Israël maakt zich op grote schaal schuldig aan marteling in Palestina, schrijft Francesca Albanese, speciaal VN-rapporteur voor de bezette Palestijnse Gebieden, in haar nieuwste rapport. Marteling, zowel in gevangenissen als daarbuiten, gebeurt zo systematisch dat het op zichzelf een genocidale daad is, concludeert ze.
Het rapport met de titel ‘Marteling en genocide’ werd vrijdag 20 maart gepresenteerd. Martelen is altijd al onderdeel geweest van Israëls behandeling van het Palestijnse volk, stelt Albanese, maar sinds oktober 2023 wordt het ingezet op een schaal die wijst op ‘collectieve wraak’ en ‘de opzet om te vernietigen’. Palestijnen die in hechtenis zitten, worden onderworpen aan ‘buitengewoon meedogenloos fysiek en psychologisch misbruik’. Maar ook buiten de gevangenissen en martelcentra is marteling aan de orde van de dag, schrijft Albanese:
Door de zich opstapelende impact van massale ontheemding, belegering, het onthouden van hulp en voedsel, ongebreideld militair en kolonistengeweld en alomtegenwoordige surveillance en terreur, is het bezette Palestijnse gebied nu een ruimte van collectieve bestraffing. Genocidaal geweld is een instrument van collectieve marteling geworden, met langdurige mentale en fysieke gevolgen voor de bezette bevolking.
Albanese heeft voor haar onderzoek driehonderd getuigenissen verzameld via verschillende Israëlische en Palestijnse organisaties, ze heeft (op afstand, want Israël laat haar niet toe) met juristen en overlevenden van marteling gepraat, verklaringen van Israëlische klokkenluiders meegenomen en allerlei openbare bronnen geraadpleegd. Het rapport barst, kortom, van de bewijzen.
Vernederend en wreed
Het beeld dat oprijst is huiveringwekkend. Gevangenen worden langdurig vastgebonden, geblinddoekt en in onmogelijke posities gedwongen. Ze worden uitgehongerd, bewakers urineren op gevangenen of dienen ze elektrische schokken toe, er wordt geslagen en geschopt, gevangenen worden uren of dagenlang blootgesteld aan keiharde muziek, aangevallen door honden of gedwongen zich als dieren te gedragen. Seksueel geweld is wijdverbreid. Onderscheid tussen mannen, vrouwen en kinderen wordt niet gemaakt: alle gevangenen lijden hieronder. Advocaten die in 2024 cliënten in gevangenissen bezochten, verklaarden dat ze er ‘wandelende skeletten’ hadden gezien – de gelinkte reportage wordt ook aangehaald in het rapport.
Zelfs vrijlatingen uit gevangenschap gaan met marteling en vernedering gepaard. Gevangenen worden plotseling vrijgelaten, niet zelden ’s nachts en zomaar ergens op straat, soms met niet meer kleding dan een onderbroek of zelfs een luier. ‘Dit is des te wreder’, schrijft Albanese, ‘wanneer gedetineerden ledematen, hun gezichtsvermogen, spraakvermogen of geestelijke vermogens hebben verloren.’
Dat het geweld zo uit de hand loopt, is een vooropgezet plan. De Israëlische minister Itamar Ben-Gvir van Nationale Veiligheid begon – in zijn woorden – een ‘gevangenisrevolutie’, waarbij Palestijnse gevangenen ‘het minste van het minste’ zouden krijgen. Hij riep het verslechteren van de omstandigheden in de detentiecentra uit tot ‘het hoogste doel’. Sinds oktober 2023 zijn in feite alle gevangenen ofwel terroristen, ofwel een veiligheidsrisico. Verzet in de Israëlische samenleving is er niet of nauwelijks – integendeel: het vernietigen van het Palestijnse volk is al decennia bezig en zo genormaliseerd dat het vaak zelfs wordt gevierd, laat het rapport zien.
Onomkeerbare gevolgen
Het schrikbewind maakt, stelt Albanese, niet alleen het slachtoffer kapot – als dat de martelingen al overleeft. Het heeft ook onomkeerbare gevolgen voor de familie van het slachtoffer, voor hun gemeenschap en uiteindelijk voor het hele Palestijnse volk. Dat, in combinatie met de genocidale daden in Gaza, op de bezette Westoever en in bezet Oost-Jeruzalem, zijn, ontneemt de Palestijnen hun menselijkheid. En (onder andere) daarin ligt het verband met genocide, schrijft Albanese:
De door Israël gepleegde genocidale daden, gericht op het vernietigen van de Palestijnen als groep, zijn ook bedoeld om hen als collectief te laten lijden. Door de fundamentele menselijke status van het slachtoffer aan te tasten, werkt marteling als een extreme vorm van uitsluiting uit de menselijke gemeenschap en tast het het individu diep aan.
Een stevige juridische onderbouwing van de misdaad die deze vormen van marteling zijn, ontbreekt niet in het rapport. Op z’n simpelst gezegd: marteling en vernederende, mensonterende straffen zijn onder alle omstandigheden verboden. Marteling is een schending van het VN-verdrag tegen marteling, een schending van het internationaal humanitair recht, en van het oorlogsrecht als het tijdens een conflict gebeurt. Het Genocideverdrag stelt dat het toebrengen van ernstig lichamelijk of geestelijk letsel een genocidale daad is, als het doel is om een groep geheel of gedeeltelijk te vernietigen.
Die onderbouwing is ook belangrijk omdat de verantwoordelijkheid daarmee niet alleen bij Israël ligt, maar ook bij de internationale gemeenschap. Die heeft de plicht om in te grijpen, en doet dat nu niet – integendeel, Israël wordt nog altijd geen strobreed in de weg gelegd. In haar aanbevelingen schrijft Albanese:
De speciale rapporteur dringt er bij de staten en internationale instellingen op aan alles in het werk te stellen om een einde te maken aan de vernietiging van wat er nog over is van Palestina. Deze verplichting is onmiddellijk en voortdurend. Elke vertraging verergert de onomkeerbare schade en versterkt een systeem van wreedheid dat het internationaal recht en de Verenigde Naties juist moeten voorkomen, stoppen en bestraffen.
Politici veroordelen de bekladding van het Nationaal Monument op de Dam. Afgelopen nacht werd het monument met rode verf besmeurd en het woord ‘genocide’ erop geschreven. Vanavond vindt de Nationale Herdenking plaats op de Dam.
