
In that respect this reminds me of Basara. I thought that one was just as boring and cliched and also had actually weak female characters. I separate the weak female characters from a story being cliched and boring in this case because Arthur is what makes this story cliched. An immature brat who truly seems to believe that only he has ever suffered or struggled. Ew.

So why isn't everyone going through this so-called "weak character growth"? She's portrayed as the weaker link, having to be saved by Arthur, who's seen as surperior, which shouldn't be the case if this was a "strong female lead". I'm merely questioning people having tagged it as such - there's a difference between character growth and biased, stereotypical writing.

No, I can see your point quite clearly, I tend to put my critical cynicism/feminism to the side when reading these damn things I think it doesn't bother me the king coming to rescue her because 1. She's a princess whose family has reigned relatively peacefully 2. Taking sword lessons still means squat when you're not fighting wars to hone your skills 3. She's the baby who's been sheltered-- THIS is a growing moment.
Now, shouid this continue over the next few chapters, I'll drop, but I do think she's going to kick ass based on some of those flash forwards. I'm willing to wait it out because telling a story with concise details seems to be up this author's alley
Confused as to how this is a strong female lead. Seems like the usual "woman thinks she's something and that she can be independent, but have to realize she needs to rely on main male protagonists". Meh. I like Sumire, though, so I will give this a shot regardless.