I have seen ahead with rams and I still don’t get why she was treated so poorly in the prior nation... she didn’t do anything that bad. Just cause she scolded/nagged he sister or so? So dumb.... hope it will explain more at some point. Or maybe the rams do show it and I just didn’t read that far. I dunno
I wish marriages for love also worked like this. If it's them I think the duties of marriage and the love of their children will make them a successful couple.
This is purely speculation, but I believe it's because her sister is free-spirited and "kind" or whatever. The nobles think it's a novelty, and don't want the protag to stop the little play they see. They might even want to see the downfall of the family through the younger sister, and the older sister trying to rectify things stops that from happening.
And then there's the commoners/noveau riche nobles that worship the sister because she's "so nice" to them.
They say don't expect love, but they're clearly getting along swimmingly. And in fact, a marriage founded in good will and realism over love tends to work out because passion tends to fade and compromise is a skill.
@Jessicazors I consider that very much romantic in the long run. They will tell their children that they were friends first and then found love. I forgot the reason why he can't love her. does he have a curse? or magic that is a family trait that prevents him from loving someone?
@Darkwolfix It wasn't explicitly said, but I think he's just saying he wants to focus on his duties as a ruler over personal intimacy and was warning her that she'd probably end up living with a man quite indifferent and cold to her. That's why the exact phrase is "don't expect love" and not so much "I can't love you."
Of course, that was before he learned what a caring ruler she was.
@Psychronia ahh gotcha. He doesn't know how to multitask. I really think humans did wrong when they decided to use marriage as a contract to have an alliance. I think it would work much better if it were a contract done with the same sex...yes this marriage wouldn't have the definition of love or to make an heir and "unite" the lands and properties. Or if they did the marriage with the opposite sex. they should keep it purely a political contract. They could get lovers and have children but only one child that was created by those two in the contract could be the one to inherit the lands and keep the family together.
It could be easy to prevent and make sure that was their kids. the man and woman would be supervised by both families for a period of 6 months. That would have prevented the woman from cheating and have a baby of another man and that would prevent the man from denying that it was not his child or send men to violate his wife. Of course, humans are lazy and wouldn't want to invest money and time to make sure that would work. There would be proof from both families if any of the married spouses is sterile and could find a way to get a child and everybody would find an agreement on what to do next.
I am glad he fell in love because it is nothing nice to have children without the consent of both parents.