Minister-president Jetten zegt tegen de NOS dat hij de actie “schandalig” en “onbegrijpelijk” vindt. Jetten hoopt dat de daders snel worden opgespoord en bestraft. De minister-president benadrukt dat hij alle Nederlanders zou willen vragen om “ondanks alle meningsverschillen en emoties die we voelen bij de conflicten van nu” vandaag 2 minuten stil te zijn. “Gedenk wie je wilt gedenken, maar heb ook respect voor al die mensen die eerder zijn gevallen.”
Minister van Defensie Yeşilgöz noemt de actie “intens triest” en “totaal respectloos en onacceptabel”. De minister schrijft dat het “onbegrijpelijk” is dat “ons Nationaal Monument op de Dam vernield wordt”. “Juist op de dag dat we onze doden en degenen die vielen voor onze vrijheid herdenken.”
‘Vernielingen horen er niet bij’
Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid Van Weel zegt dat demonstreren een recht is, “maar het bekladden van het Nationaal Monument op de Dam valt daar absoluut niet onder”. Van Weel meldt ook dat de politie onderzoek doet.
Fractievoorzitter van Progressief Nederland Klaver schrijft dat vandaag gaat om herdenken en stilstaan “met elkaar op een waardige manier”. Vernielingen horen daar “absoluut niet bij”, schrijft Klaver op X.
Partijleider van de PVV Wilders noemt de daders “tuig”.
Ook de burgemeester van Amsterdam heeft zich uitgesproken tegen de actie. Burgemeester Halsema noemt het een “ongelofelijk laffe daad”. Ze schrijft: “Dit is geen protest, maar vernielzucht en opzettelijke beschadiging van ons nationale monument. Het kwetst niet alleen nabestaanden van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar alle Nederlanders voor wie onze nationale herdenking belangrijk is.”
Volgens Halsema is de gemeente hard aan het werk om het monument schoon te krijgen.
Het Nationaal Monument werd in augustus vorig jaar ook beklad, tijdens een grote pro-Palestijnse demonstratie.
Het Monument op de Dam is in de nacht van zondag op maandag beklad met rode verf. Op beelden is te zien hoe schoonmakers de verf van het monument verwijderen. Maandagavond vindt op de Dam de Nationale Dodenherdenking plaats.
Op het monument werd met rode verf het woord “genocide” geschreven. Het is nog niet duidelijk wie verantwoordelijk is voor de actie. De politie laat aan NU.nl weten momenteel nog informatie te verzamelen.
Het monument werd al vaker beklad. In augustus vorig jaar schreef een demonstrant “Never again is now (Nooit meer is nu, red.)” op het monument. Ook in oktober bekladden demonstranten het monument met rode verf en schreven ze er ‘Fuck Israël’ op. Die laatste actie werd opgeëist door de groepering Palestine Action NL.
De Amsterdamse burgemeester Femke Halsema heeft de bekladding een “ongelooflijk laffe daad” genoemd op haar sociale media. Halsema spreekt van “vernielzucht en opzettelijke beschadiging van ons nationale monument”.
Ook premier Rob Jetten veroordeelt de actie. “Het bekladden van het Nationaal Monument op de Dam is een idiote en volstrekt onacceptabele actie. Al helemaal vandaag, op 4 mei”, schrijft hij op X. “Laten we vandaag eensgezind zijn en samen met respect stilstaan.”
Gedenkplekken WO II vaker te maken met geweld en bedreigingen
Jaarlijks vindt op 4 mei op de Dam in Amsterdam de Nationale Dodenherdenking plaats. Om 20.00 uur is het twee minuten stil voor de slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en ook van oorlogssituaties en vredesoperaties daarna.
Gedenkplekken van de Tweede Wereldoorlog hebben steeds vaker te maken met antisemitisme, geweld en bedreigingen, bericht NU.nl op maandag. Onder meer voormalige concentratiekampen, musea en begraafplaatsen zijn in toenemende mate doelwit van politiek gemotiveerd geweld.
EINDE
VOLKSKRANT
Nationaal Monument besmeurd met rode verf, Palestine Action Amsterdam eist de actie op
Het Nationaal Monument op de Dam in Amsterdam is beklad met rode verf. Op het monument, waar maandagavond de Nationale Dodenherdenking plaatsvindt, is onder meer het woord ‘genocide’ geschreven. De actiegroep Palestine Action Amsterdam heeft de actie opgeëist.
In een e-mail van Palestine Action Amsterdam die in handen is van Het Parool schrijft de groep dat de actie is bedoeld om ‘de hypocrisie’ van de dodenherdenking ‘aan de kaak te stellen’. ‘Later vandaag zullen de koning en de premier bloemen leggen bij het monument, terwijl het bloed van Palestijnen, Libanezen en Iraniërs aan hun handen kleeft.’
Het kabinet heeft boos gereageerd op de bekladding. ‘Het bekladden van het Nationaal Monument op de Dam is een idiote en volstrekt onacceptabele actie. Al helemaal vandaag, op 4 mei’, schreef premier Rob Jetten op sociale media.
Burgemeester Femke Halsema van Amsterdam spreekt van een ‘ongelooflijk laffe daad’. Halsema noemt de bekladding niet alleen kwetsend voor nabestaanden van slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar voor ‘alle Nederlanders voor wie onze nationale herdenking belangrijk is’. De gemeente doet aangifte van bekladding.
Bij het monument worden op 4 mei jaarlijks kransen neergelegd voor slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en andere oorlogsslachtoffers. Om 20.00 uur vinden twee minuten stilte plaats. Daarbij zijn onder meer het koningspaar en premier Jetten aanwezig. Het monument is voor de herdenking weer schoongemaakt.
Volgens de politie vond het incident vanochtend iets voor 04.30 uur plaats. Op dit moment zijn er drie verdachten in beeld. Zij vluchtten na de bekladding richting de straat Nes. De drie droegen regenkleding en hadden een witte boodschappentas bij zich. Op een video die door Palestine Action Amsterdam naar Het Parool is gestuurd, is te zien hoe drie figuren het monument bekladden.
De Nederlandse tak van Palestine Action besmeurde vorig jaar ook al het Paleis op de Dam met rode verf, ‘als symbool van het bloed dat aan de handen van de Nederlandse staat kleeft’. Ook het hoofdkantoor van Booking.com in Amsterdam en het auditorium van de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven moesten eraan geloven, omdat zij ‘medeplichtig’ zouden zijn aan de ‘genocide tegen de Palestijnen’.
