Yeah. I agree with @candyumbrella. People aren’t reciprocal beings, liiike.
Okay, now for some stuff I want to add. I think there’s this huge fog of misperception, evident above, that often dogs fandom analysis. (For a reason I can’t fathom, the Reign fandom highlights this phenomenon with sub-atomic precision. Like, woahhhh, Reign fandom. Heel please, boy.)
So you have Condé stans really pissed right now, purportedly because episodes 3.01—3.02 haven’t sufficiently ‘honoured’ S2 canon, or because they have ‘erased’ S2 canon, and you have Francis stans getting hairy over the fact that in-‘verse characters aren’t sufficiently disconsolate on account of Francis’ impending doom. The first group of people are arguing something along the lines of ‘Mary going back to Francis makes no sense, because Mary had a whole arc in S2 centred on recovering from trauma and violence through sexual liberation’. But that’s bull. It isn’t a valid argument, technically speaking, because nothing about Mary’s S2 arc, great as it was, discounts her very real, very clearly evident, feelings for Francis, and her canonic preference for Francis above... Well, above every other person else in her ‘verse, basically. The second group of people, to take the example @blackvelvetsunseteyes’ has shared above, are arguing that ‘x character [in this case Lola] not being visibly upset about Francis’ death makes no sense, because Francis has done x, y and z [for Lola]’. But it doesn’t ‘make no sense’. It makes perfect sense! As @candyumbrella has pointed out (and I will try and elaborate a few paragraphs down), Lola has never been in love with Francis; she has never shown any emotional vulnerability towards Francis. Like GOD DAMN my girl has a track-record of consistently disregarding the thoughts and feelings of the higher-ups in her ‘verse, higher-ups like Francis, in all things and all ways. Always. Always.
So, it seems to me that when every corner of this bitterly divided fandom bemoans the text ‘not making sense’, what they mean is: ‘I don’t like this writing decision; this development doesn’t fit with my own personal tastes; this is not the story I want to see told’. And that’s, like, absolutely fine? I wholly respect anyone who didn’t want Mary going back to Francis because they themselves don’t like Francis. Maybe they prefer Condé. Maybe they like their ship to operate outside of contemporaneous patriarchal institutions like marriage.*** Maybe they sneer at the practicalities of a relationship that contains such a gigantic power disparity. These are all very fair reasons to be pressed about the Frary reconciliation as a narrative development. The only, literally the ONLY, reason I’ve seen cited to express displeasure at the Frary reconciliation in S3 that I haven’t had any truck with has been ‘this doesn’t make sense!!1’ The nature of Mary’s relationships with Francis, Condé and whoever else, which of these ‘better’, which yields a richer narrative— that’s all open to debate. The only thing not open to debate is the internal logic of the ‘verse, and the fact that Mary has canonically and consistently demonstrated the kind of feelings for Francis that would lead her to go back to him, regardless whether you believe that going back to Francis is detrimental to Mary, or whether you think the resultant narrative is less fulfilling/engaging than if she hadn’t gone back to Francis, which are both perfectly reasonable opinions to hold, in my view. ‘It doesn’t make sense’ is p. much the only wrong interpretation. Just wrong, wrong, wrong, as @candyumbrella points out here.*** There’s also the claim that the nature of Frary’s relationship in 3.01-3.02 constitutes the ‘erasure’ of S2 canon; an argument fails to pick up on the fact that Mary’s affair with Condé was a major plot-point in 3.01, and also that Anthony of Navarre is due to star in tonight’s episode— both points make me doubt very much that anyone on the creative staff considers S2 canon ‘erased’. S2 happened, guys. It happened in a major way, so major that it’s impossible to erase. Canon is canon. The only erasure going on is the claim that S3 events ‘don’t make sense’, when they patently do, which if anything is an attempt from without to erase narrative integrity that perfectly well exists.***
*** (Note: I’m not decrying marriage at all, just commenting on the nature of marriage in ye oldey times, like in this ‘verse.)
