Emma Swan: 1000% done with your infuriating optimism

[legaleagle53]

For one thing, what's the line of succession -- does it go to the oldest child or to the oldest son? Is she in line for a throne, or is she just a princess who needs to find something else to do (or, depending on how you look at things, is free to find something else to do)?

 

Based upon the fact that Prince Neal's name  was announced at what was referred to as his coronation, I'd say that Snow and David will follow the traditional rule that the first legitimate male heir is automatically the next in line for the throne regardless of actual birth order.  Therefore, Emma is a princess who is next in line after Neal (although she would probably rule as Regent if something were to happen to Snow and David before Neal came of age).

[stealinghome]

Based upon the fact that Prince Neal's name  was announced at what was referred to as his coronation, I'd say that Snow and David will follow the traditional rule that the first legitimate male heir is automatically the next in line for the throne regardless of actual birth order.

Snow said that she and Charming would have had a coronation ceremony for Emma if they could have, though. So I don't think Snowflake getting the ceremony necessarily means that he's the heir over Emma. (Honestly, I think the writers are really dumb and don't realize what "coronation" actually means.)

 

The bigger issue is that imo there's no way Emma would want to rule an entire kingdom. Regardless of whether she's the heir, I see her as abdicating to either Henry or Snowflake.

[Shanna Marie]

Based upon the fact that Prince Neal's name  was announced at what was referred to as his coronation

But they also said they would have done the same thing for Emma if the circumstances around her birth had been different. Though I guess that could be because she would have been the heir until they had a son.

 

And I still don't get why Snow isn't yet referred to as queen. Regina was a usurper. Being married to the king did not make her the ruling queen when her husband died. Snow was the rightful heir and should be the queen, even if she's queen in exile. While I don't necessarily want Regina executed (even if she really deserves it, if anyone does), if she's supposedly reformed, she should be stepping down from positions she holds unjustly, like the throne she stole and the mayor's office she cursed herself into so she'd still rule everyone. They need an open election. And I'd love to see Emma win. That would give her a leading role in the Storybrooke side of the story.

[FabulousTater]

The bigger issue is that imo there's no way Emma would want to rule an entire kingdom. Regardless of whether she's the heir, I see her as abdicating to either Henry or Snowflake.

Not just that but Emma is the same age as her parents. Chances are Emma dies before they do so the "line of succession" will probably never be a question. Nealflake, Poor Unfortunate Namesake, Baby WTFever his name is will reign after Snow and Charming.

Edited July 2, 2014 by FabulousTater

[stealinghome]

she should be stepping down from positions she holds unjustly, like the throne she stole and the mayor's office she cursed herself into so she'd still rule everyone. They need an open election. And I'd love to see Emma win. That would give her a leading role in the Storybrooke side of the story.

But again--I really, really doubt that Emma would actually want to be mayor. All that paperwork, all that bickering over sidewalks and concrete and parking regulations? That would drive Emma up the wall! That kind of stuff is far more Snow's schtick than Emma's. Emma (and David, for that matter) would be much happier sticking to running the Sheriff's Department.

 

But I think it's a moot point, in a way, because the writers really, really just don't care about "normal" life in Storybrooke. It's why Snow basically seems to be jobless and the town really seems to not have a mayor (we saw Regina's office, like, once in 3B; who ran the place when she was away in 3A or murdering her way through the town in 2B; etc). They're too busy throwing the newest magical catastrophe at the characters to ever really develop that sense of "how do fairytale characters do normal?" They trot out Emma and David being sheriffs every once in a while because it's convenient, but they're just totally uninterested in that kind of stuff.

 

To be fair to Regina (I know, I can't believe I'm saying this), it seems clear imo that she wasn't really a queen during the Missing Year. Snowing clearly seemed to be calling the shots, with Regina acting as one of their advisers. In fact, Regina probably was acting more like a Dowager Queen in the Missing Year, appropriately enough. But ITA that it's beyond ridiculous that she seems to be de facto mayor still in Storybrooke. C'mon, writers.

[legaleagle53]

Snow said that she and Charming would have had a coronation ceremony for Emma if they could have, though. So I don't think Snowflake getting the ceremony necessarily means that he's the heir over Emma. (Honestly, I think the writers are really dumb and don't realize what "coronation" actually means.).

