268 posts
Latest Posts by ignorethisrandom - Page 2
Going forward the writers don’t need to stray from history, only consolidate characters and events. The truth is already insane!
Things get so crazy!
They better include Catherine’s best frenemy Jeanne de Albert (Antoine’s wife) next season. Watching the two queens of sass and sarcasm try to take a bite out of each other will be glorious!
as much as i enjoyed "the serpent queen" i feel like the second part of the season was a bit... meh? i much preferred it when they kept much closer to the actual history, and while i understand the need for changes for plot clarity (charles V and henri II dying at francis' wedding instead of elizabeth of valois and philippe II of spain's wedding) i wish some parts had kept the actual facts? i think it would have been more interesting to have henri dying while wearing diane's colours, and then catherine doing everything so that diane never saw henri until he died. i also would have preferred it if they kept francois II's cause of death instead of giving him consumption (what is it going to be when charles IX actually dies from it? lol) and also the whole nonsense plot of mary stuart being made regent when she has zero (0) claim to that throne (and antoinette de guise saying 'respect the sanctity of rules' yeah that's what's being done by naming anyone but mary regent actually) like the show can't both be like "if catherine doesn't have children she'll be packed home" and at the same time, when mary is also childless, pretends she has a reasonable claim to the throne? mary was pawn for the de guise as long as she was married to françois, but once dead, she didn't serve them anymore (rightly so) and that's why she was sent back to scotland.
anyway i fucking loved the bourbons though
“Where is reading comprehension? Where is nuance?”
Ladies and Gentlemen, we need to make this a meme all Literature teachers and professors can get behind.
Make it happen!
alicent voice where is reading comprehension where is nuance
If you know how this story ends, hearing this line is all the more painful!
augh
If I didn’t know better, I’d say this was King Evan Peters. These two actors do look pretty similar.
All hail His Grace, Aegon, Second of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm.
HOUSE OF THE DRAGON | 1.09 The Green Council
To give you all a visual - book!sansa was the same age as laena valaryon in hotd when she was forced to marry 30 year old tyrion, who tries going ahead with their “wedding night” and when she was being sexually harrassed and assaulted by other men at court.
You can appreciate BookSansa and ShowSansa at the same time too.
you had an anon a while back who said that sansa was antagonistic at the end of the show, and i agree that she was at least unrecognizable compared to her book counterpart. she's sapped of the kindness and courtesy that defined her in the books. an example is how she tells edmure to sit down in the finale. book sansa would never humiliate her uncle like that.
That's kind of an unfair comparison because show!Sansa's story is also very different. The show veered away from her actual arc early on (nice!Hound, nice!Tyrion, no Vale arc, Ramsay... etc) and utterly de-emphasized her thematic connection to storytelling and idealism and romance.
Show!Sansa is consistent within the story the show chose to tell, more so than many other characters. She makes sense at the end, the stupid Edmure moment notwithstanding.
But she is very much a different character entirely from book!Sansa.
Letters sent and letters unsent…
THEON APPRECIATION WEEK
Prompt: Parallels
Theon and Sansa are seen as traitors, both to their own families and to the people who hold them hostage, even though their choices were completely compromised. Theon is seen as a traitor for choosing to be loyal to his own family by not sending the letter of warning to Robb. And Sansa is seen as a traitor for being forced to send the letter to Robb on behalf of her captors. The impossible choices they are forced to make are actually inverse parallels, but they earn them the same condemnation.
Also, it's really funny how some people gush over Rhaenyra calling her brothers 'half brothers' but Helaena 'sweet sister' and say that it's sweet. I mean, I guess it is sweet. She knows her brothers want to challenge her right to the throne, but Helaena is sweet and wouldnt want that.
Yet, when Sansa refers to Jon as 'half-brother' it's horrible and disrespectful and even abusive?
Historically, in the asoiaf universe, children of another woman have wanted to usurp and challenge the heirship of rightful heirs. Catelyn has no reason to believe that Jon wouldn't turn out the same at some point and Sansa who is closest to her mother must have absorbed some of that beliefs.
I guess it's only girlboss to put a possible usurper in their place when it's a fan favorite.
