I'm not arguing about the whether or not it should've been in the story, okay? And that's not what the other commenter was saying either. They said that the idea that the queen was being raped was projection, and I said that even if she didn't outwardly protest to either sex or marriage, the fact that she felt as though she had no control or power to say no, despite her clearly wanting to, does constitute rape. There's actually a word for that, you know? It's called marital rape and is not only the most common form of rape, but in many countries it is either not illegal or the law goes entirely unforced. The incessant dismissal of these facts in this discussion board is what I am arguing against.
I mean, the king is shown to have been as apprehensive as her before the marriage, if not more so, so I really can't see this reading as anything more than a projection, unless you want to insist that she raped her husband as well. There is not indication of either of them forcing the other into anything, they certainly would not look as fondly back on their time together as they are shown here if that were the case.