 

As Shanna Marie pointed out, Emma would have been first in the line of succession for only as long as no legitimate male heir existed.  If Emma had been raised in the Enchanted Forest from babyhood, of course Snow and David would have held a coronation ceremony for her as an infant, as there would have been no one else for whom to hold one.   Once a legitimate male heir was born, however, she would have automatically dropped down in the line of succession.  Such has always been the law in monarchies in order to preserve the direct royal bloodline, and females aren't counted as part of the direct bloodline because they lose the right to inherit titles, power, and property upon marriage because legally, those are the exclusive province of men (it's why Henry VIII was so obsessed with producing a viable male heir that he married six times in order to do so).

Edited July 2, 2014 by legaleagle53

[Serena]

Not just that but Emma is the same age as her parents. Chances are Emma dies before they do so the "line of succession" will probably never be a question. Nealflake, Poor Unfortunate Namesake, Baby WTFever his name is will reign after Snow and Charming.

Technically (and I agree with the general "the writers have never thought about this" opinion) it IS still a question, because even if Emma dies before Snowing and never becomes queen, the next in line is still not Snowflake, it's Emma's heir. Even if we assume that Henry is out of the running because he's "illegitimate" (not that I'm saying this is right... but it's what's happening in Monaco, for example), any children Emma has in the future, if she and Hook get married, would be in line for the throne before Snowflake. A real world example would be: if prince Charles dies without ever becoming King, when the Queen does die the throne goes to Charles' heir, prince William, not to one of Charles' siblings.

 

Now I want to Wiki what was the first country to change the successions law from first-born boy to first-born! I know almost all of Europe's monarchies run like this now.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Serena

[Rumsy4]

 

They seemed to have declared her the "Leader" in 3A, since she was the one who kept the group together and came up with a lot of the strategy. She is the one with the most common sense (most of the time) and street smarts.

 

Not only that, by the end of the Neverland arc, she was making progress in her relationships: she wanted to go with her parents back the Enchanted Forest if need be, and encouraged Hook to think of her everyday. And then Bam! Cursed memories strike--she's back to cut and run mode, says cutting things to Hook, and keeps chanting about New York. Would it have killed the writers to let Emma have one decent conversation about the missing year with her mother? Three Seasons, and we know barely anything about her pre-Curse life. Emma Swan's character is a goldmine, which they have failed to utilize to the fullest extent possible since Season 1. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

And I still don't get why Snow isn't yet referred to as queen. 

 

Replying in Regina thread.

Edited July 2, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Serena]

Taking my reply to the Regina thread.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Serena

[FabulousTater]

Emma would have been first in the line of succession for only as long as no legitimate male heir existed.  If Emma had been raised in the Enchanted Forest from babyhood, of course Snow and David would have held a coronation ceremony for her as an infant, as there would have been no one else for whom to hold one.   Once a legitimate male heir was born, however, she would have automatically dropped down in the line of succession.

When was it established that only male heirs inherit the throne in OUAT? (<-- actual question not snark).

I don't recall that ever being established on the show. 

I get that many real world monarchies function that way, but not all do and AFAIK OUAT has never said that only boys get to inherit the throne. Is it just an assumption some are making because it's common in some monarchies IRL?

Edited July 2, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Shanna Marie]

Technically (and I agree with the general "the writers have never thought about this" opinion) it IS still a question, because even if Emma dies before Snowing and never becomes queen, the next in line is still not Snowflake, it's Emma's heir.

I don't think that's how it works in any real-world monarchy. The succession goes through the heir, not through the oldest child. So, if William had an older sister (and this was before they started changing laws), he would still be heir to the throne, and baby George would be his heir, regardless of what children his sister had. The female lines are pretty much lopped off unless there are only girls in the family (like Elizabeth II and her sister), and then the line goes through the oldest girl.

 

I don't know that Emma would want to deal with the petty paperwork part of being mayor, but either she or David seem to be best suited for doing things like making the town work and pulling people together to accomplish things. Maybe David should be mayor, Mary Margaret should be city secretary (handling all the paperwork and stuff), and Emma should be sheriff.

[Serena]

I don't think that's how it works in any real-world monarchy. The succession goes through the heir, not through the oldest child. So, if William had an older sister (and this was before they started changing laws), he would still be heir to the throne, and baby George would be his heir, regardless of what children his sister had. The female lines are pretty much lopped off unless there are only girls in the family (like Elizabeth II and her sister), and then the line goes through the oldest girl.

