Roseanna

I read decades ago Angelique novels and got the impression that the French court (then Ludwig XIV) was morally totally depraved. Angeluque's second husband told that as a boy he was sexually used by men and later by woman. If a count could be treated in such a way, then a low-born lad like Fergus had no chance to get justice. Plus, even today, the offer often feels shame.

Yes, and in addition Rogee (who was born about 1940) was a teen in the 50ies which was very a conservative age whereas Brianna belongs to the 60ies generation. I think that it's rather funny that Roger's "marriage or nothing" was exactly what heroines in old romances said to a promiscuous man who wanted to bed her - it always ended him wanting only this one and only woman.

I believe that what William actuallly wanted to know was did his mother have willingly sex with another man who wasn't her husband. Remember that Jamie was shocked when Roger said that Brianna had asked him to take her. To Jamie and William who live in 18th century, such a woman is a wh-e. Plus, if William isn't a son of her mother's husband, he has no right to title and fortune. And he is even a son of a Scot, a rebel and a servant!

I also understand Roger. People are different: to some the decision is self-evident, others need time to think throughly - that doesn't make people of the latter sort worse than people of former sort. The most important thing how one behaves afterwards. Unfortunately, it's not only a matter of will.

I think it's sad that Brianna didn't didn't do it. By "sad" I mean the odd menatlity of this serie that it's okay to present rapes but it is a tabu if women doesn't want to have a child so begotten. I wonder if the author knows that in the time when the sex outside marriage was both sin and crime but there was no contraception, it wasn't seldom that unmarried mothers gave birth in secret and then killed the baby.

Well, already in Old Testament a rape was proven if the women cried for help. So the men were scoundrels even in the standards of time. One point, though, is that a women without family and status was more in danger, as the rapist had no fear that her father or brothers would avenge to him. I agree. Although rapes of course happened, this series seems to enjoy them.

I think the reasons were that Roger was the only man who really knew "the truth" (nobody else in the past or the present would understand Brianna like him) and during her journey Brianna had realized that she did love him and would always do.

My interpretation was wrong.

I wasn't interested until the final which finally got me. Although it's even now a little bit confusing when time is constantly changing.

So in her own mind Tula didn't abandon her baby but tried to save him from becoming Valya's puppet. But instead, he became a puppet of a "machine".

How about the little boy Hart murdered? And what right Hart has to be both jury, judge and executiner?

How are they different from Hart?

So Hart or rather his power to kill with mental methods has some kind of connection with sand snakes of Arrakis?

I don't know this fantasy world, but in an ancient society where one couldn't couldn't get justice otherwise, revenge made sense: if you kill my family member, I will kill yours. Tula of course killed many for her brother - and then made a mistake by saving one.

Well, he claimed to have seen that she would leave blood behind her - but we have seen him coldbloodily kill a little boy. Instead of Kaysa, he is now the Emperor's chief advisor. So I don't see essential difference between them.