*** To call a short register: the impact for Mary in 2.11 of helping sear off some of Condé’s flesh was to realise ‘I forgot I’m not the only one who is hurt, Francis is suffering as well’; Mary’s reaction to Francis falling ill in 2.18 was to buy Catherine’s wholly illogical claim that she, Mary, was responsible for his illness and to declare ‘I will never forgive myself’ before crying buckets over his hot and fevered body; Mary’s reaction to Condé threatening Francis’ throne in 2.21-2.22 was to lie to Condé’s face, betray him, and stick a knife in him, which, by the by, very nearly killed Condé in the process. Like, after all that, Mary going back to Francis makes sense, okay? I’m not saying it’s the narratively-optimum way to open S3, but it certainly makes sense. Everybody who is claiming otherwise is merely disappointed that Mary doesn’t share their own proclivities re: male characters. Said disappointment is perfectly rational and reasonable, but it doesn’t translate into the narrative ‘not making sense’.
*** Note: I’m not saying that it is impossible to retcon a canon event, or even that creators/writers have never, ever tried to ‘erase canon’ during my time in fandom. In fact I can think of a very specific retcons that have irked me, alas. What I am saying is that writers rarely succeed in erasing their own canon (once something is canon it’s canon and that’s it). Moreover, in this particular case, it’s patently obvious that no one is even trying to erase canon. At ease, troops. Liiike.
This very same truth holds for those disappointed about Lola’s reaction to Francis’ death. Lots of people are claiming that Lola’s non-reaction ‘doesn’t make sense’. But that’s not true. What posts like @blackvelvetsunseteyes are essentially saying ‘I love Francis, so if I were Lola, I would be flattered/indebted by Francis’ consideration of me and my son from 2.01 onwards, and I would be upset by the prospect of him dying and react more ~colourfully to being given the information’ and, like... I get that? I am D: @ the prospect of him dying too, even though I know he isn’t real (LMAO). The whole affair seems set to crush my soul. It’s nevertheless unreasonable of me to expect Lola, who has never demonstrated the same weaknesses towards Francis that I have, that @queensmaker has, that @blackvelvetsunseteyes has (that long-suffering Francis stans on the interwebz have demonstrated in general like y’all can see what I’m driving at here), who has never loved Francis in the way we do, to share our reaction to his death. Lola’s reaction is Lola’s reaction. It belongs to Lola. As it happens, it makes perfect sense for Lola to think of herself, first and foremost, because that’s how she has always behaved when either Francis or Mary have been in jeopardy in the past. ALWAYS. Like, it may be upsetting to us that not everybody in-text regards Francis’ life in the same way we do. (I mean, it isn’t upsetting to me to me personally, but it may be to some people Idek.) It may trigger all sorts of ~feelings in us that Francis is left to face the Styx alone. Nevertheless, it makes perfect sense that Lola is leaving him to get on with it, by and large, because based on two whole seasons of canon, that’s how anybody watching the show attentively would expect her to behave.***
I’m going to try and explain why this is the case regarding Lola, in my own words, answering both @blackvelvetsunseteyes and @prideandpen’s claims here about Lola and her relationship with Francis. (Though I should also point out that @candyumbrella has already written an excellent explanation here, and EVERYONE SHOULD GO READ THAT HER META IT’S GOLDEN BROWN TASTES LIKE THE SUN.)
*** It’s a really important point: Lola’s prior characterisation is more important in judging whether her behaviour is OOC, than our personal feelings about Francis are. What I’m getting from @blackvelvetsunseteyes is ‘I love Francis / I am upset that he’s dying / I am a good person / Lola is also a good person / It is therefore logical that she is as grief-stricken as I am’— this misses a vital, vital point about human interaction. For one thing, I’d bet my bottom dollar that the love for Francis in this fandom (including my own, probs) and the attribution of virtue to Francis by fandom (not including me, I know Francis ain’t virtuous), is informed not so much by anything inherent to Francis, but by the fact that he is the King of France. He’s rich, powerful, the eldest legitimate son, and royal. He must therefore be a good, amirite? Leaving that aside, @blackvelvetsunseteyes‘ point is predicated on the notion that human interactions are governed by the principle of reciprocity, which... contradicts all real life evidence, as well as fictional evidence (see: Reign, The Vampire Diaries, The Originals, A Song of Ice and Fire, and any other fandom you care to name)! Also, neither is it the case that the genuinely virtuous are ever particularly mourned. People are shitty. We need to overcome.
#01 ‘Lola and Francis are dear friends!’
