open/close all folders
Athos' whole trial is a massive headscratcher. It would have blown up in the Cardinal's face had anyone bothered to ask the simple question of 'When did this happen?' to either of the witnesses. The inn-keeper would have had to travel one or two days to get to the inquiry, since it took d'Artagnan at least that long to get to Paris and find the Musketeers. As soon as the innkeeper said when the murder of d'Artagnan's father happened, Athos could have simply said he was in Paris drunk off his head either at the garrison or in a tarvern, to which there would have been witnesses. There is no way he could have gotten to the inn to kill Alexandre d'Artagnan and back to Paris in time. Then, when the coachman was questioned and said when the crime happened, Athos would have the best alibi - he was on a mission to find Cornet, with two other people, AWAY from Paris, on Treville's orders. Even in 17th century France, they can't have argued with that. One word, 'when' and the case would have crumbled to nothing. But we must have drama.
- I would assume that an alibi provided only by the accused's boon companions would have been laughed out of court. And remember, the Cardinal had some pretty hardcore manipulation of a fickle king going on. "You need to look decisive, sire." He was driving Louis like a pony in a pony trap,
- Not trusting Porthos or Aramis perhaps, but Louis at least listens to Treville which still should have helped, not to mention any barman of whatever tarven Athos frequents, who would have little reason to lie about him being there. Richelieu's influence or not, it's still a shoddy case to try and hold up.
Marie de' Medici orders two of her men to retrieve her grandson Henri so she can present him as the legitimate king, however one of the men kills the priest he believes is Father Duval and then orders Agnes that be killed once he has baby Henri. But, having Duval and Agnes killed makes no sense, since they are both living proof of Henri's legitimacy, which Marie needs. She can't simply present a baby to the nobility and claim its her grandson, no one in their right mind would accept it since acting against Louis XIII would be treason if the baby was illegitimate or a fake. Duval, his records and Agnes would be needed to prove Marie's claims, and even Marie herself tells Richelieu that Duval can attest to her story once she learns he's in the palace, hence the reason why Richeleiu has him killed. Whilst it doesn't overly affect the story, it's still a gross inconsistency.
A Rebellious Woman
Given that it's evident the Countess had access to the King and Queen at virtually mere insistence, why exactly did she ask a servant's daughter to try to deliver her letter/request? Seems to me the whole incident which kicked off the plot could easily have been avoided with a little common sense.
- I assume she had the idea that the servant's daughter would put a human face on it, for the queen. Go for the emotional, make it more difficult to dismiss it as a noble and well off women's pipe dream.
- I was under the impression that Ninon didn't actually ask the girl to deliver the letter. When questioned, she said she knew nothing about it. So apparently the girl was acting of her own volition, and just made a complete mess of it.
Knight Takes Queen
So why did Cardinal Richelieu order the assassination of the Queen in the first place? Not having children doesn't seem to be a good enough excuse (even the Cardinal argues that she's young and that there's enough time). And even though it can be argued that he was merely following the implied wishes of the King, it's obvious that Louis is very drunk and shouldn't be taken at his word at that point in time. Not to mention that Queen Anne is the daughter of King Philip III of Spain (historically, anyway), and the union is obviously politically important. And while Cardinal Richelieu is no fan of Spain, the assassination attempt has too many risks involved, one of which can result in the further deterioration of Franco-Spanish affairs. And of course, by the end of the episode, not only do the Musketeers know that Richelieu was involved in the attempt on the Queen's life, but the Queen herself knows of his treachery.
- Stranger things have happened in reality. The parallels to the assassination of Thomas Beckett, for example. However in this case, Louis seemed particularly insistent in changing to the rich girl and we've seen throughout the season that his marriage is not outwardly warm (although it is apparently deep) and that he really needs the cash. That alone would be enough to have the Cardinal put the moves on, and in politics of that era there was no way that even Louis was going to come out and be explicit in an order to off Anne, that was as clear as it would ever get. Yeah, he should have been more cautious, but the opportunity to carry this out was time critical so he didn't have the time to be anything less than bold; and on the face of it a troop of experienced mercs that outnumber the Queen's bodyguard 3-to-1 ought to have prevailed (after all as good as he is, not even Richelieu knows about main-character shields).
- When actually tricked into confessing in the next episode he reveals, it stemmed purely from his fears that if the king was to die suddenly, France would be plunged into a civil war. Though its seems plausible several other factors mentioned above also played a part in his decision.
The Prodigal Son
- Why did Milady think that Athos was her best bet of spilling the truth of Rochefort's treason, or that he would even listen to her? The last time she warned the Musketeers of a threat against the King, Athos point-blank refused to listen to her, and only relented when Treville decided to take her word for it and pulled rank. Why didn't she go to Treville, who's recovered from his gunshot wound and can see visitors if he wants to? It seems like the BBC just wanted yet another scene between Milady and Athos to hammer home the fact that they're toxic to each other.