Yet another Sansa stan being an Alicent Stan lmao you guys need to stop being so predictable. I don't even hate her show version but the way you peeps love to latch on to a passive redheaded character who accepts her suffering in a feminine woke submissive way is getting comical at this point xD. Stan whoever you want, just keep your same old 'too-powerful-for-their-own-good' Targ takes to yourself thank you
The way you people finds ways to shame and denigrate female characters for how they handle and process patriarchal violence and abuse is absolutely astounding, and imply that there's good victims and bad victims is absolutely ridiculous. None of these characters ''accept'' their suffering. That's such an incredibly disgusting thing to say. They are young girls that live in a society that restricts and limits them, and preys upon them and these are victims to men in power that use that power to use and abuse them as they see fit. That's why (alongside a plethora of other reasons, of course) you're not going to see me shame Rhaenyra for getting groomed by her grown male uncle, or Cersei for getting abused by Robert or Daenerys for being abused by her brother for years and sold to and SAed by a grown man.
All of these characters were stripped of any real choice and power and were forced into submissiveness and passivity by their violently patriarchal society for years and years, and the most meaningful part is seeing them break out of it. Stop making weird connotations to people emotionally connecting to victims of abuse who were regulated and constrained by people that have power over them, and had to survive by enduring and pretending. Like of course this is a narrative that I would be emotionally engaged with considering how much I personally relate to a lot of aspects to it in regards to my own life and experiences, and so many other people see differing aspects of these characters and their hardships, how they endured, who they became and how they broke away from all of the limitations, and it means something to them in regards to their own lives, and that's an absolutely beautiful thing.
Sansa, for example, attempted to kill herself, attempted to push Joffrey off the tower, constantly made digs at him when she could, bolted away and refused to kneel when she was forced into marriage and continuously aimed to get out at the right time. She never ''accepted'' her suffering. She did what she had to do to survive, but there was always steel underneath even as she was only eleven/twelve. There was a lot of power to that, and there was also a lot of power in all of the moments of her faking and enduring these horrors and continuing on pretending regardless. Also, Alicent strode in, interrupted and boldly declared war at her current enemies' wedding. All of these women are forced into horrible positions, had to endure, and break away from it or take control of their lives in their own time. Even if they hadn't endure, or didn't break away from it at the end, they definitely wouldn't be ''worse victims'' for it like you seem to imply. My other issue with the other side of the HoTD fandom is how you all try to dictate who people are and are not allowed to like and what takes people are and are not allowed to have based on your own personal narratives. Also, the ''too powerful for their own good'' isn't just my Targ take, it's the whole conundrum that GRRM explicitly stated he wanted to explore with that family. Like wow I'm talking about what this man wanted his readers to talk about. Big problem. Anyways, if you don't want to see my takes, don't go to my account. Block me instead of immediately checking my account and sending hate in my inbox whenever I make a new post.
Niles: Dad, have you mentioned Eddie yet?
Frasier: Eddie?!
Niles: Ta-ta!
Frasier: Oh, no, Dad, no, no! Not Eddie!
Martin: But he’s my best friend!
Frasier: But he’s weird! He gives me the creeps! All he does is stare at me!
It’s over now the music of the night!
I’m in mourning
Portrayed by: Eloise Webb Show: Sanditon Season 2
Although Sanditon already has more than its share of strong female characters wrestling with the various manifestations of Regency misogyny, the introduction of Augusta Markham in Season 2 provides a fresh look at the pressures on young ladies of the period.
We first discover Augusta bounding through a field behind a child. As she screams, “this had better be worth it,” we understand she is not chasing the child but instead following along to catch a glimpse of something. That something turns out to be the arrival of the army in Sanditon. Despite Augusta’s seeming exasperation with the eager child, her own interest in the arrival of the army is barely concealed. This tendency to mask her real feelings characterizes Augusta throughout much of the season.
In looking behind this mask, we come to understand Augusta as a young lady faced with the uncertainty and fear of coming of age with neither a nurturing home environment to sustain her nor a social outlet to supply marriage prospects as a means of escape.
Continue Reading
Henri III deserves better than his reputation.
@microcosme11 who was interested in knowing more about Henri III.
***
Henri III was the last Valois king of France (19/09/1551-02/08/1589) and certainly among the kings whose reputation was the most tarnished. You could say it was trashed by the black legend his enemies quickly wove around him: weak, effeminate, cowardly, treacherous, immoral… This is how he was depicted for centuries. For decades now, however, historians have worked to rediscover a misjudged king and rehabilitated a complex personality who was at odds, in many ways, with the expectations of his century. Henri III had above all a high idea of royal authority, and a modern conception of the state. In particularly difficult circumstances, he managed to avoid the wreck of the monarchy.
This post will try to be a quick summary of the circumstances of his reign, of his real qualities and personality, of the origin of the “black legend”, and of his legacy as a king.
