Though I May Be a Villainess, I'll Show You I Can Obtain Happiness! - Vol. 7 Ch. 2 - Villainess Becomes a Bad Girl to Become Happy
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2023
- Messages
- 32
Prince Yulian has the personality of a wet bread 💀 Not even just a wet rag or a white bread--he's, impossibly, the awful combination of a drenched soggy loaf. Dude pick a struggle 😭😂
Ty for the translations!
Ty for the translations!
Supporter
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,759
Wait, Yulian is the King's Brother?
And why does that mean the other prince has to take on Liliana's family name?
I want to know what's going on here too my guy.
And why does that mean the other prince has to take on Liliana's family name?
I want to know what's going on here too my guy.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 545
Man women are scary sometimes
Bcs her family only has daughters so once Liliana became queen, her sister's partner must marry into their family to keep their family name going.
Other options would be her parents adopting a distant relative's son as heir & the prince would be a grand duke, but bcs he's a cheating bastard & her sister is shit, earldom is the most generous they could get. Even then, they threw it away from staging a rebellion 🤭
It's rare to see rational parents to the idiot prince in villainess manga. The queen knows exactly how hard & lonely the journey was to prepare herself as a good queen candidate. No wonder she's furious that the prince dared to say "Liliana doesn't have friends". Yeah she's like that bcs she's studying hard for you, bijjh 💀
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2019
- Messages
- 123
I actually hate this chapter almost as much as the cursed 1st V 1st ch of this anthology
Worldbuilding is shallow (i wouldnt mind if it would not play such an important role, but it does so i do mind)
Her being so in denial "i'm such a bad guurll~ i knew everything, i let them abuse me for the last ~decade, so i could get what i want" is pissing me off, literally no work (except rose garden scene) "i knew i could win cheating bastard over" ya we know, but no one would pin this on her that she didnt try her best for a man she just tolerated and who was in love w/ some1 alr,,,,,,,,
And her at first just wishing for happiness then suddenly it's that she planned it all..???? Naurrrrr
"(..) Even when i look like some plain commoner" BRO its offensive to the commoners >:0 they dont deserve the misery of being compared to you.
I'm - i'm just tireeeeeed
(Also-- her dresss----🤢 forget thet the ~sexy~ style doesn't suit her, the dress was just BAD
+This chapter just shows: "clothes make a person"
Get me out of here. 🌈🤢🌈
Also either way, thankyou to the translators for their work🌸 and seeing it to the end, i do not posses such power and dedication🙏
Worldbuilding is shallow (i wouldnt mind if it would not play such an important role, but it does so i do mind)
Her being so in denial "i'm such a bad guurll~ i knew everything, i let them abuse me for the last ~decade, so i could get what i want" is pissing me off, literally no work (except rose garden scene) "i knew i could win cheating bastard over" ya we know, but no one would pin this on her that she didnt try her best for a man she just tolerated and who was in love w/ some1 alr,,,,,,,,
And her at first just wishing for happiness then suddenly it's that she planned it all..???? Naurrrrr
"(..) Even when i look like some plain commoner" BRO its offensive to the commoners >:0 they dont deserve the misery of being compared to you.
I'm - i'm just tireeeeeed
(Also-- her dresss----🤢 forget thet the ~sexy~ style doesn't suit her, the dress was just BAD
+This chapter just shows: "clothes make a person"
Get me out of here. 🌈🤢🌈
Also either way, thankyou to the translators for their work🌸 and seeing it to the end, i do not posses such power and dedication🙏
There's nothing "villain" about the so-called villainess. In fact, if you read this without knowing it's part of a "villainess" anthology, and the title of this chapter, you'd rightfully think the sister is the villainess of a regular, non-subverted story.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
- Messages
- 282
Wonder what the Queen thinks about her would be daughter-in-law becoming her sister-in-law. They seem to have a pretty good relationship.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,353
I was gonna comment on this too. Girl went from wanting to have the Queen as a mother in law to having her as a sister in law. Kinda sweet ngl.
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2025
- Messages
- 29
I thought they were making fun of cliche shoujo tropes? This is just straight up becoming shoujo now. Or did I get it wrong?
