I must admit, I was not happy with the writers advocating infidelity in the first place. But watching these two marry at the end of season 2 just got me to think.. NOW what?
All I can think is that they have to kill off Constance. She just has to go.
I have been trying to come up with ways to split them up and keep her in the story, but I just can't see it.
I fully expect them to kill off Constance sometime in Season 3.
I don't think Constance will be killed off and if anything, having them married now opens up new opportunities, including bringing in children unless the writers choose to make them childless.
I've got the feeling d'Artagnan ( and the other Musketeers ) will be spending a large part of S3 away fighting war against Spain and Constance will either go with him - as some wives did back then - or stay behind dealing with her own storyline, perhaps looking after the poor and 'war widows' during very difficult times. She may even already have a child to look after, since four years have past since the end of S2 - confirmed by producer Jessica Pope.
Why would they need to split them up or kill her? Constance is her own person as well as D'Artagnan's wife and I'm sure she will have story lines of her own in series 3 just like she did in series 2.
shareBecause married couples are boring.
It's hard to write stories with married couples who just adore each other.
Look at what happened on Castle.
As soon as the two got married, the writers had to split them up. Now Becket's separated so she can safely do her rogue detective work.
(Castle's plot is weak I know, but that's a whole other story).
In short, it's easiest to write if couples have something between them. For the first two seasons it was her husband. Now they killed off that poor guy, so they need something else.
I would kill her off to be honest. I didn't care for all the infidelity going on in the first two seasons. Bring some Karma into the show and kill her off I say.
Wishing death upon a woman for infidelity? Are you the reincarnated spirit of Henry VIII by any chance?
Seriously though, you can't judge a 17th century marriage by 21st century standards. Bonacieux and Constance's marriage is more like a business deal than anything. They didn't love each other and they both knew it. If she had actually broken the heart of a man who loved her then I would feel differently but he was clearly indifferent towards her and it was his pride that got wounded not his heart. She just fell in love with someone else. That's life, I guess. You can't blame a person for wanting to be happy.
I haven't seen Castle but I agree that it's very tricky to write happy married couples, hence all the crazy obstacles that writers use, but it can be done if it's done well. And as a previous poster pointed out series 3 will be set during a war. D'Artagnan and Constance won't be joined at the hip because he'll be away fighting and she'll be supporting the Queen. Also they don't adore each other 100% of the time - they did a fair amount of arguing in series 2 because they both have strong opinions and neither of them is a pushover, and I'm sure it will continue that way.
Wishing death upon a woman for infidelity? Are you the reincarnated spirit of Henry VIII by any chance?
I was just teasing about the Henry VIII thing, no need to be offended :)
D'Atagnan certainly came across as a pig in his behaviour towards Constance which is what created a lot of the tension between them in series 2. He's young and immature and that became an obvious character flaw. It will be interesting to see how they develop their relationship going forward since their personalities are very different. But I hardly think the producers are endorsing infidelity, it's a fact of life and that was as true of the 17th century as it is of today. For me, fiction should reflect life and it should show human relationships as they are, not as they should be. And adult audiences are not so easily led that they copy the behaviour they see on screen.
For me, fiction should reflect life and it should show human relationships as they are, not as they should be.
In the 17th century, married French Kings could openly have mistresses, so 17th century morals are hardly worth aspiring to.
What about Queen Anne cheating on her husband with Aramis because she's stuck in an unhappy arranged marriage?
What about Milady getting away with her role in the plan to execute Queen Anne? In real life, she would have been hung for that.
We appreciate what the reality for women was like hundreds of years ago - which is why I don't want to see Constance become a female Musketeer ( in all but name ) in S3 because it would make a mockery of her speech to d'Artagnan at the start of S2 - but since Dumas's novels AND most of the film adaptations of The Three Musketeers have the good guys behaving in ways we'd view as dubious today, this tv adaptation isn't that different. In fact the Musketeers in this show are nicer people than the ones in the book..
d'Artagnan isn't a pig and his behaviour isn't the behaviour of men who abuse their girlfriends and wives in real life - says a woman who WAS a victim of domestic abuse ( not me ) - he just speaks his mind. If Constance wants to get involved with a hot headed young man, she needs to accept him for who he is and she has. Marriage will probably have calmed him down a bit.
I'd argue that Aramis's behaviour with Margeriute was worse because he had a sexual relationship with a woman by lying to her about finding her attractive, many women would be devastated to learn that a man had ulterior motives for getting them into bed, other than genuine attraction.
In the 17th century, married French Kings could openly have mistresses, so 17th century morals are hardly worth aspiring to.
What about Queen Anne cheating on her husband with Aramis because she's stuck in an unhappy arranged marriage?
What about Milady getting away with her role in the plan to execute Queen Anne? In real life, she would have been hung for that.
We appreciate what the reality for women was like hundreds of years ago
d'Artagnan isn't a pig and his behaviour isn't the behaviour of men who abuse their girlfriends and wives in real life - says a woman who WAS a victim of domestic abuse ( not me ) - he just speaks his mind.
If Constance wants to get involved with a hot headed young man, she needs to accept him for who he is and she has. Marriage will probably have calmed him down a bit.
Aramis's behaviour with Margeriute was worse because he had a sexual relationship with a woman by lying to her about finding her attractive, many women would be devastated to learn that a man had ulterior motives for getting them into bed, other than genuine attraction.
I don't want to see Constance become a female Musketeer ( in all but name ) in S3
Well, cheaters don't get happily ever afters. Almost never.
Unfortunately they often do!
d'Artagnan's behaviour wasn't great in S2 but he's not "abusive" as some fans like to say. Like I said, one fan of the show - who was a real life victim of domestic violence - said there was a real difference between d'Artagnan's hot-headed behaviour and the way her ex-boyfriend used to verbally threaten and intimidate her.
No doubt in S3, his stable marriage to Constance and his experiences with war will mature him as a person.
Constance's husband at least wasn't poaching marriages in secret.
Sorry, but I consider a man abusive when he hides while he puts a woman in harm's way.
Any man who sneaks into a marriage, has SEX with the female spouse, and then HIDES to keep his behavior a secret is putting the female in harms way. Worse, he's putting himSELF OUT of harms way sneaking around.
If the woman wants to put herself in harms way that's her choice. What kind of man allows htat? Worse what kind of man allows a woman to put herself in harms way just so she can have sex with him? Isn't a man supposed to step INTO harms way to protect the female?
What kind of MAN throws a woman in front of a bullet like that?
I dunno. Under the circumstances Constance's husband gets a lot more respect from me than D'Artagnan does.
Jesus *beep* christ this is just a tv series not real life... calm the *beep* down
True beauty www.imdb.com/name/nm0829576/
People DO cheat, so YES, it IS real life.
There's nothing wrong with a critical discussion about social issues.
You are the one cursing, so why do WE have to calm down?
I think you should follow your own advice.
From what Constance seems to be wearing in S3 teaser pics - some sort of leather clothing - she may no longer be working for Anne in the new series ( at least not in the way she was in S2 ) and that would make sense. If Constance was still living at the palace, she'd be away from her loved husband too much - she wanted to be away from Bonacieux - and on top of that, being a mother would prevent her from carrying out her role in the way she did in S2..
I think she'll be used as a support network for the very poor, during times of war and many men being away - speculation only.
The most sensible thing to do would be to bump her off, as happily married TV couples are desperately dull.
so bollocks is bad, but dogs bollocks is good?