Het Monument op de Dam is vorig jaar ook al eens beklad met rode verf. In augustus schreef een deelnemer aan een pro-Palestijnse demonstratie de tekst ‘Never Again is Now’ in rode letters op het monument.
EINDE
NOS
Nationaal Monument op de Dam beklad met rode verf op dag van Dodenherdenking
Het Nationaal Monument op de Dam in Amsterdam is beklad met rode verf. Bij het monument vindt vanavond de Nationale Herdenking plaats.
Ook is het woord ‘genocide’ op het monument geschreven, valt te zien op foto’s van stadsomroep AT5
Het is nog niet bekend wie achter de actie zit. De politie doet onderzoek en vraagt getuigen om zich te melden.
Burgemeester Halsema spreekt in een reactie van een “ongelooflijk laffe daad”. “Dit is geen protest, maar vernielzucht en opzettelijke beschadiging”, aldus de burgemeester van Amsterdam. “Het kwetst niet alleen nabestaanden van de Tweede Wereldoorlog maar alle Nederlanders voor wie onze nationale herdenking belangrijk is.”
Ook andere politici veroordelen de bekladdingen. Zo noemt premier Jetten het “een idiote en volstrekt onacceptabele actie”.
Hardnekkig
Volgens burgemeester Halsema werkt de gemeente “met man en macht” om het monument op tijd schoon te krijgen. Het gespecialiseerde schoonmaakbedrijf dat ook het onderhoud doet, had het monument de afgelopen week al schoongemaakt in aanloop naar de plechtigheid van vanavond.
Vanochtend om 04.45 uur werd het bedrijf gebeld over de bekladdingen. De schoonmakers zijn al uren met warm water en borstels in de weer. “Het is vrij hardnekkig. De steensoort is poreus en de rode verf heeft een heel sterk pigment. En het is ook nog eens rood op wit”, zegt een medewerker tegen het NOS Radio 1 Journaal.
Bij het monument worden vanavond kransen gelegd om oorlogsslachtoffers te herdenken. Daarbij zijn ook altijd de koning en koningin aanwezig. Om 20.00 uur is het 2 minuten stil.
Eerder beklad
Bekladdingen met rode verf vinden de afgelopen jaren vaker plaats. Het Nationaal Monument op de Dam werd vorig jaar ook al eens beklad tijdens een grote pro-Palestijnse demonstratie in augustus.
Ook andere bekende gebouwen en monumenten in Amsterdam werden eerder beklad, waaronder het Paleis op de Dam, het Rijksmuseum en andere musea in de stad.
‘Dit om de hypocrisie van de herdenkingsdag op 4 mei aan de kaak te stellen, waar de slachtoffers van de Holocaust en de Tweede Wereldoorlog worden herdacht, maar de stilte over de voortdurende genocide oorverdovend is. Later vandaag zullen de koning en de premier bloemen leggen bij het monument, terwijl het bloed van Palestijnen, Libanezen en Iraniërs aan hun handen kleeft.’
HET PAROOL
Nationaal Monument op de Dam weer schoon na bekladding, politie zoekt drie verdachten
Het Nationaal Monument op de Dam is in de nacht van zondag op maandag beklad met rode verf en de tekst ‘genocide’. Burgemeester Femke Halsema noemt de bekladding ‘een ongelooflijk laffe daad’. De politie is op zoek naar drie verdachten.
De bekladding gebeurde rond 04.30 uur. Een ANP-verslaggever liet maandagmiddag om 14.15 uur weten dat het monument weer schoon is.
De politie doet onderzoek en is op zoek naar drie verdachten die na de bekladding op de fiets richting de Nes zouden zijn gevlucht. Ze droegen regenkleding en hadden een witte tas bij zich. Er wordt niet uitgesloten dat er meer mensen bij betrokken waren. De politie roept getuigen op zich te melden. De gemeente doet aangifte van de bekladding, bevestigt een woordvoerder.
Nationale Dodenherdenking
Het is 4 mei, de dag van de Nationale Dodenherdenking. Om 20.00 uur wordt op de Dam, en in de rest van Nederland, twee minuten stilte gehouden ter nagedachtenis aan de slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en van oorlogssituaties en vredesoperaties daarna. Het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei wil niet inhoudelijk reageren op de actie.
Een gemeentewoordvoerder laat weten dat de politie rondom de dodenherdenking altijd extra surveilleert in dit gebied. “Helaas betekent dat niet dat daarmee dergelijke verwerpelijke acties altijd te voorkomen zijn.”
Bekladding opgeëist door Palestine Action Amsterdam
De actiegroep Palestine Action Amsterdam heeft een video naar Het Parool gestuurd waarop te zien is hoe een groepje mensen in het donker het monument op de Dam bekladt. In een mail aan de NOS, in bezit van Het Parool, eisen ze de actie op.
‘Dit om de hypocrisie van de herdenkingsdag op 4 mei aan de kaak te stellen, waar de slachtoffers van de Holocaust en de Tweede Wereldoorlog worden herdacht, maar de stilte over de voortdurende genocide oorverdovend is. Later vandaag zullen de koning en de premier bloemen leggen bij het monument, terwijl het bloed van Palestijnen, Libanezen en Iraniërs aan hun handen kleeft.’
‘Ongelooflijk laffe daad’
Burgemeester Femke Halsema noemt de bekladding ‘een ongelooflijk laffe daad’. ‘Dit is geen protest, maar vernielzucht en opzettelijke beschadiging van ons nationale monument. Het kwetst niet alleen nabestaanden van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar alle Nederlanders voor wie onze nationale herdenking belangrijk is,’ schrijft ze in een post op Instagram.
Ook minister-president Rob Jetten spreekt van ‘een idiote en volstrekt onacceptabele actie’. ‘Al helemaal vandaag, op 4 mei. Laten we vandaag eensgezind zijn en samen met respect stilstaan,’ schrijft de premier in een bericht op X.
Alternatieve herdenking
De meningen over de nationale dodenherdenking op de Dam lopen uiteen. Sommige mensen vinden dat er geen ruimte is voor het herdenken van alle slachtoffers van oorlogsgeweld.
Zo wordt er in Den Haag maandag voor de tweede keer een alternatieve herdenking georganiseerd. “Als je zegt: nooit meer, dan moet je ook de verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor die woorden,” zei organisator Tessa Terpstra eerder tegen Het Parool.