When the future Henri III was born, he wasn’t destined for a crown. He was indeed the fourth son of Henri II and Catherine de Medici. Titled Duke of Anjou, he was given a thorough and refined education, as befitted a true prince of the Renaissance. His master Amyot, the most reputed of his time, was able to cultivate qualities that would make Henri a brilliant and eloquent prince “ one of the best speakers of his era.”
Henri was also Catherine’s favorite child. He was good looking, smart, fashionable, an excellent swordsman. Aged only 16, he became Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, and he would soon prove his valor in the battlefield in Jarnac and Moncontour. Elected King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lituania under the name Henryk Walezy, his reign wouldn’t last long - his brother Charles IX died without an heir and Henri immediately left Poland for France.
He was crowned on February 13, 1575, and two days later married the beautiful and smart Louise de Vaudémont, a princess of Lorraine, close to the famous and very influent House of Guise.
France was then in a very difficult situation. The Kingdom was divided and devastated by the wars of Religion. The warring parties were backed by foreign powers and France’s political and economical condition suffered.
In the late XVIth century, the great lords of the Kingdom still acted like sovereigns of their own in many ways - the feudal order hadn’t yet given way to the future absolutism (which would be the later creation of Richelieu and Louis XIII IMHO, in reaction precisely to the Great Lords’ excessive capacity for nuisance). Henri III couldn’t afford to overtly dismiss or displease them.
He had to stand up to three main parties: the Malcontents, the Protestants (leader: Henri, King of Navarre, his distant cousin), and the Catholics (led by the House of Guise). He knew that the restoration of peace and concord meant he had to get into everybody’s good graces- a perilous proposition in such times. His whole life, Henri would have to find a balance. Nobody would be grateful for that. Mindful of his duty and his role as a mediator in the kingdom, he worked to establish the royal authority as effectively sovereign.
He would find enemies everywhere.
He was well spoken, soft spoken, elegant and well mannered: he would be mocked as weak and effeminate. He was clever and always favored diplomacy over shows of brute force: he would be despised for it and depicted as an immoral, cowardly prince. He wasn’t as easily accessible as his predecessors: the Great lords didn’t like that. When he got closer to the Guise, to appease the most radical Catholics, the Protestants rebelled. When he leaned towards Henri de Navarre, the League reacted violently. The balancing act harmed his reputation.
With the help of his ever present mother Catherine, he initiated a rapprochement with Henri de Navarre while supporting his brother’s (François, Duke of Alençon) plans in the Spanish Netherlands: Protestants and Catholics coming together to face a common enemy (the Habsburgs) ? Excellent. That’s a lesson Henri IV would remember.
Henri III was, in spite of his rather frail health, a hard worker. In 1584, after seven years of relative peace, strenghtening of the royal authority, and an intense legislative work, he was still childless - and his brother and heir François d'Alençon died of tuberculosis.
This was a great upset in the game.
Because the new heir was Henri de Navarre - leader of the Protestant party. Which of course was unacceptable for the Catholic opinion. Paris, who chose the Ligue, was dangerously agitated.
What a stroke of luck for Henri de Guise!
What was named then “La Guerre des Trois Henri” opposed three parties, not two. Although he was apparently allied to the ultra Catholics Guise, Henri III took care not to burn his bridges with the Protestants. The Habsburg support of Henri de Guise wasn’t to his taste, and he didn’t like the ambitious Duke. And if Navarre (whom he esteemed) was to lose entirely, Guise would become too powerful.
Guise was the first to move; exasperated by the King’s caution, the Duke entered Paris in open defiance of the King, with the population cheering him on. Fearing a coup d'Etat, the King sent his own troops to Paris, and what happened was the famous “Journée des Barricades” (Barricade Day), on 13 May 1588.
What happened next ? Henri III took a terrible decision: for the peace of the Kingdom, for France to subsist as a State, for his authority to be maintained, Henri de Guise was to disappear. And there was a way to lure him: afraid that the King would sign peace with Navarre, Henri de Guise went to negotiate with Henri III in Blois. On December 23, Henri III had Henri de Guise assassinated by his own Guard, as well as his brother the Cardinal de Lorraine.
Was the King’s opinion and attitude unclear before ? That’s cleared now. But as for peace ? Never. The powerful Ligue lashed out in rage . The hatred was open. There were outloud calls of Death to the Tyrant.
Henri III would never see the Ligue destroyed: on the 1st August 1589, a fanatic monk by the name of Jacques Clément would stab him to death.
