(images from the mspaintadventures wiki)

Verb and pairing evidence:

A Prince is someone who would actively destroy their aspect and exploit their aspect to actively destroy.

A Bard is someone who would passively destroy their aspect and passively destroy with their aspect (as if by the will of their aspect).

I read the Prince and Bard this way because it’s what Calliope believes, and there’s not much point in doubting her in this. Calliope often acts like a rock of pseudo-cannon we must cling to in the churning seas of speculation: she gives the strongest info we have so there’s not much point ignoring her words if you want to get anywhere. Also the actual observed powers of Princes and Bards (Dirk ripping out Aranea’s soul, Gamzee attacking the Black King and doing chucklevoodoo to kill our universe) support the idea.

Medieval connections:

What is a Prince?

In medieval times princes where the heirs to the throne, and the word was also often used as a title for any other male in the monarchy who wasn’t the king (or something like a duke or count). The word also implies being spoilt, that the Prince is on the receiving end of special treatment and inheritance. Personally though, I think the class could also refer to a young king who is still a Prince in all but title and power.

Why would a medieval Prince destroy?

A Prince could be construed to be a quite bitter person, especially if they’re not the one inheriting, or simply because the main focus of the court is on the king and his achievements. In addition to this you could also say that if our Prince is actually the King (but is actually still a prince in terms of maturity and king skills) he would rip apart his kingdom out of bitterness and a twisted “understanding” of his father’s vision that the old king probably wouldn’t have advocated. IMO the later of those possibilities best fits the character development of a Homestuck “Prince”.

What is a Bard?

One thing homestuck theorists should be aware of when analysing the medieval side of the Bard is that the class is actually expressive of two slightly separate medieval “professions”: The Bard/Minstrel and the Fool/Jester.

For example the actual name suggests that the Bard is simply the Bard, but the costume (which is canonized by the fact Cronos wears it in the ministrife flash) includes a hat and codpiece that are intrinsically silly, similar to how historical jesters would wear donkey’s ears or other clothing that was weird, silly and in some ways just offencive to the eyes. In addition to this Gamzee’s whole shtick is that he’s a “clown”. For this reason we have to assume that the HS class “Bard” means motherfucking both things (especially as Gamzee does refer to the mirthful messiahs as minstrels).

In medieval times a Bard was a singer who repeated history and stories, and who also entertained people with music. A Fool, however, was a court entertainer, who was given the task and “immunity” to insult and ridicule their masters (by which I also mean the lord of that respective castle, whether they were a lord or a king).

To be fair there is a lot of overlap between a “minstrel and a “jester”, as they’re both entertainers and “jesters” often entertained people with music and stories. Arguably the only real differences between the two entertainers is that Bards were often more itinerant workers while jesters stayed in one place and focussed less on music. Also Bards were more common during the celtic period, where they might have had more responsibilities (I guess the idea of Jesters partially replacing Bards feeds into the concept that classes are meant to be historically lasting roles in each planet’s society?).

Why would a medieval Bard destroy?

Well a Bard inviting destruction could be linked to how medieval Jesters would tear down their master’s reputation, “destroying” them and others.

Fitting them together…

Interestingly, unlike the Thief and Rogue (the only other “confirmed” pairing), the medieval Prince and the medieval Bard have a definite gap in hierarchy, and what’s more it isn’t obvious how they’re connected. You could say that (historically) both classes where people who had slightly miscellaneous roles in the medieval court (neither had precise roles outside insulting people and making political contacts?), or you could say that they fit together as a kind of master and servant as a Jester (Bard) was meant to serve their King (Prince)?

Character development patterns:

Princes:

For the Prince I’m going to pretty much ignore Kurloz, because I don’t think we know enough about his story to try and use him to find a pattern. Also I think he only did anything Rage related once.

Imagine you’re a Prince, you’re already a lonely person but you spend an exorbitant amount of time learning about your ancestor, and learning about their struggles (to the point where you dress up as them, to the point where your friends (regard you as a historian), but you’re isolated enough that you form your own opinions (“sea-dwellers are superior”/”nothing is more important than fighting the Condesce”) and philosophy with historical records as your only frame of reference. Strangely though, your closest peer doesn’t agree with the conclusions you’ve come to (along the lines of “wtf Eridan the land dwellers are my friends” and “lmao Dirk fuck sburb let’s make babies instead”). Instead of trying to see their point of view you are instead driven deeper into your own philosophy, (this time with a more extreme tint maybe?) but now there is a sort of derision for others thrown into the mix. From here we see a viciously destructive cycle emerging- you share part of yourself with a friend, only for your extremism and/or coldness to repel them, causing you to become even less empathetic of others and even less understanding of their opinions (Eridan hitting on the other trolls/Dirk trying to explain stuff to Jane). Externally you blame these failures in understanding and empathy on others, internally you blame them on yourself. The result of this is a determination to carry out your philosophy, to the extent that it’s more important than anything else (not because you think it is important, but because to you no-one else has proven their Hope or Heart very important at all?) and to a more self-destructive extent than your ancestor would have intended.