Afgelopen oktober werd het Koninklijk Paleis op de Dam beklad met rode verf en de leus ‘Fuck Israël’. Die actie werd opgeëist door de groepering Palestine Action NL. In augustus vorig jaar werd het Nationaal Monument op de Dam beklad met graffiti, met de tekst: ‘Never again is now’.
BRIDGERTON/VIOLET’S DESTRUCTIVE ROLE IN THE BREAK-UP OF ANTHONY AND SIENA’S LOVE AFFAIR
[Maybe Violet really thought she was acting with the best intentions, but that’s not good enough.
At some point she must have seen the hurt expression on her son’s face, but she turned a blind eye to it, even when she could have known that his ”Affair” was far more than an ”infatuation” [45]
And besides:
At some point it is of no importance anymore, whether your intentions
are good or bad.
Inflicting severe pain on someone is still inflicting severe pain, whatever the intentions.]
Violet: “Are you actually returning to your bachelor lodgings in the city, or is there a certain soprano you intend to visit?”
LADY VIOLET TO HER SON ANTHONY
[1AA]
”Do not lecture me on my responsibilities! I have spent every waking hour of every day since my father died fulfilling those responsibilities. I have sacrificed EVERYTHING for this family! My youth, my desires, my… my very soul has been dedicated to ensuring the survival of the Bridgerton name!” [1A]
OUTBURST OF ANTHONY AGAINST HIS MOTHER VIOLET
[SEASON 2]
HALLO FOLKS,
How are you today, my loyal Readers [HAHAHA]
As you know, I already wrote a lot about Bridgerton [1] and I intend to write more.
And although I’m planning to write about Anthony Bridgerton’s emotional state [Season 1 and 2], the non existing ”Ghost of Edmund” [Season 2] and whether he forgave his mother Violet after her selective excuses in Season 2 [2],
it suddenly struck me that, although I mentioned her crucial role a lot in
other posts [3], I never dedicated a special piece about Lady Violet’s role in the heartbreaking end of the love affair between Anthony Bridgerton
and opera singer Siena Rosso.
And with my weakness for impossible love affairs it is high time to delve deeper into La Violet’s [destructive] role in the Siena Rosso
Affair………. [4]
Perhaps this is not my last Post about this
We’ll see…..
LET’S GO!
LADY VIOLET AND HER SON ANTHONY
THE SEEDS OF TRAUMA
To smart viewers of the Bridgerton series it is crystal clear, that the
completely poisoned and strained relationship between mother Violet
and son Anthony in Season 2, uttering in Anthony’s coldness against his mother [5] stems directly from Anthony’s heartbreak
over the break up with Siena Rosso and his mother’s destructive role [6]
But to be fair:
Their bad relationship didn’t start with the Siena Rosso Affair, but had its roots
in their shared, painful past, going back to the death of Anthony’s father Edmund.
LET’S GO
We see an 18 years old Anthony, watching his father die, causing a trauma and his [pregnant] mother
lost in sorrow, what makes him not only Head of the Family [because of his father’s death, meaning managing the whole Estate and being the
legal guardian of his 7 brothers and sisters and also his mother] [7], but
since his mother was initially drowned in her deep mourning, also
burdening with the care of his 7 brothers and sisters.
Moreover, as the legal guardian of the Family [including his mother], he had to choose, at the difficult birth of his sister Hyacinth [8], between the
life of his mother and his sister [luckily they both survived childbirth, while he ordered the doctor to save them both]
A heavy burden for an 18 year old…..
But you can imagine also Violet’s perspective, also watching her husband
[and Anthony’s father] die [whom she loved very much], pregnant, knowing her new baby will never see its father, struggling through a
dangerous childbirth and forced to leave the decision over her future
[whether she or her baby must be saved, if a medical
choice has to be made about which of the two should stay alive] into the hands of her 18 years son, whom she
doubtless doesn’t want to burden with something he doesn’t understand at all!
MOTHER AND SON/VISCOUNT AND DOWAGER VISCOUNTESS
The death trauma [since both watched father and husband die]
and the Childbirth trauma [see above] are only the Beginning.
More to come:, which is particularly a burden for the 18 years old
Anthony.
Not yet recovered from the shock of his father’s sudden death
and having faced his mother near death during childbirth, it is
not an exaggeration to say that his carefree youth is over.
Normally you get some support and warmth from your mother,
but not in Anthony’s case.
That’s not completely Violet’s fault.
In the first period after her husband’s death she is so consumed
with grief, that she is incapable to do anything.
However understandable the deep mourning of Violet, that’s a heavy burden for young Anthony,
who not only becomes the new Viscount and the legal Head
of the Family, what makes him responsible for his mother
and his 7 brothers and sisters.
And of course he has to manage the whole Estate and has the duty to marry his off sisters. [9]
And on top of that, he had to take care for his 7 brothers and
sisters, a task that normally his mother had to perform.
REPEATING:
So in the initial period Anthony not only had to do his legal
obligations, a heavy burden on an inexperienced young man
of 18 years, but also to fulfil his mother’s care for his brothers and
sisters.
In modern terms we call that
Parentification [10]
You’d think his mother would have appreciated his efforts and showed it,
but that was not the case.
Not only she was too much drown in her own continuing grief,
that she took everything he did for granted, in most
cases she was cold, heartless and demanding to him, while
tender to her other children, especially her eldest daughter Daphne.
Definitely not out of lack of love [she loved him deeply in her heart],
but due to her unresolved grief, social panic [I come to that],
her new position as a widow [Dowager Viscountess] and yet another, strange factor.
For a strong willed woman like Violet it wasn’t easy to accept that
her own child was now her legal Head and she was ”reduced” to Dowager
Viscountess.
So the system [an 18 year old son being his mother’s legal head and bearing such a huge responsibility], the unresolved grief of mother
Violet and her inability to comfort her also grieving son and the fact, that in Regency Era a slightest mistake could lead to social death [11],
produced a very toxic Mother-Son relationship, since they also were
Viscount and Dowager Viscountess.
And although Violet wanted her son to be a ”strong leader” [easier
for her to remain mourning or hiding behind her mourning role when it fitted her. as became clear], she treated him as a 12 years old boy, often
scolding him as if he were little….
GROWING TENSIONS
Violet not only showed little or no appreciation for all the work Anthony did to hold the Estate in good order, she had no eye at all for his personal
needs and desires and didn’t seem to understand, that an already burdened young man [at the age of 18 years] needs to make some pleasure
too.