It does in the ones with absolute primogeniture instead of male primogeniture (which is almost all of Europe now), which was my point. People were arguing that it didn't matter if Emma or Snowflake was the heir because Emma would probably die before Snowing so she wouldn't get to rule anyway, but I was saying that it still matters even in that case, because if Emma is the heir, then the crown goes to Henry or any other children she has; if it's Snowflake, it goes to him and his children.

For example, Crown Princess Victoria has a younger brother. She will be queen, but even if she isn't and she dies tomorrow, her younger brother won't get the crown; her daughter will.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Serena

[stealinghome]

When was it established that only male heirs inherit the throne in OUAT? (<-- actual question not snark).

I don't recall that ever being established on the show. 

I get that many real world monarchies function that way, but not all do and AFAIK OUAT has never said that only boys get to inherit the throne. Is it just an assumption some are making because it's common in some monarchies IRL?

This. I think assuming that male primogeniture was the law in the Enchanted Forest is just that, an assumption--we don't know whether that was actually the case. It COULD be, but it doesn't have to be. And frankly, since the show is so girl-power (or, well, it thinks it is/wants to be, at least), I wouldn't be surprised if it's just the oldest child that inherits, gender be damned.

[Shanna Marie]

I was saying that it still matters even in that case, because if Emma is the heir, then the crown goes to Henry or any other children she has; if it's Snowflake, it goes to him and his children.

Oops, missed that. Duh, sorry.

 

Though I wonder what monkey wrench the fact that Emma at one point gave up parental rights to Henry throws in the situation. It seems that the curse reversal negated that. And the illegitimacy might be a factor. But, yes, if Emma is the heir, even if she dies before her parents, her legitimate children would definitely inherit before Snowflake. I'm not sure I'd wish being the heir on her, though. Even if she wanted to end up back in the Enchanted Forest for good, I'd think she'd want more control over her own destiny than a ruler gets to have.

[Dani-Ellie]

After having just seen what Regina did to her mother, she should be firming up living arrangements and protections for Henry, not getting contrite about bringing Marian back.

 

Backtracking a tetch ... while I agree that Emma (and Snow!) should be horrified about the burning at the stake thing, I also know that it'll never be addressed, so whatever. I'm more concerned about the upcoming Marian arc. I'll buy Emma feeling guilty, because she's a good person, but there damn well better be other characters on her side telling her that, y'know, saving an innocent woman's life and reuniting a family was not wrong, no matter what unfortunate circumstances came out of it. Charming, Hook, Snow, Henry ... I don't care, but there better be someone in Emma's corner. I have no desire to watch half-season-long pile-on for Emma saving a woman's life. That would take this show's already screwy morality to a point where they might as well just rename it Evil Is Right and Good Is Wrong.

[scarynikki12]

 

Crown Princess Victoria has a younger brother. She will be queen, but even if she isn't and she dies tomorrow, her younger brother won't get the crown; her daughter will.

For a short time after his birth, the brother was the official heir, but then the laws were amended to make the heir simply the firstborn and Victoria was reinstated.  Also, England totally trolled the public by changing their laws while Kate was pregnant and led everyone to think she was having a girl (though these changes didn't stop ignorant Talking Heads from praising Kate for "doing her duty as wife of the heir and giving birth to a son"-never mind that the father is the one who determines the gender and the laws were already changed making the whole thing moot).  So, even if the Enchanted Forest monarchy has traditionally been inherited by a male heir regardless of position among siblings, there can still be a storyline where the Charmings either change the laws to place Emma in that position, change the laws placing Henry in that position (if Emma doesn't want it-and I don't think she will), or change the laws beginning with the children of Snowflake (if Henry also doesn't want it).  I don't think we will see such a story, but it would be a nice one off episode and would address where all of this stands.

 

If we can't have these types of small stories, then I definitely would like other fairytale characters brought in to be Emma's friends.  Just say they were there the whole time, staying out of the drama, and that's why we haven't met them yet.