One good thing your isolation brings, however, is a closeness with your aspect (Eridan believes in magic, Dirk falls for Jake), but in many other respects your disappointment with yourself and others cause you to destroy the part of your personality that your aspect represents?

Entering the game changes the dynamic of your cycle of disappointment somewhat, as instead of arguing about your original philosophy (genocide/break hearts to fight empress) you argue about how the game should be played, and your planet (it’s inhabitants, or lack of) makes it clear that the fault (why you’re isolated, why you’re not doing as well at the game as you think you should be) is with you.

Whether or not you agree (that you are the reason for your isolation) this ultimately results in a sacrifice of your main connection to your aspect, (magic isn’t real/Jake and you don’t work as a couple) causing you .

Personally, I think the next stage of the Prince’s arc is to realise they love their friends a lot more than they thought they do (and visa versa), but as we haven’t seen what happened to Eridan next, it’s difficult to speculate.

Bards:

Unfortunately we only really see much of one Bard and he’s possessed by Lil’Cal most of the time, so it’s difficult to find patterns in behavior and development when we have one character that we have almost no info on and another that continually causes us to ask the question: did Gamzee want to do that? Or did Caliborn want Gamzee to do that?

I could talk about how Cronus giving up faith in his harry potter story was similar to Gamzee changing his mind about tho the mirthful messiahs are and what the prophecy means, but Cronus’s disillusionment could just be something that some heroes of hope go through and Gamzee could have been “disillusioned” for his own reasons?

Opposite classes:

Prince vs Sylph:

While a Prince will be inherently more derisive of others and their opinions, a Sylph more than any other class will have an inherent interest in others, (be it an interest in their wellbeing or just an interest in their stories like Aranea has) which you could say translates into their behavior as a tendency to destroy others vs a tendency to heal them.

Bard vs Witch:

When I do the Witch post I’ll talk a lot about how witches have a sort of aura of mystery about them (at first) that makes their friends hold them in high regard, and an argument could be made that Bards are the opposite as a lot of who Gamzee and Cronus were was on the surface (such as Gamzee’s religion and obsession with miracles, Cronus’s belief in the harry-potter story) and causes their friends to hold them in lower regard than they otherwise would? (At first at least, just as the Witch opens up and reveals more about herself, a Bard will arguably change who they are to make himself more confusing and terrifying?)

Session Role:

Princes:

Credit to this Redditer who came up with one of my favourite HS theories to date, namely that each prince is meant to destroy the aspect that their session’s group has too much of.

Dirk is the Prince of Heart, and the alpha humans were too caught up in red romances, (requited or otherwise) to the point where they wouldn’t have been cohesive or focused enough to god-tier at all. I’d argue that his role was to partially “destroy” the Heart aspect (in the form of their criss-crossed crushes) in order to make the alpha humans more focused on their real task, and he arguably succeeded in doing so: Breaking Roxy’s heart, stopping Jane from getting anywhere with Jake, and letting his own romance with Jake fall apart (and hence allowing them to climb their echeladders).

Eridan is the Prince of Hope, and the beta trolls had too much confidence that they could win, so much confidence in fact, that to them it wasn’t a matter of if they would win but which team would gain control of the new universe. So much belief that they would win that only one of them god-tiered and they only just defeated the Black King (and in fact they didn’t win, as Karkat neglected his frog breeding duties to help them beat the BK). If the mysterious time Cancer (which is arguably Caliborn’s fault, but could also be a literary reflection of some of the Troll’s inner demons) hadn’t affected the session Eridan might have destroyed the Trolls’ belief/faith in their own power, ensuring that none of them lost focus (like Tavros did, for example) and that more of them god-tiered. Even post game, if Vriska had had less belief in herself she might not have tried to fight Jack Noir.

Kurloz is the Prince of Rage, and the alpha trolls were too concerned with justice (I’ll put more evidence that Rage=Justice in another post) and in Damara’s case had too much literal anger to make any headway on their quests at all. If he’d been a more “successful” Prince maybe he would have “destroyed” their anger at their old society and at the roles in the game (which most importantly would have meant Porrim might have tried to complete her quest) and would have calmed down Damara and hopefully stopped her from ruining their last chances for success.

Bards:

Again we have very little info on the Bard and what we do have is coloured by the fact Gamzee is often controlled by Lil’cal, and because of this I’ve got no concrete ideas for the role of a Bard in an optimal session, but I do have three very shaky and unsupported ideas.