So she constantly reminded him of his duties, and not only that:
She continually blackmailed him emotionally with his father,
pointing out that his father did things so much better [yes, it is strange:
he had a yearlong experience] and as nothing helped anymore, she
blackmailed him with the ”marriage prospects” of his sisters….[12]
SIENA ROSSO
With a dysfunctional, toxic and strained relationship you’d think it
couldn’t get any worse.
BUT IT CAN!
IN FACT:
What happened next is nearly the breaking point in the relationship
between Anthony and his mother.
Had she pushed a little harder [for example by chasing Siena
out of the town], had Anthony possessed more of his sister Eloise’s rebellious character [13] it would have resulted in a break…..
At a certain point, Anthony fell desperately in love with opera singer Siena Rosso [14].
And I say ”desperately”, because a possible marriage with an opera singer
was a no go in Regency Era, leading to immediate social death
to the whole Bridgerton Family, especially because Anthony was the
Head of the Family [15]
And Violet discovered that [16]
And what is her reaction?
PURE HORROR!
Look, I can understand her social panic, since a deep
involvement and certainly a marriage between an aristocrat and
an opera singer will inevitably lead to social ruin, not only for
Anthony, but for the whole Bridgerton Family.
So her FEAR of social death or ruin is justified.
But that is not my point.
DEHUMANIZATION
My point is Violet’s total lack of motherly care and her nearly
inhuman approach of the situation.
In factm speaking about Siena Rosso she acts as if she is not
a human being, but just a ”threat” that must be eliminated.
When she first confronts Anthony about Siena’s existence
in his life, she refers to ”a certain soprano”[18], so reducing
the living woman to her occupation, which is worse
because not seeing her as a human being, but also
opera singers were not considered ”immoral women” [19]
Now if you only think so, that’s your business.
[I think it was a combination of fear of social death and personal
disapproval of her and her occupation, not worth a Viscount.]
But to speak to your son about the woman he has an affair with like this
and not realizing [even when it was not love, it was painful to hear] how
it hurts him I think it’s unforgivable
And from that moment, she lost no opportunity to remind him
of his duties., with the usual emotional blackmail with his dead father, working on his feelings of guilt.
Apparently it didn’t cross her mind, that it could be love and she
not only emotionally blackmailed him, she dismissed his love for Siena as a mere ”infatuation” or something to be ashamed of. [19A]
That was the more painful since his sister Daphne was also deeply
in love with his best friend Simon Basset, but was allowed to marry for love, since Simon came from the same social standing, being a Duke [20]
So of course his resentment against his mother grew and certainly
he didn’t trust her supposedly conditional love [in reality she loved him
, but understandably Anthony didn’t see it that way, because she didn’t show it at all] [21]
There were three occasions on which she clearly showed her heartlessness
IN HIS OFFICE ”A CERTAIN SOPRANO”
The first time Violet confronts Anthony she [firstly talking about
other things] says literally
Are you actually returning to your bachelor lodgings in the city, or is there a certain soprano you intend to visit?”
”
Whether she then realizes, that Anthony has serious feelings for Siena [ she does realize it latr [23] is not important here.
She knows that what she says is hurtful, because she deliberately
demonizes her by refusing to mention her name.
And again:
It’s unforgivable to hurt your son like that for there are a thousand ways
to say that you find an affair unfitting without deliberately inflicting pain.
That’s what I so dislike about Violet’s attitude, making her ”pleas for love” in Season 2 so hypocritical [24], especially since in Season 1 she constantly
annoyed Anthony with her obsession with ”duty” and his ”dead father”……
AT A SOCIETY EVENT ”NEEDLEWORK”
And of course Violet tried it again [that woman never stops!]
At a Society Event, where Siena was asked to sing, Anthony stared
longingly and emotionally at her.
Violet saw him staring and probably realizing that it was
not an ”infatuation”, but something much deeper and that her sabotage tactic didn’t work [after the
”certain soprano” incident Anthony broke up with Siena but
they came together again/It was an on/off relationship, but longstanding],
she ”presented” to him two of the most silly marriage candidates, which he, of course, rejected! [25]
A Hilarious Scene.
One of the ”marriage candidates” was praised by Violet for her needlework!
Watch under note 26
And Violet wouldn”t be Violet if she hadn’t had the last word:
This was what she said [Admittedly, in a worried and sad tone:
”You’ll end up alone, with such expectations” [27]
[Anthony had presented to her rather impossible demands
for a marriage candidate, because he couldn’t tell her what she
already knew: that his heart was occupied elsewhere already….] [28]
AGAIN IN HIS OFFICE/ONE OF THOSE CONFRONTATIONS
Since Violet is a woman who keeps pushing, here is one of her
confrontations again.
At another occasion she approaches Anthony again about his
”passions” or ”distractions” [or whatever she calls it] , blackmails him again with his dead fathers, mentions [not totally unjustified] the
marriage prospects of his sisters [29] and of course there is that
demonization again, mentioning his love affair as if it were something
sordid….[30]
EMOTIONAL GAP BETWEEN MOTHER AND SON/
THE DUEL
To illustrate how wide the emotional gap between mother and son was
I will tell the following:
After the duel with his best friend Simon Basset for the honor of his sister Daphne [31][that never was thanks to Daphne”s intervention [32], Anthony comes home.
and when he enters the
living room his mother hardly looks at him and begins nagging and chattering
about the lace for Daphne’s wedding dress, not even knowing how
near to death her son had been. [33]
Should she have paid any attention to him instead of meaningless chattering
about a wedding dress ”approved by the Ton” [34], she would have seen
the state of mind he was in.
Now he had to cope with his emotional loneliness, desperate love and emotional neglect by his mother, who didn’t even realize or know that she could have received a message of his death without even knowing that he was going to duel, something Siena did know. [35]
In those times, Siena’s house was home to him, not the House where
his mother lived.
Siena’s House meant warmth, love and an Open Hearth, Violet’s Place [which was his
house of course] meant coldness, rejection and heartlessness, despite
her undeniable love for him. [36]
That was the most tragic of all……
AT LAST
I’VE SACRIFIED EVERYTHING
”Do not lecture me on my responsibilities! I have spent every waking hour of every day since my father died fulfilling those responsibilities. I have sacrificed EVERYTHING for this family! My youth, my desires, my… my very soul has been dedicated to ensuring the survival of the Bridgerton name!” [37]
OUTBURST OF ANTHONY AGAINST HIS MOTHER VIOLET
[SEASON 2]
The Outburst ”I’VE SACRIFICED EVERYTHING” against Violet
in Season 2 is the result of Violet’s yearlong emotional neglect and nagging about ”duties” and especially her emotional sabotage which costed him dearly:
His love for Siena [38], which was an enormous blow.
