Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, can someone explain to me the “heir” thing? Doesn’t it work that all 14 of her children would go in order if none of them had babies? And then like, the one it landed on would theoretically pass it to their children? I’m struggling to see her point or why any of them having a baby would be good enough. I mean sure, theoretically, eventually? But surely not that simple right?

Well the eventual successor was her third son’s daughter, Victoria (who became Queen after both the oldest and second oldest of Charlotte’s sons died). Her father had died before them. So yes, any of them having a baby ended up being “good enough” even though she was a woman and the daughter of the spare to the spare. I don’t believe any of the other children had any legitimate children.

Oh, how interesting. I didn’t look it up and didn’t know it was based on anything. Thank you.

Sorry I meant she was the daughter of the 4th son and became Queen after all 3 of the older brothers died after having ruled. Her own father died just a few days before his father, GeorgeIII, and two of his older brothers were king before Victoria - the oldest and the third, the second also died before his oldest brother did.

I found this very interesting. Charlotte had fifteen children and only one of the fifteen had children. One grandchild among fifteen children.

Not totally true, the oldest son of Queen Charlotte had a daughter, also named Charlotte, who died in childbirth. They were counting on them to bear the heir. Then she dies and they are F-ed. William (Victoria's dad) had Victoria after QC died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, can someone explain to me the “heir” thing? Doesn’t it work that all 14 of her children would go in order if none of them had babies? And then like, the one it landed on would theoretically pass it to their children? I’m struggling to see her point or why any of them having a baby would be good enough. I mean sure, theoretically, eventually? But surely not that simple right?

Well the eventual successor was her third son’s daughter, Victoria (who became Queen after both the oldest and second oldest of Charlotte’s sons died). Her father had died before them. So yes, any of them having a baby ended up being “good enough” even though she was a woman and the daughter of the spare to the spare. I don’t believe any of the other children had any legitimate children.

Oh, how interesting. I didn’t look it up and didn’t know it was based on anything. Thank you.

Sorry I meant she was the daughter of the 4th son and became Queen after all 3 of the older brothers died after having ruled. Her own father died just a few days before his father, GeorgeIII, and two of his older brothers were king before Victoria - the oldest and the third, the second also died before his oldest brother did.

I found this very interesting. Charlotte had fifteen children and only one of the fifteen had children. One grandchild among fifteen children.

In the show, they had tons of kids, but only Victoria was legitimate. Is that true or made up for the show?

There were a few other legitimate grandchildren - Adolphus had a few, and Ernest had one. But yes, all those kids and only 6 (?) legitimate grandchildren...
If you scroll down the Wikipedia entry you can see the marriages and issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Most of the children weren't married off until they were in their 40s! The show claims it's because they were lazy, but I believe the bigger problem was that George III had to consent to the matches, and wouldn't.

The way the royal families held their daughters at home was a factor. There is a scene where their 4 daughters are grown and playing like children with a dollhouse. They were quite immature, they rarely got to leave their palace. They lived pretty sheltered lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just finished and I was sobbing. The casting was fantastic. All the younger versions look and speak and move the same. Wonderfully done.

Brimsley and Reynolds had me swooning. What a beautiful story. I lost it when Brimsley was dancing alone.

That was such a charming, romantic secondary storyline. I hear you on the Brimsley dancing alone scene!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who get upset about black ppl playing typically white characters - do your friends know you’re this racist and cringey?
Woke? God I hope I’m Woke. Better than sleepily ignorant.

So you’ll be okay with a white Malcolm X or Farrakhan?

How about MLK or John Lewis?

Maybe a white Rosa Parks?

You will support this wholeheartedly?

I am ok with the little mermaid being black and a fictional character created in shondaland being black.

They’re not real!

So you then are okay with a black Washington and Jefferson and Puerto Rican Hamilton then?

Yes, the same as I don't mind that Yul Brenner wasn't Siamese.

So in a 2023 movie remake of the King and I, you presumably also would support a Caucasian being cast as the king?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

Shonda Rhimes is a visionary. She’s a Black woman who writes the rules. Adore her. She is the highest paid female writer/show runner ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You’re so ignorant. For some reason? We aren’t in the 1960s anymore John or Karen. Many folks wouldn’t be watching this if there were only pasty white people playing the parts. It’s far more interesting this way whether you like it or not. The writer is so influential (she makes networks lots of money) that she can write and cast however she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You must not have watched the series. Part of the story (it is drama / fiction) is that the “Great Experiment” was the integration of Black and White society on equal footing. Queen Charlotte was a key part of that Great Experiment. That’s the backdrop for the series.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You must not have watched the series. Part of the story (it is drama / fiction) is that the “Great Experiment” was the integration of Black and White society on equal footing. Queen Charlotte was a key part of that Great Experiment. That’s the backdrop for the series.

I thought it would be distracting, but it just wasn’t. It’s all really well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You’re so ignorant. For some reason? We aren’t in the 1960s anymore John or Karen. Many folks wouldn’t be watching this if there were only pasty white people playing the parts. It’s far more interesting this way whether you like it or not. The writer is so influential (she makes networks lots of money) that she can write and cast however she wants.

"Pasty white people"????

