In part one, I discussed how Royal Court was a viper's den, where practicality and pragmatism ruled the day. You didn't dare make a rash decision, especially if based on love and compassion. Decisions would foremost be linked to survival and calculation. Mary and Francis were able to fight this (Catherine had once called them different, 'moral'), so long as they had each other. So long as they respected one another, and worked together against their common enemies.
With Francis's betrayal to Mary, with fighting (and losing) to a cunning enemy without Mary's help, it sealed the fate for distrust to fester in their relationship. He did not trust their love to be able to conquer this threat, that is if their love could have solved it at the end of the day. But the route of not confiding in her didn't prove to be a good road either.
Now, many viewers are going to hate Mary for stepping out on Francis. I don't particularly agree with her decision to do it, though I understand it.
Like I said in Part 1, Mary's innocent view of changing the world was tarnished, as she was tarnished by all the dangerous and deadly plotting and scheming going on around her, and that same plotting and scheming that Francis inevitably found himself in.
Cue Conde.
He does some plotting and scheming of his own (to his chagrin), but he firmly points out to Mary that it did not put her in danger like Francis's.
He represents a breath of fresh air to her, to a more and more stifling environment. Of lip service to duty and honor, as things seem to steadily fall apart.
Never did Mary and Francis get a break from the treachery and political intrigue of royal court in order to mend their relationship, as there was always a problem facing them and this mending and healing was put on the back burner and never occurred.
Maybe she also got tired of putting other peoples' needs above her own and breaking inside as the person she knew.
Anyway, Conde seems to disdain court; he seems to see it as a routine check-up at the dentist. It's necessary, but not his whole life. It's Mary's whole life, but he shows her it doesn't have to be.
This is very interesting.
Practicality in this deadly serious world is seen as lifeless, breathless, as pleasant as having a tooth removed at a dentist, but it's seen as a necessity to living, although it only provides people with deadened eyes, hearts, and souls, and a few pieces of bread and coin. Barely alive, like a zombie.
What is practicality?
Tried and true methods, a path many people have gone down. If Mary and Francis had stayed together, happy monarchs forever trusting and loving of one another-something that was not common back then among monarchs-they would have still largely been operating in a world consumed by ruthless practicality but they would have found a reprieve in their relationship, a break from all of that in each other.
Conde presents more of a departure from ruthless practicality. He's a dangerous choice for Mary because Conde is something that is off-limits to her. She is a married queen, though estranged from her marriage. What Conde and Mary are planning, which is to leave France for Scotland to be together and rule together, is a dream for them and much of the world.
But because in history there have been scandals involving monarchs, they have served as cautionary tales never to be repeated, but its hard not to repeat it when the same ruthless practicality is forcing these people to see if the grass is indeed greener on the other side-If romanticism, whimsy and recklessness really could bring them freedom from the 'survival of the fittest' mentality that seemed to pervade all of life.
Yes, romanticism, whimsy, and recklessness is not the best way to build a foundation for the future, but its something that brings hope for something better.
If the world of ruthless practicality were diminished, if Francis had never felt threatened and the life of Mary and his family had never been threatened, he would have never betrayed the one he loved. If there was more balance, whatever that balance looks like, of romanticism and practicality, maybe things would've ended up differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment