On the Season of Admirations storylet, when feeding the bats, one of the results you can get is this:
"I see all sorts while I feed them. A pure black carriage with the royal insignia rattled past after breakfast. What’s that like, you think, to mourn someone for so many years? What must it have been like while she still had him?"
I am under the impression both that Prince Albert was saved by the Traitor Empress giving London to the Bazaar, and that he is still alive. Am I wrong on either or both of these points?
[quote=Joshopoke ]On the Season of Admirations storylet, when feeding the bats, one of the results you can get is this:
"I see all sorts while I feed them. A pure black carriage with the royal insignia rattled past after breakfast. What’s that like, you think, to mourn someone for so many years? What must it have been like while she still had him?"
I am under the impression both that Prince Albert was saved by the Traitor Empress giving London to the Bazaar, and that he is still alive. Am I wrong on either or both of these points?[/quote]
He’s dead, but he’s fine. The masters messed with the wording of the contract against him, but we haven’t really seen enough to describe his condition much more than that.
There was something about how all the royal children seem sickly and weak in a way. My conspiracy theory brain suggested someone there, perhaps the consort, was a vampire feeding on them. What’s a good ol Victorian romp through monster-infested hell without a vampire?
By the royal children, I mean the ones that aren’t actually the children. The ones you can paint in Persuasive content. The still-children of royals that are not actually the Empress’s children.
It’s not a very exact term, I should have clarified.
[quote=Ginneon Thursday]The Fate-locked story, "A Trade In Faces," offers some more insight on the matter.[/quote]Is it a certain option that may be missed? I just got the story to grind case notes.
[quote=Optimatum]Isn’t the royal children being sickly just an excuse for them not showing themselves in public due to being monsters?[/quote]Is this present anywhere besides The Gift?
I mean literal monsters!
[quote=MidnightVoyager]By the royal children, I mean the ones that aren’t actually the children. The ones you can paint in Persuasive content. The still-children of royals that are not actually the Empress’s children.
It’s not a very exact term, I should have clarified.[/quote]Is this really true? Think I’ll need another spin there; either my memory is playing tricks or I didn’t see the obvious!
[quote=Skinnyman][quote=Ginneon Thursday]The Fate-locked story, "A Trade In Faces," offers some more insight on the matter.[/quote]Is it a certain option that may be missed? I just got the story to grind case notes.[/quote]It’s one of four possible endings/rewards.
More precisely, towards the end of the story you get the chance to wear a "special" face and go somewhere you wouldn’t normally be able to go to. One option is replacing one of the Empress’ footmen and serve tea for her and the Consort.
I contend that the Consort is perfectly fine, post death. And that the Empress is still happily in love with him.
But this is London! As the reigning monarch, she must respect proper decorum!
It would be highly improper to cut mourning short while the Consort remains an important part of the Empress’s life. Among other things, the end of deep mourning indicates that a widow is ready to move on and perhaps even marry again. But that would be unthinkable with the Consort constantly at her side! How would she explain the end of deep morning to him when they see each other every day at breakfast?
It would certainly hurt the Consort’s feelings, and worse, represent a break with tradition!
Mourning is a necessary part of expressing her love for him. So thus, the Empress will remain in mourning for as long as she loves the Consort, and the Consort remains (dead) by her side. As is right and proper!