The attitude of his mother was cold and heartless and the only person
who really comforted him was his close friend Simon, now Daphne’s husband. [39]
The Outburst ”ÉVERYTHING” referred to the heartbreak over Siena…..[40]
THE SEED AND THE HARVEST/CONCLUSION
Some people may defend Violet and say that she had no choice
with her hard stance in the Siena Rosso Affair, because of the real threat of social exclusion, leading to social death [41]
Others will say that she acted with the best intentions.
TWO THINGS
FIRST
Although her fear of social death was real [42], there is a difference between
not wishing someone in your or your son’s life and downright dehumanization and making your son feel that he must be ashamed of his feelings [43]
The things Violet said about Siena Rosso were dehumanizing, hateful and mean [44]
And the worst part was, that she didn’t seem to care or realize how much she was hurting her son.
And neither fear of social exclusion nor unresolved grief was an excuse for that!
SECOND
Maybe Violet really thought she was acting with the best intentions, but that’s not good enough.
At some point she must have seen the hurt expression on her son’s face, but she turned a blind eye to it, even when she could have known that his ”Affair” was far more than an ”infatuation” [45]
And besides:
At some point it is of no importance anymore, whether your intentions
are good or bad.
Inflicting severe pain on someone is still inflicting severe pain, whatever the intentions.
And besides:
Did she ever think of alternatives, such as getting married and leaving the country?
Then Benedict could fulfill Anthony’s tasks.
It is just a thought, but she should have thought ”out of the box”
If for no other reason than that there is more to life than a family name, no matter how important, like your child’s happiness.
But I suspect she didn’t even consider it, because she felt he had to sacrifice himself for the greater good, leaving him alone in his heartbreak
HOWEVER:
She paid the price by watching his cold behaviour towards her in Season 2,
a price she had to pay, saving the Viscount and almost losing her son
I wonder if he really forgave her in Season 2, since her excuses were selective [46]
The Dehumanization: By not mentioning her by name (“a certain soprano”), Violet turned Siena into an object, a scandal, rather than the woman her son loved.
VIOLET’S DESTRUCTIVE ROLE IN THE BREAK-UP OF ANTHONY AND SIENA’S LOVE AFFAIR
[Maybe Violet really thought she was acting with the best intentions, but that’s not good enough.
At some point she must have seen the hurt expression on her son’s face, but she turned a blind eye to it, even when she could have known that his ”Affair” was far more than an ”infatuation” [45]
And besides:
At some point it is of no importance anymore, whether your intentions
are good or bad.
Inflicting severe pain on someone is still inflicting severe pain, whatever the intentions.]
Violet: “Are you actually returning to your bachelor lodgings in the city, or is there a certain soprano you intend to visit?”
LADY VIOLET TO HER SON ANTHONY
[1AA]
”Do not lecture me on my responsibilities! I have spent every waking hour of every day since my father died fulfilling those responsibilities. I have sacrificed EVERYTHING for this family! My youth, my desires, my… my very soul has been dedicated to ensuring the survival of the Bridgerton name!” [1A]
OUTBURST OF ANTHONY AGAINST HIS MOTHER VIOLET
[SEASON 2]
HALLO FOLKS,
How are you today, my loyal Readers [HAHAHA]
As you know, I already wrote a lot about Bridgerton [1] and I intend to write more.
And although I’m planning to write about Anthony Bridgerton’s emotional state [Season 1 and 2], the non existing ”Ghost of Edmund” [Season 2] and whether he forgave his mother Violet after her selective excuses in Season 2 [2],
it suddenly struck me that, although I mentioned her crucial role a lot in
other posts [3], I never dedicated a special piece about Lady Violet’s role in the heartbreaking end of the love affair between Anthony Bridgerton
and opera singer Siena Rosso.
And with my weakness for impossible love affairs it is high time to delve deeper into La Violet’s [destructive] role in the Siena Rosso
Affair………. [4]
Perhaps this is not my last Post about this
We’ll see…..
LET’S GO!
LADY VIOLET AND HER SON ANTHONY
THE SEEDS OF TRAUMA
To smart viewers of the Bridgerton series it is crystal clear, that the
completely poisoned and strained relationship between mother Violet
and son Anthony in Season 2, uttering in Anthony’s coldness against his mother [5] stems directly from Anthony’s heartbreak
over the break up with Siena Rosso and his mother’s destructive role [6]
But to be fair:
Their bad relationship didn’t start with the Siena Rosso Affair, but had its roots
in their shared, painful past, going back to the death of Anthony’s father Edmund.
LET’S GO
We see an 18 years old Anthony, watching his father die, causing a trauma and his [pregnant] mother
lost in sorrow, what makes him not only Head of the Family [because of his father’s death, meaning managing the whole Estate and being the
legal guardian of his 7 brothers and sisters and also his mother] [7], but
since his mother was initially drowned in her deep mourning, also
burdening with the care of his 7 brothers and sisters.
Moreover, as the legal guardian of the Family [including his mother], he had to choose, at the difficult birth of his sister Hyacinth [8], between the
life of his mother and his sister [luckily they both survived childbirth, while he ordered the doctor to save them both]
A heavy burden for an 18 year old…..
But you can imagine also Violet’s perspective, also watching her husband
[and Anthony’s father] die [whom she loved very much], pregnant, knowing her new baby will never see its father, struggling through a
dangerous childbirth and forced to leave the decision over her future
[whether she or her baby must be saved, if a medical
choice has to be made about which of the two should stay alive] into the hands of her 18 years son, whom she
doubtless doesn’t want to burden with something he doesn’t understand at all!
MOTHER AND SON/VISCOUNT AND DOWAGER VISCOUNTESS
The death trauma [since both watched father and husband die]
and the Childbirth trauma [see above] are only the Beginning.
More to come:, which is particularly a burden for the 18 years old
Anthony.
Not yet recovered from the shock of his father’s sudden death
and having faced his mother near death during childbirth, it is
not an exaggeration to say that his carefree youth is over.