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2020
- Messages
- 227
That’s not what she was saying. She got tired of it and decided to “take” action, in order to get out of an engagement she didn’t want.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Messages
- 390
Yet another East Asian (here, Imperial Chinese royalty, minus the polygamy, with Japanese nobility), wrapped up with nineteenth-century Western aesthetics. While the story is fun, I still find that aspect incredibly cringe-worthy and pathetic.
Don't get me wrong, I like fantasy romance, but I'm a history nerd. And honestly, those stories which follow the actual primary customs of the associated inspiration of their settings and those stories which provide an in-universe explanation that the setting does not do so (bonus points if they provide a reason) are setting-wise better (and often, the author is generally more skilful in those cases). Then my thoughts when reading become less snark and more actual enjoyment.
First and foremost, the whole "sovereign choosing their own heir" was basically restricted to some of the foreign dynasties of Imperial China. While my knowledge of East Asian history is limited, from what I do know, native Chinese dynasties, Japan, Korea, not to mention the entire Western world never did that in their recorded histories. Dynasties with the custom of choosing successors like the Qing (who were Manchu, not Sinitic, let alone Han) basically were using the quickest and most reliable way to have a constant succession crisis. Ouch! (To be fair, they did well considering, but it was a huge and needless hole in the head for them.) As for Europe's elective monarchies, there you have a predetermined body do the selecting; if they want a say in it, the current/previous sovereign might as well pound sand. There were also many, many cases of hereditary monarchies, where a ruler either hated or was at odds with their heir apparent or presumptive (English history alone has four or five prominent examples) — while most of these were mild and rarely escalated beyond snide remarks or social avoidance, others grew bloody, especially in more violent periods, but in any case never had an effect on succession themselves.
Also, gaining a title by right of marriage (legally, jure uxoris) was extremely rare in the Western world. More often, the couple would rule jointly or you'd have a man exercising power for his wife who actually held the title, or a woman not being considered mature enough to exercise her power as ruler until she'd been married, regardless of whether the husband were alive by the time she inherited (this in a world where women — who didn't become nuns — first married at somewhere between 15 and 25, and holding a title meant commanding armies, if not taking to the battlefield yourself, which is inherently harder when you have to do the childbearing and intrinsically have less testosterone; think about it). Either way, in the Western wold, when a man rules by right or marriage it's still the bloodline of the actual heir, the wife, which determines succession and the husband's reign ends with the marriage (the only cases I know of where the man continued to rule unchallenged, it was due to the wife being the last of her bloodline or the man being a distant cousin and next in line regardless).
Additionally, unlike in East Asia, in the Western world continuing the family name typically isn't worth a blivet (10 ℔ of shit in a 5-pound bag). What Western societies have cared about are bloodlines, the sole importance of surnames is in correction to those bloodlines. Thus, the closest thing you get to attempts to preserve family names are multi-barrelled surnames, like Spencer-Churchill. More often than not, you were expected to simply learn who was part of which house/bloodline before your social debut or majority (depending on the period).
Incapable heirs would be encouraged to relinquish their right to the throne/title (usually and most safely by joining the clergy), rule under a regent, or be taken out of the picture by force. So there were reliable ways of handling inept heirs. These methods also helped to prevent heirs from focusing on their ability to campaign for power or curry favour, as opposed to skills needed in actually holding the title or throne.
A related aside for those many stories of the genre where a ruler's statements hold force or are legally considered true by definition: Unadulterated absolutist monarchies were basically unheard of in Europe, even at the peak of absolutism there, the eighteenth century, because secular power was always offset by religious power and vice versa. Catholic monarchs had to share power with the Papacy, protestant monarchs had to deal with competing Protestant denominations or strains within a given denomination, and members of Christian clergy have at most limited involvement in military matters by doctrine (military orders consisted of laity, and religious wars are a grey area). In fact, for all Abrahamic religions, you cannot have true absolutism by definition — since the ultimate authority is God. Furthermore, because Western noble and royal power was of military origin, even the pagan monarchs of Antiquity also had to share their authority with their religions. So, while absolutism itself it not native to Western Civilization, the closest thing to it was the power held by pagan Roman Emperors — who were the head the empire and deified (until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD religions which did not worship the emperor were out right illegal) — their authority was mitigated by the Senate and the Prætorian Guard.
