I hope my argumentative tone doesn't seem like I'm bashing our fabulous monitor here (especially when she's been sick!
)... (I really do appreciate all the time you took to view those episodes, Midnite ... hopefully you're much better now.
)
Nevertheless, I'll proceed with my contrariness ...
But first, I have an accurate quote that I'm afraid I only paraphrased earlier -- I enclosed it in quotes because I
thought it was verbatim, but I re-watched the scene and found I had one word wrong. Anyway, here's the entire quote of what Angelique says:
"Shortly after the trial of Judah Zachary in 1692, I was given safe conduct out of the country, and Judah was beheaded."
BTW, in the same paragraph, I meant to say "1792", not "1692."
... suggests to me that soon after leaving the country Angelique either made a pact with the devil who granted her eternal life, or, better -- as some later 1840 dialogue suggests, she may already have learned the secrets of eternal existence -- or was able to deduce them -- from the occult knowledge she had learned from Judah Zachary.
But Angelique died in 1796. She had powers, yes, but was mortal.
Hmmm, you have a point there. But to continue in my argumentative mode ... Angelique
did resurrect fairly soon after her 1795 death (in the courtroom scene to testify against Victoria Winters), so I'm not so sure that she wasn't immortal to start with. True, she
seemed to die when Barnabas strangled her in the tomb ... but that just makes us
think she's finished/defeated/dead. She doesn't die and come back as a ghost, which is what we'd expect to happen if she were an ordinary mortal -- instead, she re-appears in a corporeal, yet supernatural, form. This suggests to me that she may have been immortal all along, or at least was in some state where she was primed to pop back from the dead contrary to the ordinary laws of physics ...
I thought you'd read Warren Oddsson's essay.
Sorry, I don't understand what this means. I'm not familiar with the essay you mention ...
Hmmm, how am I to interpret that last (visual) comment? I have had a feeling from comments made by various posters that many viewers go with the earlier version of Angelique (1795) because they like that storyline better. It seems a number of people (a majority?) don't like 1840's revisionism, so they choose to reject it.
For the sake of consistency, though, should we not have some sort of rule of thumb for how we choose between two conflicting versions of events -- something that happens throughout the series as writers change and modify "facts" that we were previously given. I would propose that we are meant to accept the most recent version -- whether we like that version or not -- whether it's who built Collinwood in what year, who married or did not marry Josette, what Victoria Winters' fate was, etc.