Normally you get some support and warmth from your mother,
but not in Anthony’s case.
That’s not completely Violet’s fault.
In the first period after her husband’s death she is so consumed
with grief, that she is incapable to do anything.
However understandable the deep mourning of Violet, that’s a heavy burden for young Anthony,
who not only becomes the new Viscount and the legal Head
of the Family, what makes him responsible for his mother
and his 7 brothers and sisters.
And of course he has to manage the whole Estate and has the duty to marry his off sisters. [9]
And on top of that, he had to take care for his 7 brothers and
sisters, a task that normally his mother had to perform.
REPEATING:
So in the initial period Anthony not only had to do his legal
obligations, a heavy burden on an inexperienced young man
of 18 years, but also to fulfil his mother’s care for his brothers and
sisters.
In modern terms we call that
Parentification [10]
You’d think his mother would have appreciated his efforts and showed it,
but that was not the case.
Not only she was too much drown in her own continuing grief,
that she took everything he did for granted, in most
cases she was cold, heartless and demanding to him, while
tender to her other children, especially her eldest daughter Daphne.
Definitely not out of lack of love [she loved him deeply in her heart],
but due to her unresolved grief, social panic [I come to that],
her new position as a widow [Dowager Viscountess] and yet another, strange factor.
For a strong willed woman like Violet it wasn’t easy to accept that
her own child was now her legal Head and she was ”reduced” to Dowager
Viscountess.
So the system [an 18 year old son being his mother’s legal head and bearing such a huge responsibility], the unresolved grief of mother
Violet and her inability to comfort her also grieving son and the fact, that in Regency Era a slightest mistake could lead to social death [11],
produced a very toxic Mother-Son relationship, since they also were
Viscount and Dowager Viscountess.
And although Violet wanted her son to be a ”strong leader” [easier
for her to remain mourning or hiding behind her mourning role when it fitted her. as became clear], she treated him as a 12 years old boy, often
scolding him as if he were little….
GROWING TENSIONS
Violet not only showed little or no appreciation for all the work Anthony did to hold the Estate in good order, she had no eye at all for his personal
needs and desires and didn’t seem to understand, that an already burdened young man [at the age of 18 years] needs to make some pleasure
too.
So she constantly reminded him of his duties, and not only that:
She continually blackmailed him emotionally with his father,
pointing out that his father did things so much better [yes, it is strange:
he had a yearlong experience] and as nothing helped anymore, she
blackmailed him with the ”marriage prospects” of his sisters….[12]
SIENA ROSSO
With a dysfunctional, toxic and strained relationship you’d think it
couldn’t get any worse.
BUT IT CAN!
IN FACT:
What happened next is nearly the breaking point in the relationship
between Anthony and his mother.
Had she pushed a little harder [for example by chasing Siena
out of the town], had Anthony possessed more of his sister Eloise’s rebellious character [13] it would have resulted in a break…..
At a certain point, Anthony fell desperately in love with opera singer Siena Rosso [14].
And I say ”desperately”, because a possible marriage with an opera singer
was a no go in Regency Era, leading to immediate social death
to the whole Bridgerton Family, especially because Anthony was the
Head of the Family [15]
And Violet discovered that [16]
And what is her reaction?
PURE HORROR!
Look, I can understand her social panic, since a deep
involvement and certainly a marriage between an aristocrat and
an opera singer will inevitably lead to social ruin, not only for
Anthony, but for the whole Bridgerton Family.
So her FEAR of social death or ruin is justified.
But that is not my point.
DEHUMANIZATION
My point is Violet’s total lack of motherly care and her nearly
inhuman approach of the situation.
In factm speaking about Siena Rosso she acts as if she is not
a human being, but just a ”threat” that must be eliminated.
When she first confronts Anthony about Siena’s existence
in his life, she refers to ”a certain soprano”[18], so reducing
the living woman to her occupation, which is worse
because not seeing her as a human being, but also
opera singers were not considered ”immoral women” [19]
Now if you only think so, that’s your business.
[I think it was a combination of fear of social death and personal
disapproval of her and her occupation, not worth a Viscount.]
But to speak to your son about the woman he has an affair with like this
and not realizing [even when it was not love, it was painful to hear] how
it hurts him I think it’s unforgivable
And from that moment, she lost no opportunity to remind him
of his duties., with the usual emotional blackmail with his dead father, working on his feelings of guilt.
Apparently it didn’t cross her mind, that it could be love and she
not only emotionally blackmailed him, she dismissed his love for Siena as a mere ”infatuation” or something to be ashamed of. [19A]
That was the more painful since his sister Daphne was also deeply
in love with his best friend Simon Basset, but was allowed to marry for love, since Simon came from the same social standing, being a Duke [20]
So of course his resentment against his mother grew and certainly
he didn’t trust her supposedly conditional love [in reality she loved him
, but understandably Anthony didn’t see it that way, because she didn’t show it at all] [21]
There were three occasions on which she clearly showed her heartlessness
IN HIS OFFICE ”A CERTAIN SOPRANO”
The first time Violet confronts Anthony she [firstly talking about
other things] says literally
Are you actually returning to your bachelor lodgings in the city, or is there a certain soprano you intend to visit?”
”
Whether she then realizes, that Anthony has serious feelings for Siena [ she does realize it latr [23] is not important here.
She knows that what she says is hurtful, because she deliberately
demonizes her by refusing to mention her name.
And again:
It’s unforgivable to hurt your son like that for there are a thousand ways
to say that you find an affair unfitting without deliberately inflicting pain.
That’s what I so dislike about Violet’s attitude, making her ”pleas for love” in Season 2 so hypocritical [24], especially since in Season 1 she constantly
annoyed Anthony with her obsession with ”duty” and his ”dead father”……
AT A SOCIETY EVENT ”NEEDLEWORK”
And of course Violet tried it again [that woman never stops!]
At a Society Event, where Siena was asked to sing, Anthony stared
longingly and emotionally at her.
Violet saw him staring and probably realizing that it was
not an ”infatuation”, but something much deeper and that her sabotage tactic didn’t work [after the
”certain soprano” incident Anthony broke up with Siena but
they came together again/It was an on/off relationship, but longstanding],
she ”presented” to him two of the most silly marriage candidates, which he, of course, rejected! [25]
A Hilarious Scene.
One of the ”marriage candidates” was praised by Violet for her needlework!