“This King was a good prince, if he’d met a better century”, would write the chronicler Pierre de l'Estoile upon his death. In spite of his peculiar personality and the outburst of hatred he aroused, Henri also showed his qualities.
He had been raised in a humanist background and would protect the world of literature (Montaigne, Du Perron, Desportes); he was rather to be found working in his office with his ministers rather than on the battlefield. Although, when he had to, he was steadfast and brave in battle.
He was smart and usually able of compassion towards his adversaries.
He had faith, and his misfortunes made him find a refuge there. We know he even went on a spiritual retreat into a monastery for a while.
His contemporaries described him as a man who loved women - which was overlooked because he never granted any of his lovers a title of official mistress. He had for Marie de Clèves, Princess of Condé, a platonic, but deep passion, and the depth of his mourning after she brutally passed away in 1574, stunned the Court.
He married Louise de Vaudémont for her charm and her wit rather than for politics.
But in spite of this, the image we’ve had of him for centuries is indissociable from his “mignons” - effeminate youths clad in excentric outfits and wasting their time in frivolous games. He was painted as homosexual (and therefore despicable) based on pamphlets written by radical leaguers, radical calvinists, Malcontents. The high nobility didn’t appreciate his “new ways”, the refining of clothes and manners, the new court practices. The Ligue used against him a virulent propaganda, along with calls to rebellion and real campaigns of calumnies. And when he died, the change of dynasty didn’t allow for a better, more impartial image to be offered. Queen Louise and the Duchess of Angoulême tried in vain to dispell this ambiguous image. The real culprits were'nt even be punished (Jacques Clément however perished).
And yet. He was the one who wanted concord and national unity in a country torn by wars of religion (he lived four of them). His long and unthanked political action allowed Henri IV to end half a century of cruel civil war.
Was he weak ? It is true he bowed to the many pressures of the Great lords. But he always took back control.
Cowardly ? He wasn’t vainglorious. And he proved his personal courage, in the battlefields of his youth as well as at the time of his death (he fought off his killer).
Frivolous and immoral ? He loved pleasures, arts, and feasts. But he also was anxious about his soul and salute.
In the difficulties he had to face, he managed to rule and to leave France a considerable legislative body of work (Code Henri III).
What are some positive aspects of his reign ?
He launched loans to stabilize finances, he reduced the taille (tax), ensured the protection of cities, created offices, taxed luxury, taxed the clergy, revived the textile industry, revised farm leases, created fines for fraudsters, created a body of health officers and an assistance service for the needy and the orphans; he undertook the administrative reorganization of the kingdom, maintained the unity of France by overcoming the worst of wars, both civil and religious, and retained royal legitimacy through a regular transmission of power to Henri IV.
He held on his principle of royal authority and modern conception of the State. He maintained.
I agree with Pierre de l’Estoile.
“Décrié”: condemned, castigated, reviled.
Sources:
Wikipedia
https///www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/histoire-de-france/1481-henri-iii-le-dernier-des-valois.html
Pierre Chevallier: Henri III, roi shakespearien, 1985
Michel Pernot : Henri III, le roi décrié, 2017
Jean-François Solnon: Henri III: un désir de majesté, 2001
Henry’s coronation was followed almost at once by his marriage. As his mother pointed out in a letter to Bellièvre, the surintendant des finances, savings would be made, notably in the distribution of gifts, by combining the king’s coronation and wedding. The marriage contract was signed on 14 February and the wedding followed next day. De Thou tells us that it was delayed till the afternoon because Henry took so long fussing over his attire and that of his bride, but royal weddings always took place then to allow time for the participants to recover from the previous previous evening’s festivities. Henry arrived at Rheims cathedral in pomp preceded by bugles and trumpets. Behind him walked the bride’s father, the count of Vaudémont. Louise’s cortège followed. Tall and blond, she wore a gown and heavy cope of mauve velvet embroidered with fleurs-de-lys. Her future brothers-in-law, the duc d’Anjou and the king of Navarre, walked on either side of her. Behind came Catherine de’ Medici and many princesses and other ladies. For once Catherine had set aside the mourning she had worn since her husband’s death in 1559. The wedding itself took place outside the cathedral’s main porch under a canopy of gold cloth. It was followed by a low mass within the cathedral celebrated by cardinal de Bourbon and the day was rounded off by a banquet and a ball at the archiepiscopal palace. According to a Venetian witness, the king and 12 princes wore suits of silver cloth adorned with pearls and jewels. The new queen, too, was superbly dressed.
