The main problem with the "Phob is a walking red flag who doesn't deserve forgiveness" argument is that it applies 2026 morality to characters who didn't have the luxury of knowing how history turns out.
Take off the romance glasses for a second and look at this as a 1932 political thriller: we know the June Revolution is going to succeed. Phob has no idea.
From Phob's perspective, there are only two ways this ends:
The People's Party succeeds and overthrows absolute rule.
The plot is exposed, and everyone involved gets executed.
These aren't exaggerated stakes. Historically, crushed coups were met with severe state violence. (Fun historical fact: in real life, the revolutionaries had to strike on that exact date because Prince Paribatra already had a list of conspirators. Any further postponement wasn't just risky, it was a death sentence.)
Remember the 1912 Palace Revolt? If not, don't worry, I broke that down [here]. But it's an essential point of comparison: the organizers were never seen as people with "good intentions but flawed execution." They were viewed as flat-out traitors to the crown, and the state made an example out of them. Regardless of specific sentence differences, the takeaway for future revolutionaries was unmistakable: failure carries catastrophic personal risk. That exact precedent is what dictates Phob’s risk assessment in 1932.
And that, my friends, significantly changes the ethical math. If Phob decides to keep his hands off the data just to protect Tin's feelings, he isn't just choosing romance over politics. He’s actively choosing the collapse of the revolution, the mass arrest of his friends, his own execution, and the survival of a regime he literally loathes. Look, love is great, but abandoning the entire movement for a boy would turn his entire character arc into a joke. Whether you agree with his politics or not, Phob actually believes in the cause. Letting it all burn for a crush wouldn’t just be tragic, it would ruin the show's internal logic.
Instead of writing them off as a walking red flag, I looked at them as a funhouse mirror. In 1921, Tin is playing the martyr: "If I hurt Phob, he lives a better life." Flash forward to 1932, and Phob is repeating the script: "If I hurt Tin, millions might have a better future." Neither of them is choosing betrayal because the spark died. They’re doing it because their moral compasses are forcing them into a corner. It’s a tragic conflict masquerading as relationship drama.
Let’s fix our vocabulary here: a "red flag" is someone manipulating you for their own selfish gain. A tragic hero is someone breaking your heart because they genuinely believe a higher duty demands it. Those are not the same thing. One belongs on a toxic relationship subreddit; the other belongs in a Shakespeare play.
Can we please stop treating Tin like a clueless Himbo? The man isn't some oblivious aristocrat wandering blindly through history. His actual political views have been scattered throughout his dialogue since we met him in 1932. By Episode 5, he’s already connected Phob to Janthorn, clocked the revolutionary vibes, and he literally runs a major branch of the royal administration. Frankly, it would be an insult to his IQ if he didn't realize Phob was up to something shady. The real tragedy of Episode 5 isn’t "Oh wow, Tin was blindsided." It’s "Tin knew exactly what time it was, but hoped love could pause the clock." And honestly? That hurts so much worse.
Janthorn saying "One day the prince will forgive you" is actually peak psychology. Not because forgiveness is a given, but because she’s been reading Tin like a book.
Let’s be real: Tin’s brand has never been vindictiveness. It’s a massive, glowing self-sacrifice complex. Every single one of his major life choices boils down to: "How can I absorb maximum emotional damage so no one else has to?"
If anyone on Earth is capable of separating "You betrayed me" from "You stopped loving me," it’s Tin. Don't get me wrong, the man is going to be absolutely wrecked. But Janthorn is just betting on the fact that once Tin realizes why Phob did it, he’ll have to look in a mirror. Tin threw away love for royal duty; Phob is throwing it away for the revolution. It’s the exact same script, just a different font. Whether Tin forgives him right away is a different story, but expecting eventual forgiveness isn't naive, it’s just Tin recognizing his own brand of martyr logic.
This is why I keep harping on the framing.
It’s all about the presentation, folks. The act itself is neutral; the execution is where the drama lives. If Phob spends the scene twirling his metaphorical mustache, smiling through the deception, exploiting Tin’s affection without a shred of remorse, and treating him like a glorified royal stepping stone? Then yeah, he’s a red flag. But if the writers give us the angst special: him hesitating, staring at a sleeping Tin, dying inside because he’s nuking the trust they just rebuilt, and accepting eternal hatred? Then it’s just the 1932 version of Tin writing that letter. Neither wants to do it, both are devastated, and they’re both weaponizing their own trauma.
So the real question isn't "Should Tin forgive Phob?" The actual, spicy question is: "How can you mad at Phob for copy-pasting Tin’s exact playbook from two episodes ago?" They are running the same tragic script: ''If I play the villain in your story, maybe everyone else survives." One is playing defense for his family and the crown, while the other is trying to rewrite the nation's future. Sure, the scale is different, but emotionally, it's a mirror image. They really are made for each other. Mostly because they’re both obsessed with self-destruction.
If the writers stick to their guns on this parallel instead of watering it down into a basic "we just need to talk it out" romance obstacle, we’re looking at an actual tragedy. At that point, forgiveness stops being about excusing a betrayal and becomes about trauma-bonding over their shared misery. It's the two of them looking at each other and realizing, "Oh, we both completely wrecked our lives for things we thought we couldn't walk away from." Normal relationship rules simply do not apply here.
