I'm sorry you've been sick with the flu, Midnite. Hope you feel better soon.
..............
I have to say that I'm baffled by the majority of the references you've painstakingly detailed. I've seen/heard all of these scenes in two viewings now, and except for the "uninteresting child" quote (which I've discussed), I don't see how the other references would lead viewers to conclude that Angelique
grew up with Josette from childhood. That thought never occurred to me in my two viewings of the 1795 storyline.
Could the difference in our interpretations be influenced perhaps by exposure to outside information, i.e. forum discussions, fan fiction, etc.? To me most of the things you quote suggest that Angelique had been in service to the DuPres family for an unspecified amount of time -- perhaps a couple of years -- enough time to know Josette's wardrobe, beaux, etc., and time enough for them to form a bond (albeit a deceitful one on Angelique's part). All of that could conceivably have occurred in less than a year's time (I'm reminded of a true story of a female scam artist I saw on "Unsolved Mysteries," who managed to gain the confidence and intimate trust of other women in an amazingly short period of time, then promptly split with their bank accounts, jewels, etc. The victims all said they felt this woman was the closest person in their lives, etc., and all this usually happened within 6 mos.!)
Since Angelique's tearful, on-her-knees "performance" for the Rev. Trask contradicts even Countess du Pres' remarks concerning Angelique's mother, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in what Angelique tells him. Her whole performance is a lie, and her presentation of herself as possibly an orphan (which is where I assume that you are getting that idea) seems more like a bid to elicit a sympathetic reaction from Trask than a factual recounting of her autobiography.
Neither Countess du Pres nor anyone else says that Angelique was an orphan when she was hired into the DuPres household. Entering into service with a family at a young age does not imply that she was an orphaned child. Plenty of families in European and American history have sent their children to work.
In Thursday's episode, Angelique told her gypsy servant that immediately after testifying against Judah Zachary, she had been granted "safe passage out of the country." I think we are to see Miranda in 1692 as a fairly young girl, a teenager. Leaving the American colonies as a young girl in 1692 and next appearing as a young girl in Martinique in the 1790s 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. I find it tempting to think that Angelique joined the Du Pres household exactly 100 years after she left Maine, i.e. in 1692, appearing the same age as she did when she had gained the secret of eternal life ... let's say she was 17, for the sake of argument. At that point she may somehow have gracefully aged naturally during her say, three years of service with the family, to her present young womanhood. Speculation? Interpretation? Maybe ... but so are the scenarios set forth by Ms. Resch and Ms. Robin, et al. My version would fit the facts as well as other interpretations, but have the advantage of harmonizing the 1840 storyline which other interpreations conveniently ignore.
An earlier poster didn't seem to understand why I would lend more weight to this later storyline's version of events, and I don't know what more to say without repeating myself. The DS storylines progressed and changed, and when one version of events is later substituted for an earlier version (think of the early Collins ancestors and history referred to in the first few months of the series that we clearly must "forget" later) I think we're meant to accept the later version.
Since so many people are willing to accept fan fiction, statements in interviews, skits, and novels written decades after the show, I don't understand the problem with going back to the show itself to see how the writers at the time either resolved things or the state of events that they finally left us with on the show itself. What I don't understand is the vast majority of fandom (at least those expressing themselves on this forum) just ignoring what we're told in 1840. It's as if 1840, clearly a major storyline within the series, holds no weight. Even the series writers Lara Parker consulted with (I don't have the book with me so I don't remember which ones she consulted) were seemed unaware of the 1840 storyline events. That's what I don't understand.