[ShadowFacts]

Backtracking a tetch ... while I agree that Emma (and Snow!) should be horrified about the burning at the stake thing, I also know that it'll never be addressed, so whatever. I'm more concerned about the upcoming Marian arc. I'll buy Emma feeling guilty, because she's a good person, but there damn well better be other characters on her side telling her that, y'know, saving an innocent woman's life and reuniting a family was not wrong, no matter what unfortunate circumstances came out of it. Charming, Hook, Snow, Henry ... I don't care, but there better be someone in Emma's corner. I have no desire to watch half-season-long pile-on for Emma saving a woman's life. That would take this show's already screwy morality to a point where they might as well just rename it Evil Is Right and Good Is Wrong.

 

Amen. I would expect Emma to have little problem defending saving a captive of Regina, but Hook should be a sure supporter of family reunification.  As should David and Snow for obvious reasons but Snow 's loyalties and priorities have been shown to be messed up.

[KAOS Agent]

Emma is a character these writers should love to write for. She's not judgmental, has a totally blank slate for a past, is willing to do pretty much anything if given the right reason, has lots of cool street skills and is not encumbered by either a goody-goody storybook persona or an I turn people into snails and crush them/slaughter an entire village because I suck villainous past. She's generally good, but more grey than anything and doesn't need to be stuck in the "boring" hero mold. It should not be difficult to give her something interesting to do. Please, I'm begging you, writers, give her a decent storyline. Let her kick some ass.

 

On a totally separate note, given the absolute lack of coverage of the Charmings as a family, I always wonder what David & Mary Margaret say to each other when they're talking about Emma. Does David ever comment to his wife on the fact that their daughter never smiles? Do they ever wonder what happened that created an Emma that can just completely shut down all emotions at the drop of a hat? Do they ever think of how Emma must feel surrounded by all of these people who screwed her over/let her down? Do they ever think of Emma the person not Emma the saviour or Emma the daughter?

Edited July 3, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[Camera One]

I always wonder what David & Mary Margaret say to each other when they're talking about Emma.

 

I wish the writers wonder that too.  Unfortunately, they're more likely to wonder how would David and Mary Margaret look running away from the Abominable Snowman.

[stealinghome]

Well, Snow mentioned in 3x19 (3x20?) that David mentioned to her that Emma wanted to move back to New York, presumably because Emma said she and Henry were happier and safer there....

 

Do they ever think of how Emma must feel surrounded by all of these people who screwed her over/let her down?

For that to be the case, the WRITERS would have to think about how Emma must feel about living side-by-side with the people who ruined her life (looking at you, Regina, Rumpel, Gepetto, Pinocchio, etc...), and I'm comfortably certain they don't.

 

I wish the writers wonder that too.  Unfortunately, they're more likely to wonder how would David and Mary Margaret look running away from the Abominable Snowman.

I just choked on my water. Four for you, Camera One, four for you!

Edited July 3, 2014 by stealinghome

[Emma]

New article with Jen. Some new and old stuff. Some of those photos though. Is she even real? Stunning.

http://prestigehongkong.com/2014/06/fantasy-life

Edited July 3, 2014 by Emma

[retrograde]

This made me laugh:

One of our ongoing jokes of season three was “Emma Swan Cries.” In like 20 out of the 22 episodes, it was scripted that I was crying and there was definitely no way around it.

 

[Camera One]

I definitely feel that 22 episodes is a lot, too much in terms of how mentally and physically exhausted you get. I would much rather be doing 12 episodes a year. And it’s just very scary when you get towards the end – because you always want to do your best work and be as good as you possibly be – and you’re working against the strain of just the sheer amount of hours and time. Nine months of 16, 17, 18 hours a day – it takes a real toll.

 

You know, if the writers would give the main characters a number of meaty episodes with actual substance, I think this is the type of show where it would be alright to hand over some episodes to the supporting and guest starring fairy tale characters (like they did in S1), and lessen the load on the regulars.  It's such a waste that they had Emma in every episode, yet at the end of the day, she got maybe at most four "meaty" episodes out of 22 where she got to actually showcase Emma and show emotional range, instead of just running around in circles.

 

 

 

Whereas television is more like living like a real person, where you’re just not sure what each day’s going to bring – what each episode’s going to bring. So there’s something really exciting about both ways of working.

 

I like how she described that.  This is really helpful on "Once Upon a Time" where the characters can constantly look surprised every episode.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

 

You’re working against the strain of just the sheer amount of hours and time. Nine months of 16, 17, 18 hours a day – it takes a real toll.