Robert J. Knecht, Hero or Tyrant? Henry III, King of France, 1574-89 (pp. 105-106)
At first glance Louise de Lorraine looks like a Renaissance Cinderella story--the unappreciated young woman mistreated by her cold step-mother rescued by a handsome young king/prince--only to turn into a nightmare. Maybe that handsome king isn’t as stable as she first thought...and maybe he doesn’t really like her for herself, but because she looks a lot like his dead ex-lover who he idealizes...
How has no one written a Louise-centric novel casting her as Cinderella? The White Queen turned Elizabeth Woodville’s life into a Cinderella-gone-wrong story, it’s Louise’s turn.
I’m all dressed up and I don’t like it.
Cat Photos
The Serpent Queen Narration
If done right, the first-person-narration addressing the camera in The Serpent Queen could be really effective.
Imagine, after several episodes of quipping and dark humor, the night of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre arrives, and Catherine finally addresses the camera and the audience without her usual smirk. As we watch thousands of people dying on essentially her orders, she quietly says: “I was protecting my family. What would YOU have done differently?”
Every other guy in France during this time period was named Francis/Francois. There are PLENTY of candidates.
So excited for The Serpent Queen!!!! Both new actors are playing a character named Francis I don't know which one is Mary's Francis.
Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire and other heroines of the French wars of religion
Between 1562 and 1598, France was torn by civil and religious conflicts between the Catholics and the Protestants. During this period, women distinguished themselves as spies, propagandists, political leaders or negotiators. Some of them even fought weapons in hand.
Agrippa d’Aubigné tells in his Universal history of Marie de Brabançon, widow of Jean de Barres, lord of Neuvy. In October 1569, the lady found herself besieged in her home by the king’s lieutenant who had 2,000 men and two cannons. She personally defended the most dangerous breach with a pike in her hand. Shamed by her example, her soldiers fought bravely. Observers recounts that they saw her defending the breach several times with her weapon. She nonetheless had to surrender in mid-November, but was allowed to walk away freely by the king’s command. Another lady noted for her military acumen was Claude de la Tour, dame de Tournon who defended her city against the protestants in 1567 and 1570. They couldn’t, however, breach her defense and had to leave.
Ordinary women also found themselves on the frontline. The city of La Rochelle was besieged between 1572 and 1573 and the townswomen fought in the defense. Brantôme tells that the besiegers saw a hundred women dressed in white appearing on the walls. Some of them performed support functions while others wielded weapons. Their bravery was confirmed by another account who tells that the women acted as “soldiers or new amazons” and that their courage led a street in La Rochelle to be called the “Ladies’ Boulevard”. Agrippa d’Aubigné similarly shows the women fighting with sword and gun. Brantôme adds that he heard that one of these women kept at home the weapon with which she fought and that she didn’t want to give it to anyone.
Another valiant lady was Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire (c.1528/30-1588) who came from a prestigious military family. She married the lord of Miremont, gave birth to three daughters, but was widowed and had to defend her lands. Agrippa d’Aubigné tells that Madeleine led a troop of 60 cavaliers against her enemy Montal, lieutenant of the king. When she fought, Madeleine charged ahead of all others, with her hair unbound in order to be recognized by both friends and foes. In 1575, Montal lured Madeleine and her troops away from the castle and planned to seize the place. The lady returned, charged at the enemy and routed their cavalry. Montal was wounded in the ensuing fight and died a few days later.
Letters written by Madeleine have been preserved and reveal another aspect of her character. They show a modest, polite woman, who cared for her husband’s illegitimate children and treated them like her own.
Bibliography:
Arnal J., “Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire”
Bulletin de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de la Corrèze
D’Aubigné Agrippa, Histoire universelle
Lazard Madeleine, “Femmes combattantes dans l’Histoire universelle d’Agrippad’Aubigné”
Pierre Jean-Baptiste, De Courcelles Julien, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France
Viennot Elianne, “Les femmes dans les « troubles » du XVIe siècle”
Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire and other heroines of the French wars of religion
Between 1562 and 1598, France was torn by civil and religious conflicts between the Catholics and the Protestants. During this period, women distinguished themselves as spies, propagandists, political leaders or negotiators. Some of them even fought weapons in hand.