I agree with the PP... somehow I doubt that you would support a show where white people played the part of African leaders (and please don't bring up Cleopatra; who is widely believed to be Greek Macedonian and the DNA in Egyptian mummies so far has been Semitic, not sub-Saharan.) This new trend only goes one way... POC can play any white character (not only "can," but it is lauded), while movies and shows are cancelled if white people portray any other race. Yes, Europeans and European Americans have cultures and yes, they can be proud of those cultures, and there is nothing boring or "pasty" about that. Although I think acting is called acting and believe that anyone can take on a role, if you won't accept that, then white people should be playing white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You’re so ignorant. For some reason? We aren’t in the 1960s anymore John or Karen. Many folks wouldn’t be watching this if there were only pasty white people playing the parts. It’s far more interesting this way whether you like it or not. The writer is so influential (she makes networks lots of money) that she can write and cast however she wants.

"Pasty white people"????

I agree with the PP... somehow I doubt that you would support a show where white people played the part of African leaders (and please don't bring up Cleopatra; who is widely believed to be Greek Macedonian and the DNA in Egyptian mummies so far has been Semitic, not sub-Saharan.) This new trend only goes one way... POC can play any white character (not only "can," but it is lauded), while movies and shows are cancelled if white people portray any other race. Yes, Europeans and European Americans have cultures and yes, they can be proud of those cultures, and there is nothing boring or "pasty" about that. Although I think acting is called acting and believe that anyone can take on a role, if you won't accept that, then white people should be playing white people.

NP.

The difference is that white people have oppressed and excluded POC (and women) in the performing arts for centuries.

So it’s not equivalent at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You’re so ignorant. For some reason? We aren’t in the 1960s anymore John or Karen. Many folks wouldn’t be watching this if there were only pasty white people playing the parts. It’s far more interesting this way whether you like it or not. The writer is so influential (she makes networks lots of money) that she can write and cast however she wants.

"Pasty white people"????

I agree with the PP... somehow I doubt that you would support a show where white people played the part of African leaders (and please don't bring up Cleopatra; who is widely believed to be Greek Macedonian and the DNA in Egyptian mummies so far has been Semitic, not sub-Saharan.) This new trend only goes one way... POC can play any white character (not only "can," but it is lauded), while movies and shows are cancelled if white people portray any other race. Yes, Europeans and European Americans have cultures and yes, they can be proud of those cultures, and there is nothing boring or "pasty" about that. Although I think acting is called acting and believe that anyone can take on a role, if you won't accept that, then white people should be playing white people.

NP.

The difference is that white people have oppressed and excluded POC (and women) in the performing arts for centuries.

So it’s not equivalent at all.

NP. Either you’re fine with “color blind casting,” where race doesn’t matter at all, or you want the race/ethnicity of the actor to match that of their historical figure. Either viewpoint is fine, but be consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that where they make up a fake black ancestry for Charlotte to make the woke people happy?

What are you babbling about? It's fiction.

King George III and his wife Queen Charlotte are real people. Charlotte was a German princess with a thoroughly German ancestry. For some reason she is black in Bridgerton.

You’re so ignorant. For some reason? We aren’t in the 1960s anymore John or Karen. Many folks wouldn’t be watching this if there were only pasty white people playing the parts. It’s far more interesting this way whether you like it or not. The writer is so influential (she makes networks lots of money) that she can write and cast however she wants.

"Pasty white people"????

I agree with the PP... somehow I doubt that you would support a show where white people played the part of African leaders (and please don't bring up Cleopatra; who is widely believed to be Greek Macedonian and the DNA in Egyptian mummies so far has been Semitic, not sub-Saharan.) This new trend only goes one way... POC can play any white character (not only "can," but it is lauded), while movies and shows are cancelled if white people portray any other race. Yes, Europeans and European Americans have cultures and yes, they can be proud of those cultures, and there is nothing boring or "pasty" about that. Although I think acting is called acting and believe that anyone can take on a role, if you won't accept that, then white people should be playing white people.

NP.

The difference is that white people have oppressed and excluded POC (and women) in the performing arts for centuries.

So it’s not equivalent at all.

NP. Either you’re fine with “color blind casting,” where race doesn’t matter at all, or you want the race/ethnicity of the actor to match that of their historical figure. Either viewpoint is fine, but be consistent.

Depends on the production.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loved both shows but I don't get the (fictional) trajectory of Charlotte. How does she go from a loving, very smart, young woman who cares about a lot of things and isn't taken up with being royal to a distant/neglectful mother who is pretty cold and snarky to everyone and doesn't seem to have interests beyond gossip / the ton

This is my only criticism of the series. Despite some theories that PPs posted, I suspect the real reason for the inconsistency in her character is that this show hadn't been conceived of when Bridgerton was written. It was a distraction to me.

But otherwise I loved it. I thought the young Lady Danbury stole the show.

(And on a shallow note, yet again the female lead is not particularly attractive imo -- same with Bridgerton I and II as well.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loved both shows but I don't get the (fictional) trajectory of Charlotte. How does she go from a loving, very smart, young woman who cares about a lot of things and isn't taken up with being royal to a distant/neglectful mother who is pretty cold and snarky to everyone and doesn't seem to have interests beyond gossip / the ton

This is my only criticism of the series. Despite some theories that PPs posted, I suspect the real reason for the inconsistency in her character is that this show hadn't been conceived of when Bridgerton was written. It was a distraction to me.

But otherwise I loved it. I thought the young Lady Danbury stole the show.

(And on a shallow note, yet again the female lead is not particularly attractive imo -- same with Bridgerton I and II as well.)

I think Daphne is mousy, but I don’t at all agree about Kate and Charlotte. Both actresses are beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This show is very silly, but honestly this TV queen is a relief now that we're stuck with Camilla the Concubine.

Hehe! Who still uses the word, concubine? At least Camilla is a real queen and not a fictional wannabe like Charlotte.

Charlotte is more a real queen than Camilla is imo.