Yeah. But. Are they? ARE THEY REALLY? Like, really really?
Believe me, no one in fandom was more disappointed that Lola turned down Francis’ pseudo-request for Lola to be his mistress in 2.16 as I was. Somewhere in S2, Frola overtook Frary on my shippy priorities, and I would have thought that Francis taking Lola as his mistress would have prevented a Frary reconciliation, particularly one on Mary’s terms; a reconciliation I didn’t particularly want given the course of S2. And yet despite that, despite my own feelings and preferences, I find the notion that Lola regards Francis as a ‘dear friend’ superrr suspect and very difficult to process. Naturally, Lola calls herself Francis’ friend, because she doing her best to navigate in an environment in which Francis reigns supreme and how could she possibly cop any benefits out of him, including parental rights over her own son, by marching up and down declaring she is his sworn enemy!!!1 The whole idea is ludicrous. However, despite what Lola may say, canon evidence strongly suggests that she doesn’t think of herself as Francis friend at all, not in her ~bones.
In 1.12, despite spending a whole episode bonding with Francis, Lola kept vital information about Catherine’s pending execution from Francis, even though Catherine is Francis’ mother. Francis later found out about it and was naturally pretty distraught, and yet Lola still lied to Francis’ face, quite coolly, about ever having known anything about it. Clearly, these are not the actions of someone who has taken Francis’ interests particularly closely to heart, despite all the pretty words she spoke about how she ‘related’ to him. In 1.15, after Mary had ~saved Lola from a very dangerous abortion the previous episode, Lola was aghast at the notion of telling Francis anything about her pregnancy, reasoning that she didn’t want to become ‘a future king’s property’ simply because she had made the ‘mistake’ of sleeping with him. She had no desire to come clean to Francis, the father of her child, or to be honest with him, and instead Lola instinctively believed (rightly or wrongly) that Francis would see her as nothing more than a piece of property, a baby-incubator. Again, these are not the actions of someone who counts Francis’ interests close to their heart or thinks particularly highly of Francis as a man, given her instinctively low opinion of how he would likely behave (again whether she was right or wrong about him is a different question entirely). Moreover, Lola began, in the episodes 1.14—1.15, to refer with her tryst with Francis as a ‘mistake’, and has done so ever since, right through S2, thus shedding doubt on the notion that she harbours particularly strong feelings for Francis. In 2.01, Francis admitted to Lola that he’d considered the possibility of leaving her in a plague-stricken house and simply taking their baby away, but had held back partly because he didn’t know how to keep a newborn alive without its mother. Lola seemed fairly put out on hearing about this, quite understandably. Imo, the whole exchange highlighted the frail timbre of the relationship between the two characters, and probably reinforced Lola’s previous conception of Francis as someone who didn’t genuinely care about her. Note: I’m not saying Francis doesn’t care about Lola. What I’m saying is that it’s pretty clear that Lola doesn’t genuinely believe, deep down, that he does care about her, and conversely that she doesn’t hold him particularly dear. In 2.07, Francis tasks Lola with planting false evidence in Narcisse’s house, asking her to choose who she thinks is ‘the better man’. Lola is of two minds, but eventually chooses Narcisse, reasoning that Francis tried to use her and Narcisse didn’t. It’s fairly clear to the audience that both Francis and Narcisse tried to use her, and if anything Francis was more honest with Lola than Narcisse was, so Lola’s pronouncement that only Francis was trying to use her must, at least in part, speak to Lola’s own low opinion of Francis. Lola only reneges on her choice of Narcisse over Francis in 2.08, when Francis reveals that Narcisse had threatened their son. This indicates that Lola could probs give less of a damn when Narcisse threatened Francis, or threatened Frary, or Catherine or whoever, whereas she does very clearly care about the fate of her own son and responded accordingly in 2.08. In 2.15, Francis makes arrangements for a betrothal between his and Lola’s son and that ugly Hapsburg baby, telling Lola ‘I know you’ve been worried about what John’s fate would be if anything happened to me’, indicating that Lola has been been pressuring Francis about what would happen to their baby if Francis were out of the picture, which again suggests that though Lola is worried about what might happen to her son sans Francis being in the picture, she is far less concerned about Francis’ fate for its own sake, which, it goes without saying, is again both natural and understandable. It’s especially illuminating to compare Lola’s business-like dealings with Francis at the beginning of 2.15, with Mary’s emotionally fraught arc with Francis in 3.01-3.02. In 2.15 Lola is chill about Francis’ fate, so long as her son is protected. In 3.01-3.02, Mary’s concern about Francis is for Francis. Mary doesn’t instinctively react by calculating how Francis’ death will affect her own interests, because she is distraught about Francis. It’s Francis who has to push Mary to shore up her own interests, and Francis who suggests a marriage between Mary and Charles, whilst Mary laments the fact that she is planning a future without Francis. Lola, on the other hand, has no such qualms. In 2.18, Mary agonises about whether to use France’s military might to save her own country, and angsts: ‘How can I do this to Francis?’ Lola then, rather irritably, replies: ‘How can you not?!’ Lola, rather than Mary, is the character who is most clearly over Francis’ (presumed imminent) death, and is set on making decisions for the future that favour Scotland, even if they harm Francis and his kingdom during his last days, perhaps even his last hours, on this earth.
