Disentangling Perrin

Disclaimer: I am not going to argue that Perrin is somehow a wonderful person; he's probably not. I am, however, going to argue that we only see him from the POV of Mon, who neither likes nor trusts him at this point of their marriage. Now, Mon is a venerable figure in SW lore; viewers are conditioned to side with her. Still, we were shown that she isn't infallible by this show. My thesis is, therefore, that she's far from objective regarding Perrin and often makes him the scapegoat of her own fallings. If you cannot stomach Mon critique, this thread it not for you. Please consider NOT downvoting it as a kneejerk reaction (happened to me on another Mon is less then saint thread).

This said, let's go.

We first learn about Perrin from Mon. Concretely, the first piece of information is that he collects historical artifacts, and that Mon "wants to widen his horizons". The viewer is invited to side with Mon (men and their war artifacts, how uncultured lol). But why is this interest wrong? Later, we learn that Perrin has a military background. His interest is rooted in his personal history. And here is his wife, planning to NOT buy him a present he'd like and go for something "more cultured" instead. That this is code for a conversation with Luthen is beyond the point. Had a man said to a seller "my wife loves gardening but I'm planning on widening her horizons and thus will gift her a painting" we'd call him a pompous dick.

We later learn that Perrin is throwing a party, one that he got approved a month in advance and written into Mom's calender. Mon is unamused... But why? Where is the crime here? It's obvious Perrin went through the correct channels. At least one of the invited is a close personal friend from his military days, and he conceivably wanted to celebrate his Day of Days with him. Mon is blindsided and angry, but she's one who forgot all about this! She still tries to accuse Perrin ("you wore me down") which begs the question: why does Perrin have to beg her permission to host a get-together? Again, were Mon a man berating his trophy wife for wanting a dinner with friends, this wouldn't fly.

Ah, but he invited Mon's political rivals to the dinner, you say? The horror! The offense! Except Perrin is, once again, completely right when he says that they might like Mon better after the dinner. Talking with rivals isn't an annoying task a politician is allowed to hate - it's literally the way politics works. Perrin is literally being the social oil greasing Mon's work - he smoothes the divide between factions for her. But no, she's offended she must endure such a dinner, and she lets him know. Perrin falls back to "I heard you brought me a present"... Many interpret this as him being hopelessly shallow. I see this as him stepping back from trying to have his own agenda and going back to his role of candy househusband - a peace offering and an invitation for Mon to take the lead. She reacts by pointing and withdrawing her gift. Lol. That's just so petty and childish.

The reception at the embassy. Perrin is being jovial and chattery. Which is his role, incidentally. He charms the guests, some of which are Mom's rivals (so she can invite them, but he can't?). We casually learn that Mon started to lie to Perrin ages ago - she never told him that she never liked the octopuses in her drinks at the beginning of their relationship. That's not "being coy for a rebel cause". Presumably she didn't have any reason to lie to him when they first got married. We also see that Leida is more comfortable talking to Perrin, but he defers any decision to Mon. Mon actively suggests to Tay Colma that Perrin cannot be trusted. We see Perrin lead idiotic conversations with vapid guests and we see Mon being all clever and conspiratorial. We forget that insipid conversations are the bread and butter of the high society Mon is feasting. Perrin, once again, is doing precisely what he's supposed to do by entertaining guests while Mon strategises.

Another scene: Perrin mentions that he knows less about Mom's work than unrelated people, the implication being that he faced a social blunder due to being left in the dark. Mon answers that "he would be interested, it's charitable". She makes it look like Perrin is shallow, but she's the one actively hiding behind charity - she's making her work unaccessible/ unintesting , and then shittalks others when they know nothing about it.

More scenes. During the family breakfast, Leida mouthes to Mon and accuses her of being an absent mother. Mon takes this out on Perrin, of course - "some support would be nice". But why? Leida has an OK relationship with Perrin, so she's not just rebelling out of nothing. She's obviously right about Mon being absent and she's obviously tired of being paraded around. Why should Perrin defend Mon from a true accusation, specially when Mon makes it clear that she isn't about to change anything about her parenting?

Aaand we come to the moment Mon calculatedly throws Perrin under the bus to cover her own money troubles. We learn that Perrin used to gamble. We also can intue that he doesn't gamble anymore, and that he has no access to the family money: "where would I get the money" is his first reaction. Moreover, we learn that he's politically aware enough to come up with the (from his POV) only right answer - that someone wants to hurt Mon through him. He almost begs Mon to let him solve this, which she of course cannot do. And lastly, we learn that he positions himself as the accessory to Mon in his mind - he never thinks he's being set up by his own enemies. All his life is about Mon.

In conclusion, what I see in season one is a Mon Mothma who treats the rebellion as her priority and her husband (and daughter) as an accessory at best and a nuisance/ danger at worst. Whether she's right or wrong about Perrin is impossible to say, as we're thrown into this dynamic as is. She might be right that Perrin is not to trust. Or she might be the architect of her own destruction, alienating a potentially loyal husband and asset by not sharing her plans and stonewalling him for several decades.

Now that she'd thrown him under the bus, she's actually made him very vulnerable to any outside influence. I think that, whatever their previous relationship, this step will come back to hurt Mon in the long run.

ETA: I just wanted to thank you guys for your open minds and the very lovely discussions that sprouted on this thread. A pleasure to talk to you, as always!