This implies that you are faulting the duke for the issues within their marriage. Especially the whole, "Who cares about her husband?" part. That implies that you don't care for his happiness.
As I already said, they BOTH ignored all of their problems. She neglected him and didn't put in much effort for the relationship. He loved her, while she rejected him daily. How can you expect him to help or address her issues when she won't let him in? What support can he provide when she isn't open about what is wrong? What support should he provide for a women who is abusing his son? What care can he provide when he doesn't even know what postpartum depression is? They are in the medieval times. They don't know what postpartum depression is, so how can they know how to provide support for it? She wants to feel validated, but she can't express her wishes or desires. It's not fair to expect help without asking for it. The only reason she could be validated by the other guy is because she opened up to him. She never opened up to the duke, so he can't help her. He can't magically know what she wants or how she feels. They both lacked effective communication. He never really asked what was wrong, but she also never opened up herself. They both fucked up.
The Duke wasn't especially restrictive (If I'm wrong about that correct me), that was more so because of the people under him. They were the ones that were treating her as a foreign object in her own home. I would agree that he is at fault for not realizing what was going on or correcting their behavior, since he is liable for his underlings, but it is important to indicate that he isn't directly invalidating her.
If we are going to be honest, the duke was much better to the child than the mother. She completely neglected him and emotionally abused him for his entire life. The Duke was very strict, but he wasn't abusive. At the very least he was never hateful of his son.
This is completely incorrect. She had postpartum depression the ENTIRE time until she died. She was "cured" of it after she when she went back in time (putting cured in quotes because there are still some residual effects of it.) So for those 10+ years, yes she was suffering from postpartum depression. That's the reason why she why abusing and neglecting her son.
You can absolutely overcome something like that. It was mainly due to a fuck-ton of miscommunication and just awful circumstances. Repairing a damaged relationship is possible. If it is progressing in the right direction, I don't think there is any reason to just terminate it. There is no need to forget it. It's not like going through hard times magically fixes what happened in the past. But that doesn't mean you can't move forward or move past it.
You didn't really put or imply this in any shape or form in your original comment, but I completely get this take and I respect it. Nothing wrong with an amicable divorce. I just think that it would be worth it to put in some effort to repair it first. If it doesn't work out, then yeah just divorce. I don't see a reason to divorce if they are making progress in the right direction, but to each his own.
I was talking about how he feels about her
yeah, I never said she didn't, she's wrong too, but that still do not atone his sins for me
So, ok, lets not put the horses before the carriage: as far as the history has been told (and that I've understood, I must add) she neglected her son. It still bad but she never even laid a finger or verbally denigrated him. So please, abuse it's a very strong word I don't think one should diminish other experiences or banalize them by calling everything an abuse, but again, thats my opinion
I disagree regarding the whole sinful thing. Messing up a relationship isn't really a sin. It's a mistake, but it isn't anything irreparable. And as I said before, most of his issues stemmed from the fact that
Child neglect is considered emotional abuse, which is a criminal offense. She didn't take care of her child, so yes she was abusive. I disagree that child abuse is something trivial. It completely alters a child's development.
Never told you take his side. I was just saying that there are two sides to every coin. In the modern day, humans should be held to different standards than those from the past. Since the husband didn't assist her, not due to mere negligence but due to inability and ignorance, it isn't fair to judge him as harshly as you would treat an individual from the modern era. Since at least someone from the modern era is more likely to know what depression is.
This part is correct but as I said before, what can you expect him to do when he doesn't even know what depression is? He just thinks she's being a neglectful mother for an unknown reason (Not saying that thought process is correct, I'm just explaining his perspective. It's not completely unreasonable based off of his circumstances or rather the time period he is in.) So expecting him to help her in that situation is unreasonable, because she didn't ask for his help. It's not fair to treat his ignorance as if it were genuine negligence. Negligence implies that one is properly equipped to deal with the situation, but failed to act. As I said before, he simply didn't know better, so faulting him for that is meaningless. It's not as though his intention was to harm or that he didn't care for her. He just didn't realize something was wrong, because the world he is in doesn't understand what mental illnesses are, how to identify signs of them, or how to treat them. What can you expect him to do when placed in a situation like that? People are their situations. If he was born in the modern age, he could have done more. Since he wasn't, there wasn't much he could have done.