Agrippa d’Aubigné tells in his Universal history of Marie de Brabançon, widow of Jean de Barres, lord of Neuvy. In October 1569, the lady found herself besieged in her home by the king’s lieutenant who had 2,000 men and two cannons. She personally defended the most dangerous breach with a pike in her hand. Shamed by her example, her soldiers fought bravely. Observers recounts that they saw her defending the breach several times with her weapon. She nonetheless had to surrender in mid-November, but was allowed to walk away freely by the king’s command. Another lady noted for her military acumen was Claude de la Tour, dame de Tournon who defended her city against the protestants in 1567 and 1570. They couldn’t, however, breach her defense and had to leave.
Ordinary women also found themselves on the frontline. The city of La Rochelle was besieged between 1572 and 1573 and the townswomen fought in the defense. Brantôme tells that the besiegers saw a hundred women dressed in white appearing on the walls. Some of them performed support functions while others wielded weapons. Their bravery was confirmed by another account who tells that the women acted as “soldiers or new amazons” and that their courage led a street in La Rochelle to be called the “Ladies’ Boulevard”. Agrippa d’Aubigné similarly shows the women fighting with sword and gun. Brantôme adds that he heard that one of these women kept at home the weapon with which she fought and that she didn’t want to give it to anyone.
Another valiant lady was Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire (c.1528/30-1588) who came from a prestigious military family. She married the lord of Miremont, gave birth to three daughters, but was widowed and had to defend her lands. Agrippa d’Aubigné tells that Madeleine led a troop of 60 cavaliers against her enemy Montal, lieutenant of the king. When she fought, Madeleine charged ahead of all others, with her hair unbound in order to be recognized by both friends and foes. In 1575, Montal lured Madeleine and her troops away from the castle and planned to seize the place. The lady returned, charged at the enemy and routed their cavalry. Montal was wounded in the ensuing fight and died a few days later.
Letters written by Madeleine have been preserved and reveal another aspect of her character. They show a modest, polite woman, who cared for her husband’s illegitimate children and treated them like her own.
Bibliography:
Arnal J., “Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire”
Bulletin de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de la Corrèze
D’Aubigné Agrippa, Histoire universelle
Lazard Madeleine, “Femmes combattantes dans l’Histoire universelle d’Agrippad’Aubigné”
Pierre Jean-Baptiste, De Courcelles Julien, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France
Viennot Elianne, “Les femmes dans les « troubles » du XVIe siècle”
Gaspard de Coligny gives off major Ned Stark vibes.
Are we sure GRRM didn’t base his Song of Ice and Fire/A Game of Thrones on the French Wars of Religion as well as the English Wars of the Roses? The French Wars of Religion already have a guy who’s missing a nose, another guy who is missing an arm/hand (replaced by an iron arm instead of a golden hand), and it has a wedding far more brutal than the Red Wedding. Seriously, if you love ASoIaF/GOT, please go read about the French Wars of Religion. They’re so similar! And the French history has a more satisfying ending (Henri IV > Bran).
Ceresi only wishes she was as good at being bad as Catherine de Medici.
I think his working away from Sanditon might be the best thing for him. Tom was not a reliable boss and Stringer deserves better.
He’ll be just fine in London.
I heard he became a Viking king, so all is well with Young Mister Stringer.
stringer from sanditon deserved better
Imagine if Gus’s last scene on Better Call Saul was him walking up to Gale and kissing him...Am I the only one who feels some kind of romantic tension between Gus and Gale?
I wanna talk about what Peter Gould said about Gus, more specifically, how "Gus finds love".
In my opinion, it is either some flashback with Max, or some kind of metaphor - and he doesn't really fall in love with a person.
Having Gus be in a relationship, even with a man, is first of all, forced and probably completely unnecessary and contributes absolutely nothing to his character development and plot progression in both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul - and so I (at least) can't think of any good reason for doing that.
In addition, given that Gus had a full blown revenge plan over the death of Max, extending to around 20 years of planning and executing (no pun intended), I just doubt that he has the mental capacity for another huge commitment that comes with having a romantic partner. He is a human, after all. Giving him a partner will have definitely meant that he would have had to let go of Max. Let go of his plan, or else he would most likely be putting his relationship at risk.
However, he definitely does not let go of anything, as we already know. He is completely OBSESSIVE about his plan. It is clearly the only thing in his mind - the reason behind his each and every move. He is scared shitless of Lalo - not for his life, but for his PLAN (according to Esposito himself). He is scared Lalo will ruin his perfectly-crafted, flawless plan of unleashing the hellfires upon the cartel, and especially Hector, for murdering Max right in front of him.
Therefore, I see no reason a romantic partner would be of any interest for Gus, given his biggest and... only motive.