Why the HELL would Manette and Lucie Darnay bring the little girl, little Lucie, to Paris with them? Wouldn't they know that France is a dangerous place, and Revolutionary justice was pretty arbitrary? Manette felt he was safe (made sense), but Lucie and little Lucie couldn't possibly expect any safety there with those crazy, angry Revolutionaries running the show and arbitrarily changing the laws. Lucie MIGHT want to testify along with her father on Charles' behalf, but what purpose would little Lucie serve? Seems to me that it's needlessly endangering the child! To me, the safety of the child comes FIRST! Don't bring her to dangerous, unstable countries that are still in the throes of a violent uprising! Leave the child back in jolly ol' England, where she's truly safe!

The ending: Yes, we all know Sidney Carton's stirring, "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done" soliliquy. Before that, it's ambiguous that if he could look into the future, he would have had thoughts/predictions that the Defarges, John Barsad, the knitting women and all those "new tyrants" get their just due at the guillotine. He'd muse that the Darnays would have a son, named after him, who would become a smashing success as a lawyer someday. But... it's unclear to me about whether that's all wishful thinking on Carton's part, or is Dickens actually saying/confirming that these future events will indeed happen? Dickens being the author, it was well within his power to make these things happen (or not).

Is Dickens is laying down anti-Revolutionary propaganda and pro-British chauvinism? The book comes off that England is a better country than France. Like, look at us! We've been a constitutional monarchy since 1700! We're not the unjust society that France used to be, where the King was an absolute monarch (and did whatever the hell he wanted) and the common folk were so downtrodden that they couldn't take it anymore. Our King has limits on what he can do, and we have an elected Parliament that keeps him in check! If the government is bad, we vote them out, so we don't have guillotines, and there's no need for the poor and downtrodden to butcher the rich and the gentry in the streets. We provide a safe haven to any rich French aristocrats that fled! That French Revolution stuff is horrific. People (of England), don't do what the French had done! No need to violently tear down society if it's bad and then fumble around to build a new one from ground up! Work within the system for the good of all. Rich people aren't necessarily evil!

I'm also seeing some interesting parallels and contrasts between A Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo. Both books involve a prisoner (or two) who posseses life-altering (for another person) papers hidden in their cells. Both are set either on, or near the French Revolution. And both books have a character obsessed with REVENGE.