 

And this is exactly why I expect to see a lot less Snow White this season. Parents can try to balance work and family, but it cannot be done if you're working 18 hour days. A 9 hour work day sure, but if you want to spend quality time with your baby, you simply cannot work these crazy long days. It's especially hard when both parents are putting in those kinds of hours. Reading this though, I bet JMo was really happy to be doing something really fun with Emma in the season finale considering how tired I'm sure she probably was at that point in filming. It's not so bad if you're having fun.

Edited July 3, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[stealinghome]

taking my thoughts to the Snow thread.

[KAOS Agent]

There's something I've been wondering about with regards to potential issues for Captain Swan in the future. I've read quite a few comments elsewhere where people say that Emma & Hook will need to adjust to being in a committed adult relationship since neither have been in one for a long time. This seems patently untrue to me because no matter what anyone thinks about the Emma/Walsh relationship, it did happen and for Emma it was real. Is this relationship being overlooked because it's icky? Or because Walsh was playing her? It seems to me that regardless of the true circumstances, Emma was in a fully committed relationship and was even considering the idea of marrying the guy. He'd spent time with her son helping him with homework, he felt comfortable enough at her apartment that he was messing with the contents of the fridge. This seems like it was a pretty normal relationship that Emma was in. She ought to be pretty well used to having a romantic partner in her life, so why do people act like it never happened?

Edited July 4, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[stealinghome]

imo, it's because the show itself hasn't taken the Walsh stuff seriously at all. I don't even know if it came up again after around 3x15 or so, and even pretty much the day after it happened it was a topic for jokes or snarky comments by Hook--instead of, you know, something that should've been a big freaking deal for Emma and that she should have spent the rest of the season dealing with.

 

Basically the show after about four episodes totally forgot about Emma/Walsh...I think the fandom is just reflecting this.

[Camera One]

By "Quiet Minds", she was making jokes about it herself too.  Not traumatizing at all to have your heart broken or to feel violated.  

[KingOfHearts]

Emma can spend several months in a relationship with a guy, then move straight on to Hook in like a week. It's like how she kissed Hook just days after admitting she loved Neal and seeing Neal "die". I'm all for CaptainSwan, but... 

 

I was expecting to see Walsh in either 3x16 or 3x20. It would bring some much needed closure for her if he, after breaking free of Zelena, apologized to her and revealed his true identity. It would make Emma feel less icky about the whole thing, I think.

[Camera One]

Not to mention they cast such a potentially good actor for a throwaway of a role.  I was excited to hear Christopher Gorham was coming on "Once Upon a Time".  Come on, at least give Oz one of Zelena's episodes...

 

I must say he didn't have insta-chemistry with Emma, but maybe if we had seen more.  Or maybe they didn't want us to see more since they already had the end-goal in mind.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Camera One

[FabulousTater]

Emma can spend several months in a relationship with a guy, then move straight on to Hook in like a week. It's like how she kissed Hook just days after admitting she loved Neal and seeing Neal "die".

Meh. Emma said (to her parents) that she had loved Nealfire (past tense) but when it turned out Nealfire was alive Emma told Nealfire, point blank, to his face, that she had been hoping that he was dead. Most sincerely, assuredly, dead. So, ya..I think she was feeling more than willing to move on with Hook or whoever.

 

ETA: KAOSAgent beat me to it, but ya, that's the other thing. Emma wasn't in a relationship with Nealfire. She hadn't even seen him in 11 years (you know, since he betrayed her and dumped her in jail) so even if she didn't think he was dead at the time, I don't see the big deal of her kissing Hook in Neverland. She and Neal weren't together. Nealfire killed that relationship dead 11 years prior.

 

Ugh, that reminds me - Snow's comment to Emma about how "I'm sure Neal will forgive you" when Emma mentions to Snow that she kissed Hook. I wanted to throw a rock at Snow's head when she said that....JFC I really hate Snow (and that was not always the case).