The point I’m making, really, is that talk is cheap. Pretty words. A wide-eyed compassionate stare. A bracing touch on the arm. These things are a dime a dozen. As Candy said they’re easy and exist everywhere and are ‘part of the social lubricant that gets most of us through life’, which = LMAO @ the callous phraseology, but it’s true nonetheless. It costs Lola nothing to tell Francis that he will heal in 1.12, it costs her nothing to cosy up to him and call him a good kisser in 2.15, it costs her nothing to accept his gift of a blanket in 2.21, and look up at him lovingly as she promises that John will know the kind of man his father was. These are just words, and words are wind, as G.R.R.M. has rightly taught us. They mean next to nothing, at the end of day. Actions, on the other hand, do have meaning. What counts, what means, is that every single time Lola has had the opportunity to demonstrate friendship towards Francis, or betray any underlying strong feelings about Francis, every single time she’s had that opportunity she’s come up blank, as the litany above surely demonstrates. Moreover, as @candyumbrella sagely points out, in 3.02, Lola reacted in the exact same way to the prospect of Francis death as she did to the same prospect in 2.18, when the danger looked real and imminent. Her concern was for how Francis’ death would effect her, Lola, and her son. In 2.18 that meant protecting Mary’s rule in Scotland, in 3.02 she looked to her own standing at French court. Both times she’s thought about herself, entirely consistently. That means something. Her referring to Francis as her friend, on the other hand, doesn’t mean squat when it isn’t backed up by her actions, which (spoiler alert!), it isn’t.
#02 ‘Lola is a compassionate person!’
Again. Is she? Is she really?
It is a regrettable fact that it is widely accepted within fandom that in order for a female character to be considered ‘positive’ it is imperative that she must be demonstrably kind and compassionate, and also have IMPORTANT FEMALE FRIENDSHIPS!!1 on the go. Of course, fandom being fandom, it is of no account whether a female character is genuinely kind and compassionate, or whether she is any way legit concerned about the interests of her female friends. The only thing that matters is that she seems kind’n’caring and has a lady friend or two, that way she looks enough like a Madonna, and less like a Whore, and what’s important is that female protagonists are never ‘whores’, else fandom will dub them bad characters. This is especially true for supporting female characters Lola, and doubly so for supporting female characters who subordinated within their ‘verses the way Lola is subordinated to Mary. It’s p. much true that almost everyone in the Reign fandom instinctively, unconsciously views Mary’s ladies as vehicles for Mary’s storyline; vehicles for her personal development and vehicles for her emotional comfort. I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve come across in this fandom who have instinctively perceived Mary’s ladies as people in their own right, with their own dreams/aspirations/inner lives, deserving of personhood independent of what Mary, and the political system in which they live, chooses to grant them. (It’s three, in case you were wondering. Three whole fans who instinctively grasped that Mary’s ladies are people too.) What’s weird-o is that this is true of every corner of the Reign fandom, regardless of whether it’s a corner loves or hates Mary Stuart, or whether it ships Frary or Mash or Monde (lol), or whether its favourite character is of royal lineage or not. Nothing matters, except that in fandom’s eyes the likes of Lola has always existed for Mary’s use. Stat. She is nothing more than her job.
