only was Nesta unkind to her, but she wasn’t “even trying to get better”, making her come across to her more critical readers as rather two faced and self centred. At no point following this moment do we see Elain take accountability for how her actions in this scene might have distressed Nesta, as much as Nesta’s words distressed her. 

This can be frustrating for many readers, because we are repeatedly told Elain is the “kind sister”, and fans are divided as to how well this shows Elain as such. On the one hand, she makes the effort to go to Nesta, and tries to say things she thinks might be comforting. On the other, she disregards Nesta’s boundaries, invalidates Nesta’s feelings, and throughout the scene and after, shows a degree of thoughtlessness and lack of self-reflection.

How much much thoughtlessness itself counts as unkindness in the eyes of the reader might play a big part in how these characters are judged. As Nesta unconditionally acts with malice in these moments, with a desire to hurt, her actions rightly get judged as unkind. However, they are made in response largely to the lack of consideration other people, other people in more powerful positions, show her. With the actions of the other characters, even if we apply the best faith reading to their actions, that they genuinely meant well, the divide comes about if you consider meaning well a good enough indicator of kindness, or if you believe that kindness doesn’t just require good motives, but also effort put into thinking about the comfort and boundaries of the other person. Attempts of kindness focussed on what you consider to be kind, without considering the needs of the other, can be seen as acts of self-indulgence rather than true kindness. 

Then there’s question of how much the other characters should be expected to foresee how their actions might impact Nesta. If Nesta doesn’t tell them, how are they expected to know? On the other hand, touching an assault victim without consent and inviting someone to a party only to exclude them, are not unknown to cause distress and discomfort, whereas Nesta does tell Elain to leave, and to stop talking about their father, and is ignored. Nesta being triggered by fires isn’t something the other character can be expected to predict, but the other stuff is not the sort of thing it takes a genius to predict. 

In all these incidents, we see a pattern of other characters (supposedly) meaning well to Nesta, but pushing her triggers and making her feel vulnerable due to a lack of consideration, and Nesta lashing out to regain control. In both cases, we have people at fault, but only one character’s fault is acknowledged.

Because of that, defenders of Feyre, Cassian, Elain and Morrigan etc… might feel vindicated in applying the best faith reads of their actions, because the narrative doesn’t criticise them for their conduct, indicating the most sympathetic read of their actions is the best one.

However, additional sympathy for Nesta might also come about because Nesta’s habit of using harsh words to regain control in situations where she feels vulnerable is a flaw that is acknowledged as such within the narrative and by other characters, and is something she has to work to confront, whereas the habit of other characters to push Nesta into the situations, to act in a thoughtless and inconsiderate way towards her, resulting in as much distress for Nesta as Nesta’s rudeness does to them, is never acknowledged as a flaw in the narrative, and the only character who responds to it is Nesta, who is penalised for doing so, which can be very frustrating.

This can be especially frustrating as by the end of ACOSF, Nesta does learn to hold back from lashing out when she wants space, and to ask for time and distance instead, as evidenced when Cassian says he is “shackled” to her and she calls in a bargain for him to leave her along for a bit, only for Cassian to immediately start thinking of ways to get around her request. It creates the question of whether, even if Nesta does learn that she doesn’t have to be unkind to get her needs and boundaries across, if the IC will in turn learn that “no” is a full sentence, and respect those boundaries. If they never do, how much is Nesta expected to take from them until she is allowed to lash out in order to force them to?

TDLR: how much you side with Nesta or the IC might be affected by how much you value whehter someone acts in a pleasant, well meaning manner, even if the actions themselves do more harm than good, and whether or not the narrative framing one character in the wrong or the other in the right makes you sympathise more with the character the narrative is encouraging to think well off, or with the character whose faults are fully acknowledged and explored.

that Nesta's Star tattoo doesn't matter anymore, because it was a temporary bargain tattoo?

According to parts of the fandom, Nesta's eight pointed star tattoo is no longer significant, because she fulfilled her bargain and no longer has it. If so, have they informed SJM of that? Only in CC3, she seems to be writing under the misapprehension that Nesta's tattoo was given to her "for a reason", and that reason is worth giving her Gwydion to figure it out.

I know the response to that has been "Well SJM just needed to get Gwydion to Prythian, it doesn't mean it's going to have anything to do with Nesta's tattoo or Nesta at all", and yet, if that were so, why would SJM bother bringing Nesta into the equation at all? Why would SJM bother mentioning Nesta's tattoo?

SJM could have written another character into Nesta's place, built the plot in Prythian around another character, if that was who Gwydion was going to be ending up with. SJM could have had Bryce give Gwydion to Azriel as an apology for taking Truth Teller. SJM cold have Bryce give Gwydion to Nesta just because she wants it out of Midgard, with instructions to "hand it to whoever you feel is worthy".

Basically, there were lots of ways Gwydion could have ended up in Prythian, and yet SJM chose the way that placed emphasis on Nesta, and Nesta's tattoo, and had Bryce give Nesta Gwydion explicitly to go find out why it is Nesta has a connection to the eight pointed star.

It's not a fan theory that Nesta's tattoo and her relationship with the eight pointed star is important, it's something SJM has told us point blank. It's confirmed canon.

Sincerely, would the same fans who are trying to diminish Nesta's importance/future page presence by insisting that Gwydion isn't going to have anything to do with her, and that the eight pointed star that SJM told us was given to her for a reason, be so dismissive of this level of foreshadowing if it was granted to one of their faves? If Elain or Azriel or Rhys were granted Gwydion on similar terms, would they be theorising that Gwydion would be going to someone else, or that Gwydion would have no impact on their story at all? Would they wave away the author point blank telling the reader that a symbol that appeared on them due to a bargain was given to them for a reason, a reason important enough for them to receive Gwydion, on the grounds that bargain tattoos are temporary?

Basically, what I'm saying is (in an admittedly grumpy and snarky manner) is that predictions that Nesta isn't going to have a significant arc with Gwydion and the eight pointed star tattoo purely on the basis that Nesta's star tattoo was temporary, are built on wishful thinking.

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.