Board Thread:Wiki-Related Questions and Answers/@comment-4975807-20130417180235/@comment-24863788-20150110035931

CoolDudeAl wrote: Andrew Robbins wrote: Well, if someone says that Regina naming her horse Rocinante is not enough evidence to know if he is really the Rocinante or just an allusion, I can say that the writers naming that character Mr. Darcy is not enough evidence to know if he is really the Mr. Darcy or just an allusion. I honestly don't see the difference. I personally don't see it, as Mr. Darcy was confirmed by Jane E. to be The Mr. Darcy, and he acts like The Mr. Darcy, whereas Rocinante is just a horse, althought I think that's all he was in Don Quixote as well so yeah. I guess we can have a story page for it, it's not like I completely agree with all of them anyway, specifically Snow White and Rose Red, and The Prince and The Pauper. While I see the connections, they are rather loose, but we have them, so I suppose we can have Don Quixote. Feel free to make it, I guess, or wait for more opinions, if anyone has them. Well, horses live quite some time, and Regina didn't have him for so long. But if you're saying that he may not be the Rocinante because of his backstory, what about Belle? On OUaT, she is engaged to Gaston, but in the Disney movie she never had a relationship with him. Does that mean that she isn't the Belle? No. And that's just one example. My point is, the writers don't always follow the characters' original backstories, so the fact that Regina owned Rocinante for a while isn't (in my opinion) enough argument to say that he isn't the Rocinante.