Mailyn

She has definitely started to show her age - compared to when she appeared in The Double.

Compared to most emperors he gets out and about quite often.

I get what you mean about the other two dramas but it depends on whether you are using 'dumb' to mean stupid (which she clearly is not) or extremely foolhardy (which she clearly is - sometimes annoyingly so). As for not liking the 'having to be saved' trope - that is just your choice when it comes to your own viewing pleasure (sometimes it annoys me, too) and is irrelevant to whether or not she is stupid or reckless. P.S. As I explain to my grandchildren, there is a vast difference between someone who is actually stupid and someone who can do stupid things because the feeling of intense emotion physically prevents logical thought in neuro-typical humans.

Well, to be fair, when I went back to look for it in my history, I could not find it - but that means nothing. I just found this but it was not the one I saw earlier:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Betrothal%20to%20a%20Kingdom%20episode%2017%20trailer&view=detail&mi

Many thanks. I shall have to go back and have a look at the 'shoulder' scene, too. (I usually skip the intro.)

She is not 'dumb' at all but rather intelligent. She just has issues which make her reckless. Being kidnapped, forced into a life of slavery and criminal behaviour, being tortured, etc., will do that to anybody. She may not know martial arts but she is an extremely strong willed person. If you don't watch it purely because she has no martial skills, I think you'll be missing out on a good drama. There was a time when the FL was always a damsel in distress. Now many people expect every FL to be a badass fighter. Yes, she needs rescuing quite often but not because she is a typical 'damsel' as was once depicted in older dramas.

redd1469: I take it that you have read the novel? I have seen a couple of posts referring to her identity as a princess but wondered how they knew.

I just put in the title "..." and "episode 17-8 trailer" in the search bar (Edge) and it came up on You tube.

Bunnycaamp: Could you please mark your post as a spoiler, please?

How do you know? Do they all have to be the same? This is a drama and is not even based on fact so dropping it because you don't like it is understandable but because he allowed someone to be familiar? Just out of interest - which episode and scene was it in particular - I would like to have a look?

Bixia was just one word meaning 'Your / His Majesty'. In the Song Dynasty, the emperor was often addressed as Guanjia 官家 'Official House' or 'Imperial Household'. Shengshang 聖上, 'Holy Highness', was used in the Tang Dynasty to address the emperor but later became a title just for use in documents. Note these are forms of address. They do not mean emperor which is Huangdi 皇帝 (amongst others).

I'm all for strangling wicked sisters (and all that)! Very up close and personal :)

Fair enough. One can see as the drama goes on that he does not feel that he has to be in charge of her and he does repect her choices (ahem...in most areas) but that is irrelevant. You know what you will and won't watch.

WM@ If you intend to drop it after ep. 2, how can you say with certainty that he is as you say he is with regards to the FL (unless there is a novel and you have read it)?

Stardust: Not having 'this' kind of relationship is irrelevant. Even if they were, a woman (or a man) can not be called selfish for refusing to have sex. But, yes. I get your point. (Did you note that the poster was a man?)

My rhetorical question was not stupid but valid. I was showing that your example led to an absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum). In reply to YOUR rhetorical question, I was proving that A is true but B is false. My counterexample only needs to show that A does not always imply B. That is, Your claim: If A (willingness to die), then B (romance) is absurd and a non-sequitur.
Your claim that my analogy was stupid (and therefore false) is called 'moving goalposts'. When shown a counterexample, you rejected it because it was not the same relationship type. You 'dodged' my logic by focussing on irrelevant specifics. A counterexample does not need to be identical — it only needs to break the claimed rule. You are confusing 'counterexample to a general rule' with 'parallel example of the same situation'.
Thirdly, your initial assumption was an example of confirmation bias.

Really Gig 911? How like a male to find this selfish!

So, Gig911. If I am prepared to die for my children, should I 'sleep' with them first?

Must you appear everywhere to dish out your usual crap, Badger INFREMO? If you found it unwatchable it would be because, duh, I don't know, YOU didn't like it. That does not make it trash. (That would be like me calling the Mona Lisa 'Trash' just because I can't see the appeal.) Just how many brain cells do you have? Do you LIKE anything that you watch?

I may give it up too, but anyway, in my opinion the two leads deserve each other and I don't quite mean that kindly.