Watch under note 26
And Violet wouldn”t be Violet if she hadn’t had the last word:
This was what she said [Admittedly, in a worried and sad tone:
”You’ll end up alone, with such expectations” [27]
[Anthony had presented to her rather impossible demands
for a marriage candidate, because he couldn’t tell her what she
already knew: that his heart was occupied elsewhere already….] [28]
AGAIN IN HIS OFFICE/ONE OF THOSE CONFRONTATIONS
Since Violet is a woman who keeps pushing, here is one of her
confrontations again.
At another occasion she approaches Anthony again about his
”passions” or ”distractions” [or whatever she calls it] , blackmails him again with his dead fathers, mentions [not totally unjustified] the
marriage prospects of his sisters [29] and of course there is that
demonization again, mentioning his love affair as if it were something
sordid….[30]
EMOTIONAL GAP BETWEEN MOTHER AND SON/
THE DUEL
To illustrate how wide the emotional gap between mother and son was
I will tell the following:
After the duel with his best friend Simon Basset for the honor of his sister Daphne [31][that never was thanks to Daphne”s intervention [32], Anthony comes home.
and when he enters the
living room his mother hardly looks at him and begins nagging and chattering
about the lace for Daphne’s wedding dress, not even knowing how
near to death her son had been. [33]
Should she have paid any attention to him instead of meaningless chattering
about a wedding dress ”approved by the Ton” [34], she would have seen
the state of mind he was in.
Now he had to cope with his emotional loneliness, desperate love and emotional neglect by his mother, who didn’t even realize or know that she could have received a message of his death without even knowing that he was going to duel, something Siena did know. [35]
In those times, Siena’s house was home to him, not the House where
his mother lived.
Siena’s House meant warmth, love and an Open Hearth, Violet’s Place [which was his
house of course] meant coldness, rejection and heartlessness, despite
her undeniable love for him. [36]
That was the most tragic of all……
AT LAST
I’VE SACRIFIED EVERYTHING
”Do not lecture me on my responsibilities! I have spent every waking hour of every day since my father died fulfilling those responsibilities. I have sacrificed EVERYTHING for this family! My youth, my desires, my… my very soul has been dedicated to ensuring the survival of the Bridgerton name!” [37]
OUTBURST OF ANTHONY AGAINST HIS MOTHER VIOLET
[SEASON 2]
The Outburst ”I’VE SACRIFICED EVERYTHING” against Violet
in Season 2 is the result of Violet’s yearlong emotional neglect and nagging about ”duties” and especially her emotional sabotage which costed him dearly:
His love for Siena [38], which was an enormous blow.
The attitude of his mother was cold and heartless and the only person
who really comforted him was his close friend Simon, now Daphne’s husband. [39]
The Outburst ”ÉVERYTHING” referred to the heartbreak over Siena…..[40]
THE SEED AND THE HARVEST/CONCLUSION
Some people may defend Violet and say that she had no choice
with her hard stance in the Siena Rosso Affair, because of the real threat of social exclusion, leading to social death [41]
Others will say that she acted with the best intentions.
TWO THINGS
FIRST
Although her fear of social death was real [42], there is a difference between
not wishing someone in your or your son’s life and downright dehumanization and making your son feel that he must be ashamed of his feelings [43]
The things Violet said about Siena Rosso were dehumanizing, hateful and mean [44]
And the worst part was, that she didn’t seem to care or realize how much she was hurting her son.
And neither fear of social exclusion nor unresolved grief was an excuse for that!
SECOND
Maybe Violet really thought she was acting with the best intentions, but that’s not good enough.
At some point she must have seen the hurt expression on her son’s face, but she turned a blind eye to it, even when she could have known that his ”Affair” was far more than an ”infatuation” [45]
And besides:
At some point it is of no importance anymore, whether your intentions
are good or bad.
Inflicting severe pain on someone is still inflicting severe pain, whatever the intentions.
And besides:
Did she ever think of alternatives, such as getting married and leaving the country?
Then Benedict could fulfill Anthony’s tasks.
It is just a thought, but she should have thought ”out of the box”
If for no other reason than that there is more to life than a family name, no matter how important, like your child’s happiness.
But I suspect she didn’t even consider it, because she felt he had to sacrifice himself for the greater good, leaving him alone in his heartbreak
HOWEVER:
She paid the price by watching his cold behaviour towards her in Season 2,
a price she had to pay, saving the Viscount and almost losing her son
I wonder if he really forgave her in Season 2, since her excuses were selective [46]
The Dehumanization: By not mentioning her by name (“a certain soprano”), Violet turned Siena into an object, a scandal, rather than the woman her son loved.
The Paradox of Violet Bridgerton’s Selective Apologies
“In the rigid hierarchy of the Regency Era, a parent offering an apology to a child was a revolutionary act. However, as seen in the complex relationship between Lady Violet and Anthony Bridgerton, these apologies are often profoundly selective.
While Violet eventually apologizes for her passive failures—her emotional absence following her husband’s death—she remains pointedly silent regarding her active destruction of Anthony’s happiness. By dehumanizing Siena Rosso as ‘a certain soprano’ and forcing Anthony to choose between his heart and his family name, she inflicted a trauma that an apology for ‘not being there’ cannot heal.
Anthony’s formal and cold acceptance of her words—notably his dismissive ’the past is the past’—reveals that true forgiveness is absent. Because Violet refuses to acknowledge the specific cruelty of her class-based interference, the emotional bridge between mother and son remains broken. Her ‘revolution’ of the heart is incomplete, proving that an apology without full accountability is merely a way to maintain social decorum rather than achieve genuine reconciliation.
[THOSE ARE NOT THE COMPLETE AND LITERATE VIOLET EXCUSES, BUT AN
EXCERPT OF THEM/AND WATCH ANTHONY’S RESERVED REACTION ON
THEM]
Violet: “Anthony… I am so sorry. For everything. That I was not there for you when you needed me most. That I allowed you to carry this heavy burden all alone.”
Anthony: (After a long silence, standing stiffly) “It is not necessary, Mother. You have no need to apologize.”
Violet: “But I do. I see now what it has cost you.”
Anthony: (Coldly and formally) “You did what you could in an impossible time. The past is the past. Let us speak no more of it. The family is safe, and that is what matters.”
””I am so sorry it was you who was with your father that day. And I am sorry for everything that happened in the days that followed. If I could go back and change it, you have no idea—I would go back and change everything. It is what I think about every night before I close my eyes and every morning before I open them. It will never go away.”