Edited July 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[KAOS Agent]

So it's really the writers avoiding any of the fallout of their twists and skipping character development for Emma. I did want Henry to ask about it after he got his memories back because he at least seemed concerned about his mom when he was talking about it with Regina. Hook's jokes were not cool, but at least he completely stopped with them once he figured out that Emma really was upset about it. The Walsh situation was one of those things where I think Emma really was too hard to read even for Hook. None of the other characters have the ability to close off like Emma does and I don't think any of them can conceive of another person being able to do it so well that no one can tell that they are truly a mess about it inside. It's why I think the Charmings truly don't understand just how broken Emma is. They just can't imagine how someone could cover so well.

 

 

Emma can spend several months in a relationship with a guy, then move straight on to Hook in like a week. It's like how she kissed Hook just days after admitting she loved Neal and seeing Neal "die". I'm all for CaptainSwan, but...

 

Neal & Emma weren't in a relationship. He was engaged to someone else and she was not looking to get back with him. She loved him, but wasn't in love with him. So he "dies" and a few days later she's feeling good and a hot guy starts flirting with her, she took the opportunity that was presented. She wasn't looking for romance, she was looking for some stress release and fun. 

 

On the other hand, her getting over Walsh did seem abrupt and swept under the rug. However, she did have a developing interest in Hook prior to losing her memories, so you know there at least was something there to start with. The condensed timeline of the show does screw with things because in reality Emma should still be reeling from the Walsh reveal, but if they're going with Captain Swan, they couldn't continue having her push him away. It may have only been a week in show time, but for us it was months and something needed to happen. Also, if we were tired of months of I *heart* New York, imagine how awful months of Emma moping about Walsh would've been like.

[Souris]

I was expecting to see Walsh in either 3x16 or 3x20. It would bring some much needed closure for her if he, after breaking free of Zelena, apologized to her and revealed his true identity. It would make Emma feel less icky about the whole thing, I think.

 

Yes, I was also thinking we'd see Walsh again and agree that your scenario would have been good for Emma. Seeing he was an actual human (the Wizard!) who'd been turned into a monkey would have indeed made her feel less like she had had some icky cryptozoological relations. But, you know, Zelena needed her monologuing time.

[retrograde]

Ugh, that reminds me - Snow's comment to Emma about how "I'm sure Neal will forgive you" when Emma mentions to Snow that she kissed Hook. I wanted to throw a rock at Snow's head when she said that....JFC I really hate Snow (and that was not always the case).

Hah, yeah, that was pretty *cringe*, but on the other hand, it's such a "mum" thing to say. There is always that one guy from elementary or high school your mum was convinced was "such a nice boy," even like, 15 years after the fact. I chose to see it in that light (though it got harder to handwave when she named her first-born son after him). 

[FabulousTater]

There is always that one guy from elementary or high school your mum was convinced was "such a nice boy," even like, 15 years after the fact.

Heh. Except I don't know any mothers that would categorize the older guy who left their underage teenage daughters pregnant as "nice boys" ( let alone a guy who abandoned their daughter pregnant in prison for his crimes and never looked back). Srsly, IMO no good mother does that.

Edited July 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[retrograde]

True, though did we ever establish whether Snow and David actually know that whole story? 

[stealinghome]

We have seen nothing on-screen to suggest that Charming and Snow know the story, no. As far as we know, all David and Snow know is that Emma and Neal dated, that they obviously were no longer together by the time Emma found out she was pregnant and gave birth, and that Emma didn't remember Neal fondly (but really, how many people speak glowingly about their exes? Most people don't remember them particularly well and the history there isn't as dire as Emma and Neal's).

[FabulousTater]

Well, there's nothing to suggest they don't know. Snow thinks so highly of Regina that I wouldn't be surprised if she and Charming really do know every detail of Emma and Nealfire's relationship and think it's the best thing ever.

 

It's very possible they know. After all, Emma and Mary Margaret talked and I assume Mary Margaret/Snow can do simple math (i.e, Emma was very much underage when pregnant and that for Nealfire to be Rumpel's son means he's effing waaaaay older, on the order of hundred of years, older than Emma) and Snows knows Emma was a street kid. Snow knows Emma had Henry as a juvenile in jail. And Snow knows that Emma had such negative feelings about Henry's father that Emma preferred that Henry believe his father was dead than the truth. Emma flat out said that to Mary Margaret. At the very least it's painfully obvious that Emma had negative feelings about the whole thing. If that doesn't set off warning bells in Snow's head then Snow is just dumber than a box of hair (thanks, Zels!). But again that goes right along with Snow being Regina's biggest cheerleader so no surprise there. But ya, it hasn't been made clear either way.

