>>111608501>Star having cheekmarks wouldn't make it notably easier for her to dip down or use wandless magic than normal peopleI disagree because of stuff like Meteora being able to make her cheeks light up as a child, Star's marks acting as a receptor for the presence of the remaining magic in the Battle for Mewni climax, and giant Meteora wrecking shit. Maybe the Star thing can be explained as a result of using the wand (except it's played as something natural/involuntary), but Meteora doesn't have that excuse.
>the regular use of the wand you need to do either of those things will give you cheekmarks anywayYeah, but my point from the very beginning is that Star in her base state, like in the very first scene of the series before she had the wand, already had more magic exposure than the average human who's never been around the wand in their life, which only increased once she started using it. That's all I'm trying to say.
>How could her body still be giving off magic?I see the marks as a sign some magic is already within them rather than just a scar (hence why the marks completely disappear when magic is gone), but again, this is one of those things that's debatable either way since it's not like we got a full scientific description of how magic works.
>When Star sees that Heinous has cheekmarks she is certain that means she's a princess and directly a Butterfly, which means her cousins and such dont inherit the marks. Star seemed to have a lot of cousins who had marks, and I doubt those were all Moon's siblings. Also IIRC they don't say Heinous is a princess/Butterfly until they learn she's Eclipsa's daughter, not because of her marks (which still symbolize that she's a Butterfly, but not necessarily that she's directly in line for the throne).
>pointed out that Moons aunt having cheekmarks...was an error.Did she? At this rate it's too late to really take that as an error given that there are multiple characters in that episode with marks.