^^^ is important contextual information, yo. It gives us the answer to why people who like Lola, who like Lola for no reason other than Lola is likeable and it’s okay to like her, feel like they have to paint her as compassionate, loyal, et cetera, because only these qualities can justify a secondary female character existing without being hated. I’m personally sympathetic to those who would describe Lola as ‘compassionate’, because clearly those people feel for Lola and are seeking to make her palatable to a mass fandom who feels she should only exist for Mary. However, the fact remains that... Well, the fact remains that compassion isn’t really Lola’s strong suit, okay? In two plus seasons of Reign, it’s MO Lola has distinguished herself as someone who is unusually intelligent, keenly observant, cheerfully mercenary, and possessed a fierce sense of her own worth. But where is her ‘compassion’?
In 1.01, Lola (to fandom’s chagrin), was absolutely furious with Mary over the death of Colin, who was Lola’s boyfriend. It’s one of the things that first made me love Lola. Lola showed no ‘compassion’ for Mary. She didn’t care a whit for Mary’s feelings. She wasn’t interested in the fact that Mary had just been through one hell of an ordeal, an ordeal that involved Colin violently accosting Mary in the dead of night and trying to rape her. No. Lola was simply interested in the fact that she had lost her boyfriend, and that she was indentured in service to Mary, and that that was fucking unfair to her, Lola. In 1.08, following Aylee’s death, Mary planned to escape to Scotland and wanted all her ladies to go with her. Lola talked Mary out of it, purportedly on the basis that it would be faster/safer for Mary to go alone. Was Lola telling the truth? Or did she simply not want to take the risk, knowing as she did that Mary was the reason that she and the other ladies faced danger? I think it’s fairly manifest that the latter is the case. Where was Lola’s ‘compassion’? Surely someone who was particularly compassionate would have felt for Mary, would have realised the dangers that Mary was about to face, and would have thought about how afraid and alone Mary would be unescorted on such a perilous journey? Well, Lola had no such compunctions. To go back to an earlier example, Lola clearly enjoyed having Francis to herself in 1.12, she enjoyed his attention and their time together, but surely if it had been a question of ‘compassion’, then she would have told him about the fate that his mother was facing? She would have told him even though she knew the revelation would likely make him ride off to her rescue immediately, leaving Lola all alone. Telling him would still have been the compassionate thing to do. In 2.01 and 2.02, Lola pretty well rubbed her own motherhood in Mary’s face, and flaunted the fact that she had borne Francis a son. Now, I’m not arguing that Lola was necessarily being malicious (I personally don’t think she was, though it’s certainly open to debate), but a compassionate person would have at least noticed how much pain she was causing Mary. A compassionate person wouldn’t have behaved as Lola did. What about when Mary was raped? Lola was the first of the ladies to offer comforting words, yes, assuring Mary that Mary’s ladies were her friends and that they cared about her, but what did Lola actually do? Well, the first thing she did was run off to see Francis and comfort him, and after that? Where was her compassion? Greer spent a good chunk of time trying to help Mary work through it, even accompanying Mary to Condé’s estate, but Lola... Seemed to spend the whole bulk Frary’s estrangement bonding with Francis, whilst encouraging Mary to be with Condé.
Like, I’m not saying that Lola isn’t capable of compassion at all, ever. I don’t view Lola as a heartless automaton, by any means. She can be kind, and yes, she can be compassionate. (It just isn’t her default state!) For example, Lola has a lot of time and compassion for Estelle in 2.04, but it’s clear that said compassion stems from the fact that Lola related very strongly to Estelle, and saw her own situation in the bind that Estelle has gotten herself into. There was a clear mechanism behind Lola’s proactive and kind reaction. Similarly, Lola demonstrated compassion for Greer in 2.14, visiting her, bringing her money, and offering valuable suggestions to Greer regarding how Greer could better her situation. Again, Lola demonstrated compassion. But it wasn’t random, nor does it suggest that compassion an inherent part of Lola’s nature. In the case of Greer, Lola’s compassion stemmed from a genuine bond between the two women. However, these instances of compassionate don’t just make Lola ‘a COMPASSIONATE person ZOMG!!1′, there’s rhyme and reason behind each incident. Like, if you want pick on a Reign!verse character who has shown indiscriminate compassion, then it’s not Lola, and certainly not Mary, but Greer who is your girl. Greer fell in love with a servant in S1, Greer did her level best to help Mary work through her trauma in 2.10, Greer believed Mary’s spurious explanation about why Mary had to cut her off without a dime in 2.12, Greer did her best to help Sharlene find work without the expectation of any benefit to herself in 2.14, Greer used what little money she had to buy Sharlene a wig even after Sharlene had publicly humiliated Greer and cost her what looked like her only lifeline out of poverty in 2.15, Greer stepped in to stop Gigi from being violently assaulted in 2.16, despite the very real physical danger this placed Greer in, Mary went to visit Mary in 2.20 because Mary needed something from Greer and Greer did her best to help, okay? Greer, through her actions (rather than just her words) has demonstrated almost indiscriminate compassion, and has done so equally to characters at both extremes of the social spectrum. No other character has done that! Not even Lola.