 

I think the writers are too chicken shit to make it clear because either way it's lose-lose as far as how Snow and Charming have handled the whole thing (and how the writers handled the whole thing, IMO).

 

I think the only thing we can know for sure is that the writers think Nealfire is the best thing that ever happened to Emma and naming Emma's brother after him is their way of slapping everyone who may think otherwise in the face. "He's a hero and we're gonna name the brother of the underage girl that he banged, sent to prison and emotionally traumatized after him. We're here to glorify and justify reprehensible (and illegal) behavior, Audience. Suck it."

Edited July 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[KAOS Agent]

Considering the hate directed at Jennifer Morrison for articulating exactly what happened onscreen in the Neal/Emma relationship, I think they'd be pretty smart to just be done with dealing with Neal in any way. Apparently, there are some very irrational people out there.

 

Of course, they just had to name Baby Snowflake after him, so he'll be a constant presence forever. It's just so wrong. Even if the Charmings truly do not know how damaging Neal was to young Emma, they're still the dumbest people on the planet not to have asked about it before naming their child after him. It's like let's come up with a way to remind Emma for the rest of her life about this man who we really know nothing about other than that he impregnated our underage daughter and left her emotionally crippled. And either way whether Neal was Emma's true love or Neal was just the jackass who abandoned her - is inflicting a constant reminder of that person on her really a good idea? If what I thought was my daughter's true love had just days before died in her arms, I'd talk to her about naming my child after him. She might consider it a wonderful tribute or it could be incredibly painful for her. Maybe we should find out before we make a permanent decision. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[stealinghome]

I think the writers are too chicken shit to make it clear because either way it's lose-lose as far as how Snow and Charming have handled the whole thing (and how the writers handled the whole thing, IMO).

ITA. They'll never have Snow and Charming find out on-screen because either Snowing (especially Snow) will come off as beyond awful parents, or they'll have to admit that Neal actually did something awful--and something avoidable--to Emma. (Note that Henry's feelings on Neal since his memory came back, aka since he's known the full story of what Neal did to Emma, have been completely glossed over.)

 

But that's exactly why I think they Snow and Charming don't know. Not only have we not seen it--which means it didn't happen unless specifically mentioned--it just suits the writers way more for Snowing not to know.

 

Considering the hate directed at Jennifer Morrison for articulating exactly what happened onscreen in the Neal/Emma relationship, I think they'd be pretty smart to just be done with dealing with Neal in any way.

Also, this, and I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eddie know this--that they need to just move on from Neal. Honestly, the only times I expect Neal to be mentioned from here on out are when they talk about how Rumpel is related to Henry. Dollars to donuts he's never mentioned outside of that context again (aside from perhaps some brief Rumpel angst in 4x01, because we all know he needs some manpain to push him into further bad decisions).

Edited July 4, 2014 by stealinghome

[FabulousTater]

But that's exactly why I think they Snow and Charming don't know. Not only have we not seen it--which means it didn't happen unless specifically mentioned--it just suits the writers way more for Snowing not to know.

I just can't decide which possibility I find more disgusting.

That Snowing knows and named the baby after Douchefire anyway OR that the writers have purposely left Snowing in the dark of what Douchefire did because they think it's irrelevant and named the baby after him anyway because they (the writers) don't see any serious problems with what happened and want to glorify him.

 

Pfft, it's gross either way. No matter how you cut it the writers are twisted.

 

What's funny is that I read an article somewhere and one of the showrunners mentioned that he has daughters. I'm just sitting here thinking, "So, if a guy screwed your daughter over like this, did this to your little girl, you would name your son after him? You would find that guy worthy of that "honor"? You'd pat that guy on the back and say 'Well done my boy'. Really??" 'Cause that's just messed up.

 

Makes me appreciate my Pop more. He was a hard-ass but I know he'd be loading up his shotgun instead of lovingly inscribing the douchebags name in the family album.