Look at this convo between Calliope and Dirk, notably:

UU: while the more passive bard coUld be seen as “one who allows x to be destroyed, or invites destrUction throUgh x,” as if by the will of the aspect.

TT: I’m obviously no expert, but that sounds like a pretty odd thing for a Bard to do.

UU: maybe! it’s a qUirky class.

UU: somewhat like a wildcard role for a hero. very Unpredictable.

UU: they are typically known for their spontaneoUs and dramatic story-altering inflUence on the fate of a party.

UU: some of the more remarkable tales involve sUch parties, where the bard is single handedly responsible for their spectacUlar downfall or improbable victory. or both!

And this sort-of does make sense in regards to the medieval meaning of Bards: someone who sings a story, who sells narrative. What does narrative need? Conflict. Calliope specifically states: “they are typically known for their spontaneoUs and dramatic story-altering inflUence on the fate of a party”…

Idea 1: Calliope said Bard’s act “as if by the will of the aspect” (which might be true for all passive classes) so are Bards actually destroying their aspect for it’s own good? Balancing and copsing it like a tree? When “destroys” the black king through his Rage Gamzee allows more Rage to exist, so could Bards actually destroy their aspect in order to preserve it?

Idea 2: Could it be that Bards exist to keep the “story” moving and pathos rich? That the same “urge” or “instinct” that drives them to cause and inspire destruction is also a desire for a “good” story?…. I don’t think this is the case though, as I don’t see how a more interesting story would make for a more efficient universe creating session, but creating universes isn’t the only thing the game does: it also forces a number of kids to emotionally develop, which brings me on to….

Idea 3: The role of the Bard (in an ideal session) is to motivate the other players and to “encourage” them to develop into their own roles. This is the the idea I have the most confidence in, as while neither of the human sessions had a Bard, they already had the Trolls and Calliope, telling them about their roles and highlighting just how much was riding on their success. In addition to this while Rage and Hope weren’t things the beta and alpha troll sessions respectively had too much of, they were still things that stood in the way of some of the players developing? This idea being true Bards would be meant to shove their friends (aspect related) flaws in their faces (like medieval Bards highlighting faults in their masters), and we have examples of this in how Gamzee acts before and during [S]GameOver: He behaves innocently after Terezi has stabbed him and showing her exactly how committed she is to justice as she then drops her weapon (remember I read Rage as Justice) and he then shows her what happens when justice isn’t carried out mercilessly (by beating the shit out of her in a horribly “comedic” way), similarly Karkat’s Rage related flaw is a need to physically fight the antagonists even though this obviously isn’t his forte. Gamzee goades him into attacking anyway and then kills him in a manner made all the more heartbreaking by how easy it is thereby highlighting to him that he shouldn’t try and be a fighter. There are problems with this as a method of getting people to grow, as it’s either “destroy your (negative) Rage or be destroyed yourself” which doesn’t leave much room for mistake, but imagine if Gamzee had goaded Eridan like this: Eridan would have either let go of his anger at “losing” Feferi (and anger at failing at Hope and Hope failing him) or he would have been killed by Gamzee.

I’m getting further and further into pure tinfoil speculation (and getting further from the small amount of info we actually have on Bards) so I’ll stop here.

Costume significance:

I’m around 70% sure that the Prince’s shorts are inspired by this https://youtu.be/7UB8_MYNGEA?t=65 scene in Revolutionary Girl Utena. In the clip the specific type of pantaloons Utena puts on are symbolic of her being a Prince and thematically the symbol of masculinity and the role of a male. In addition to this while Utena doesn’t strike me as a Prince per se, a lot of her story does sort of focus on destruction? She has to bring world revolution and break a magic seal, she breaks down gender boundaries, a lot of the duals end in one or more holograms being violently destroyed? Extending this to homestuck (remember this rests on my assumption that Hussie has at some point watched Utena) both the Prince’s and Bard’s costumes (well, the lower half) are inherently male orientated, which I think can be used to help pair up other classes.

Other (pj related) details of note include upturning shoes (further exemplifying the idea that Bards are Jesters) for the Bard, while a Prince gets thespian tights, fingerless gloves (you could say that this reflected how Princes have a more “let’s get shit done” approach than other classes do?) and a felt tiara (which I like to think is Skaia making fun of a Prince’s Egotism, by giving them a fake cloth crown).

Notes:

This is the first class theory I’ve posted, and I may add more to it. I’m also going to try and keep to the same template of “Verb and pairing evidence”, “Medieval connections”, “Character development patterns”, “Opposite Classes”, “Session Role”, and “Costume significance”, but this may change?

I mostly wrote down everything I knew about each class, so I’m not sure how clear it is or if I should have split this post up a bit.

Please tell me what you think of my analysis if you read any of it!!!