I know people wax lyrical about the ‘my Queen’ scene between Lola and Mary in 2.17 but people are seriously failing to take into account that, when it comes to her actions (again, actions are so much more important than words, guys), Lola has literally lived by the maxim she set out in the pilot:
‘Kenna is my friend. Greer and Aylee are my friends. You are our queen and we are your subjects. We’re here in service to you. Whatever that means. Whatever that costs us.’
Throughout canon, Lola has demonstrated genuine friendship with both Greer and Kenna, but I can’t think of a single instance of that friendship extending to the royal characters. Not to Mary. Not to Francis. She’s had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate that kind of friendship/compassion, but she just hasn’t (see the multitude of examples above). Sure, in 2.17 she told Mary she was strong and what not, but it bears iteration that words are cheap. What else did Lola tell Mary? To go ahead and be with Condé, despite the risk. Well, that’s a wee bit fishy coming from Lola, of all people, who was simultaneously spending her time bonding with Mary’s estranged husband!
I completely understand why people who like Lola resist this reading. As I said above, fandom’s feudal principles dictate that a supporting, subordinated female character like Lola is ‘bad’ unless she exists as a vehicle for Mary’s experience of the world, because Mary is the lead of the show, and a queen whereas Lola is ‘merely’ a lady. But that’s bullshit. AND WE SHOULD BE CALLING BULLSHIT. We shouldn’t be flattening Lola’s character and painting her as nothing more complex than a compassionate ‘good woman’ whose first and only priority in life is Mary (or even Francis), okay? What we should be doing is celebrating the fact that despite the nature of the ‘verse, in Lola we have a character who, to use @candyumbrella’s words, has displayed very little instinctive deference and bone-deep feudal Just World mentality, a character who has never believed in the royals as inherently superior and more worthy beings than other people. THIS IS A GREAT THING. It gives Lola the time and mental space for other pursuits, like being a mother and getting her hands on her own money and trying to wriggle her way up the political totem pole. Other pursuits = doing things for herself, basically, and not for Mary (or Francis!). Yes, Mary has a lot of nice things to say about her so-called ‘friendship’ with her ladies, but she still instrumentalises them daily and treats them like shit. I mean, I could rattle off a list of both Mary and Francis using and abusing Lola, amongst the other ladies, but is that really necessary? We’d be here all day! Lola doesn’t need to be compassionate, or a good friend to Frary, to be interesting, loveable character worthy of time, attention and narrative development. Fandom should allow her to be herself, and as we have seen over a number of seasons, ‘being herself’ isn’t marked out by a ‘dear friendship’ with Francis, nor does it manifest in an unusual amount of compassion. Frary have been shitty to her and she is allowed to be ‘callous’ in return. She’s perfect as she is. Leave her alone.
To anyone who wants to join @candyumbrella and I and defend Lola, I only ask that you defend her on her true merits. Not on trumped up assets such as ‘compassion’ or a ‘dear friendship’ with Francis; a strategy concocted to appease the gross, feudal-minded classism of this fandom. Granted, I haven’t even begun to discuss Lola’s virtues, but they are bloody numerous let me tell you, and they are not in any way inconsistent with her not being appropriately ‘conflicted’ over King Francis’ death.
Everyone (on both sides, including Monde shippers) needs to accept that the ‘it makes no sense!!1′ claim is specious as. It’s a useless starting point for debate, and we all need to accept that.
