Merry Christmas, my friends!

Sarah says:

Ms Puddle-In response to your request, I’ll cite textual evidence from the CCFS. In order to avoid confusion, I’ll omit page numbers and refer to the chapters instead as they’re very small chapters anyway.

But which citations are you referring to exactly? If you mean the enumerated points I specified in my previous comment, then that’s easy. Here goes (I’ll use the exact same order as my previous comment where I have enumerated my main points) and please ignore any typos:

Textual evidence related to my comments on Terry:
1. Terry’s no longer a Granchester and all media outlets refer to him as “Terrence Graham” (see Letter from Annie/Section 3/Volume 2). Most importantly, however, Terry made it clear to the headmistress at St Paul’s that he had renounced his father’s name. He was an “nullius filius” (illegitimate offspring born out of wedlock) anyway. Besides, his decision to abandon that boarding school defying his father’s will placed the tombstone to an already dead relationship with his father. (Chapter 17/Section 2/Volume 2). Candy herself also clearly states that Terry had renounced his father’s name and that he decided to continue on his own accord. There is absolutely no reference-even the slightest-that Terry had ever redeemed or resumed any form of contact with his father (Narrative 2/Section 3/Volume 2).
2. Same citations with my comment 1. There’s also an additional reference coming from Candy where Terry is officially addressed as “Terrence Graham” and this remains permanent until the end of the CCFS (Narrative 7/Section 3/Volume 2).
3. Same citations with my comment 1, however, we could add some further textual evidence being Terry’s refusal to have any interaction with his mum. This is obvious because she didn’t even dare to approach him during his severe mental breakdown and drunken stupor at that embarrassing Rockstown incident. His mum was simply watching him in despair but in silence and in secret most of all. (Letter to Eleanor Baker/Section 3/Volume 2).
4. Eleanor Baker wasn’t an aristocrat, apparently. Otherwise, there would have been no issue for Granchester to marry her. Instead, he dumped her like a used rag and shipped his non-legit son to some boarding school as if he were some “stain” or “disease”. That boarding school was simply a means for daddy-Granchester to dump his out-of-wedlock kid and toss him a dime to keep his mouth shut. All this info is found repetitively mentioned and dispersed in the UK-related chapters (Chapters 6-8/Section 2/Volume 1 and Chapters 9-17/Section 2/Volume 2).
5. There’s no textual evidence supporting that Terry had covered all the expenses for Candy during her stay at New York nor did he focus on providing a “one-way” ticket’; this is merely a fabrication of the anime and manga, both of which are excluded from the CCFS. There’s only a brief mention made by Candy that Terry had promised to invite her to his “Romeo&Juliet” play and that he would arrange for the tickets-she uses plural for “tickets” and not the singular form, presumably meaning that the whole transport arrangement constituted a return and not “one-way” ticket (Narrative 4/Section 3/Volume 2).

Textual evidence related to my comments on Albert:
1. This reference concerning the Ardlays being one of the wealthiest and most powerful magnates in Chicago is all over the place in the CCFS. The fox hunting also indicates the Ardaly links and ties (needless to mention obsession) with their British ancestry and lineage (Chapter 20-Conclusion/Section 1/Volume 1).
2. We already get to see that the Ardlay elders hold ancestry and high academic education in the highest esteem as the Ardlay youth were receiving intensive schooling even during the summer at Lakewood (Chapters 7-17/Section 1/Volume 1). Both women and men within the Ardlay clan receive equally high quality education and both women and men actively take part in all business affairs. Moreover, Albert also specifies this to Candy in his letters to her where he reiterates the Ardlay “obsession” with aristocracy, lineage, and academic education, hence, the ARdaly elders sending him to complete his university education at one of the most prestigious universities in the UK (Epilogue/Letters/Volume 2).
3. The Ardlay luxurious jewellery box references are found in Chapters 5-16, especially Chapter 16 which refers to Sarah Lagan’s luxurious jewellery box and the aforesaid accusations of theft hurled against Candy/Section 1/Volume 1).
4. Same as my comment 3 on Albert and the Ardlays. Chapters 5-20 centre on the wealth, power and global ties the Ardays have with regards to their business enterprises, including the Middle East (Chapter 5-20/Conclusion/Section 1/Volume 1). However, there’s also an additional reference concerning Stear and Archie’s parents and their continual business trips to the Middle East. They had even considered themselves not to be competent parents because they had neglected their own children for the sake of their wealth and business trips abroad (see final Letter from Patty; also see final Letter from Archie/Section 3/Volume 2).
5. Albert’s tenderness, generosity and, above all, respect for Candy is ubiquitous throughout the Epilogue/Letters/Volume 2. These feelings are mutual as Candy reciprocates these emotions and love for Albert 100%. As readers, we clearly get to read about all this via Candy’s overt enthusiasm and delight surrounding Albert’s consideration for and commitment to her (for example, the furniture gifts, Caesar and Cleopatra, and so many other cases as explained by Candy in the Epilogue/Letters/Volume 2). She’s elated and overwhelmed with emotion and tenderness when Albert finally opens up to her and expresses his inner feelings as well as angst to her. For comprehensive context, I would suggest a full re-reading of the loving letters between Candy and Albert in the Epilogue.

On a final note, don’t forget that Candy indisputably specifies that Albert most certainly made Sarah Lagan humble herself and confess in full public view amongst the higher echelons of the Ardlay clan that Candy was not and is not a thief. This textual evidence is found in Candy’s letter to Sarah Lagan:

[Credits to Fay for her translation of the CCFS]:
Letter to Mrs. Sara Lagan
“Dear Mrs. Lagan,
I hope you are well. Thank you for having invited me to the opening party for the Resort Inn. Thanks to you I had the opportunity to visit a splendid hotel and to meet again people whom I hadn’t seen for a long time.
More than anything else, I would like to thank you for having denied in front of the whole family the fact that I have the habit of stealing. Actually this is an accusation which for many years has cast a shadow in my heart, and I can assure you that I am completely innocent.
When I expressed my gratitude, you answered me that you had simply obeyed Great Uncle William’s orders, but even so, I imagine it cost you a lot to pronounce those words.
I take advantage of this opportunity to thank you again and I hope your Resort Inn Hotels increase in number more and more. Candice W. Ardlay”
(Letter to Sarah Lagan/Straight after Narrative 3 where Candy is described closing her “luxurious” jewellery box given to her by “anohito”/Section 3/Volume 2).
[Credits to Fay for her translation of the CCFS]

Hope this helps. Let me know if you want more info.
Sarah