With the laws of our time they’re trying to put the implication of the old western times when we wore dresses like that back then you needed an explicit reason to get divorced because that wasn’t normal nor OK you were kind of the ownership of your husband
But I do agree I do not find this interesting at all and anything it’s a little bit irritating and kind of stupid because there’s a lot of easy rebottles to this that are just very simple
I’m sorry I didn’t read your whole comment but yeah the whole point it’s that is supposed to be ridiculous and unfair
It’s because it’s set in a time where you weren’t allowed to divorce unless you could show that he or she had actually tormented you in some way, simply being ‘unhappy’ wasn’t a good enough reason to allow what at the time would have been a huge stain on the family’s honour.
(SORRY IF I SOUND LIKE AN ASSHOLE ITS CUZ THE BOOK MADE ME MAD) I was js gonna deal with it at first but the trial is pissing me tf off. If you find the trial in this story interesting you are either a fucking child or stupid bro. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that you do not need an explicit reason for divorce, like I can kinda of see what the author was trying to do but I can’t anymore the trial is so off putting to me. The only reason you would need to go to divorce court is if you want a claim of property you used to own as a married couple. they literally stated that the point of the whole trial was to see if the husband gave reason enough for divorce because it wasn’t like she wanted to leave with any property. like I know this is prolly like the 1800 but saying you can’t js leave your husband cuz he was an asshole is crazy and feels extremely objectifying. Maybe there’s a law in the books setting that says there does need to be a reason for divorce since this was a political marriage, but if there was, the author should have made us, the readers aware. I also read the spoilers so other than the trial being shit the plot is pretty much as well.