Edited July 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Serena]

I think with Neal the writers went to the route of "doing this for your own good". It's a very problematic trope, especially for a so-called feminist show. You can't claim to be a girl power show, then have your heroine's main trauma being denying agency by a person she loves, and then turn back and declare actually, that was totally justifying for her own good! Especially because it wasn't. Like, all it would have taken to convince part of the public that it was, was for August to bring Neal proof that him staying with Emma would have caused her death. It would have still been problematic, him making a decision for her without consulting her, but problematic on the same level of Hook's lip curse - a panicked reaction to a life and death situation. The way they wrote it, it looked like Neal just pissed his pants at the idea of meeting daddy again.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Pfft, it's gross either way. No matter how you cut it the writers are twisted.

 

Oh, absolutely.  But the thing that really bugs me is, they know how to do heroines and consequences and relationships better.  People get very critical of 'Lost', but the character writing was mostly high quality, and I believe A&E were responsible for some of the best of it, Jin and Sun and others I believe.  (Can't swear to it, haven't checked episode credits.)  So I always think in the back of my mind, they are messing with us, they are doing this screwed up morality very deliberately. 

[patchwork]

For the sake of not wanting to punch Charming in the face every time he's on screen (Snow's a lost cause) I have to believe that they don't know. That it's something Emma refuses to talk about. Still awful parenting to not pick up the clues and then name their do-over baby after him but if I pretend they don't know the whole story I can keep Charming off the douche list.

 

Plus it's Neal, one of the worst written characters on the show. After Mary Margaret. 

[YaddaYadda]

I don't get the impression they know.  I mean I just look at the way both David and MM react to Hook vs Neal when it comes to Emma.  There's a world of difference.  They accepted Neal right away even though he is this character that Emma didn't really want to interact with anymore, chalked up as a bad guy because of what he had done to her...David's "You're not here out of nobility, you're here for Emma," line to Hook was always so...crass for lack of better words.  So the guy is risking his life for your daughter and that's not a good thing how?  Because you can't look past the leather and the guy liner?  David changed his mind regarding Hook, that's for sure, but jeebus...I don't even know where MM is at with this.  But prince Neal, every time I think of it, I see red.

 

Even Belle with her Emma's swan necklace was brought to the Enchanted Forest with Neal because of true love.  Really?  How in the world? 

[Serena]

Yeah, I think the thing that really bugs though, even if they don't know about the prison thing, is that they all immediately jumped on the Neal/Emma train without knowing absolutely anything about their actual relationship, outside of the fact that they had a child together. That sends a really ugly "bio parents together" message. 

And like... even if you never think to ask "so what happened then?" (which already makes you look like a self-centered asshole, since Snow knew Emma had bad feelings about Neal), what you do know is that Emma was a teenage mother who gave birth in prison, and the baby daddy was so much out of the picture, he didn't even know she was pregnant. Even without knowing Neal was the reason Emma was in prison, wouldn't just that information you do have make you think twice about encouraging the relationship? 

[Mari]

Yeah, I think the thing that really bugs though, even if they don't know about the prison thing, is that they all immediately jumped on the Neal/Emma train without knowing absolutely anything about their actual relationship, outside of the fact that they had a child together. That sends a really ugly "bio parents together" message. 

And like... even if you never think to ask "so what happened then?" (which already makes you look like a self-centered asshole, since Snow knew Emma had bad feelings about Neal), what you do know is that Emma was a teenage mother who gave birth in prison, and the baby daddy was so much out of the picture, he didn't even know she was pregnant. Even without knowing Neal was the reason Emma was in prison, wouldn't just that information you do have make you think twice about encouraging the relationship? 

Responding in the relationship thread--too much of what I have to say isn't just about Emma.

[retrograde]

David's "You're not here out of nobility, you're here for Emma," line to Hook was always so...crass for lack of better words.  

Also wrong. Surely he wasn't in love with her when he offered his ship? He barely knew her. He was there for Baelfire, right?

Edited July 4, 2014 by retrograde

[Amerilla]

Also wrong. Surely he wasn't in love with her when he offered his ship? He barely new her. He was there for Baelfire, right?

 

 

When they dropped into the portal at the end of S2, Hook was Doing It For Baefire. When they dropped out of it at the start of S3a, it was All About Emma (aka "an organic redemption arc / epic romance" aka "crap-tastic writing.")   

 

ETA: I don't know I see it as so much of a "crass" line from David as one of those dialog anvils that shows like to drop so the 12 people in the audience too oblivious to see where a story is going...see where the story is going. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by Amerilla