Also, gaining a title by right of marriage (legally, jure uxoris) was extremely rare in the Western world. More often, the couple would rule jointly or you'd have a man exercising power for his wife who actually held the title, or a woman not being considered mature enough to exercise her power as ruler until she'd been married, regardless of whether the husband were alive by the time she inherited (this in a world where women — who didn't become nuns — first married at somewhere between 15 and 25, and holding a title meant commanding armies, if not taking to the battlefield yourself, which is inherently harder when you have to do the childbearing and intrinsically have less testosterone; think about it). Either way, in the Western wold, when a man rules by right or marriage it's still the bloodline of the actual heir, the wife, which determines succession and the husband's reign ends with the marriage (the only cases I know of where the man continued to rule unchallenged, it was due to the wife being the last of her bloodline or the man being a distant cousin and next in line regardless).
Additionally, unlike in East Asia, in the Western world continuing the family name typically isn't worth a blivet (10 ℔ of shit in a 5-pound bag). What Western societies have cared about are bloodlines, the sole importance of surnames is in correction to those bloodlines. Thus, the closest thing you get to attempts to preserve family names are multi-barrelled surnames, like Spencer-Churchill. More often than not, you were expected to simply learn who was part of which house/bloodline before your social debut or majority (depending on the period).
Incapable heirs would be encouraged to relinquish their right to the throne/title (usually and most safely by joining the clergy), rule under a regent, or be taken out of the picture by force. So there were reliable ways of handling inept heirs. These methods also helped to prevent heirs from focusing on their ability to campaign for power or curry favour, as opposed to skills needed in actually holding the title or throne.
A related aside for those many stories of the genre where a ruler's statements hold force or are legally considered true by definition: Unadulterated absolutist monarchies were basically unheard of in Europe, even at the peak of absolutism there, the eighteenth century, because secular power was always offset by religious power and vice versa. Catholic monarchs had to share power with the Papacy, protestant monarchs had to deal with competing Protestant denominations or strains within a given denomination, and members of Christian clergy have at most limited involvement in military matters by doctrine (military orders consisted of laity, and religious wars are a grey area). In fact, for all Abrahamic religions, you cannot have true absolutism by definition — since the ultimate authority is God. Furthermore, because Western noble and royal power was of military origin, even the pagan monarchs of Antiquity also had to share their authority with their religions. So, while absolutism itself it not native to Western Civilization, the closest thing to it was the power held by pagan Roman Emperors — who were the head the empire and deified (until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD religions which did not worship the emperor were out right illegal) — their authority was mitigated by the Senate and the Prætorian Guard.
Don't get me wrong, I like fantasy romance, but I'm a history nerd. And honestly, those stories which follow the actual primary customs of the associated inspiration of their settings and those stories which provide an in-universe explanation that the setting does not do so (bonus points if they provide a reason) are setting-wise better (and often, the author is generally more skilful in those cases). Then my thoughts when reading become less snark and more actual enjoyment.
Last edited:
I'm fond of this one, even with the general historical issues. While it very much skirts the line of what a 'villainess' is, this is at least one of the cases where the female lead shows some form of agency, and does what she's able to put herself in a better position.
My ratings on the series, from best to worst (with lines between 'enjoyed', 'neutral', and 'disliked'):
1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 6-4, 4-5, 5-2, 6-1, 2-2, 4-1, 5-5, 2-1, 1-4, 7-2, 3-2 | 4-4, 6-6, 6-5, 7-1, 4-3, 4-2, 3-1, 6-3, 5-1, 4-6, 2-6, 5-4, 1-5, 3-3, 3-4 | 1-3, 2-5, 3-5, 5-3, 6-2, 1-1
My ratings on the series, from best to worst (with lines between 'enjoyed', 'neutral', and 'disliked'):
1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 6-4, 4-5, 5-2, 6-1, 2-2, 4-1, 5-5, 2-1, 1-4, 7-2, 3-2 | 4-4, 6-6, 6-5, 7-1, 4-3, 4-2, 3-1, 6-3, 5-1, 4-6, 2-6, 5-4, 1-5, 3-3, 3-4 | 1-3, 2-5, 3-5, 5-3, 6-2, 1-1
Similar threads
