Bridgerton Season 4

[Anonymous]

I hate what they are doing with Francesca. Initially, I liked that her story showed a different type of love: most of the other stories have been a lot more dramatic (enemies to lovers, misunderstandings, let’s make up and rip each others clothes off)! But hers showed a simple, quiet love that was still genuine and deep and I dare say is more similar to most peoples’ ‘love stories’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate what they are doing with Francesca. Initially, I liked that her story showed a different type of love: most of the other stories have been a lot more dramatic (enemies to lovers, misunderstandings, let’s make up and rip each others clothes off)! But hers showed a simple, quiet love that was still genuine and deep and I dare say is more similar to most peoples’ ‘love stories’.

So far they haven’t really don’t much with Francesca. I have an issue with how much older the new Francesca seems than the old one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciated the lesson in power imbalance that Benedict got from the cottage caretaker. Curious if they’re going to revisit that so directly again in the rest of the season.

I like Benedict well enough this season, but then that dolt went ahead and pissed me right off. Ooooo, I wanted to throw something at my TV with that mistress line. Make him crawl, Sophie.

It's realistic though, the most she could hope for due to the limitations of class. It was a different time. However, she'd of course be better off with a stable job for life versus a temporarily-more-luxurious mistress position that could end at any moment.

If you go back to the time period, being the mistress of a powerful man could actually be a pretty good power play and set you up pretty well for life. It depended very much on the couple — sometimes it was a true love situation where the man really did want to take care of her for life. Nelson’s mistress “lady hamilton” was born in poverty but did quite well for herself and his dying wish was that she be taken care of.

I’m not sure there was such a thing as a stable job for life in the 18th century — a housekeeper at a manor house is probably the closest you would get, but even that would depend on the family caring enough to provide for you in old age, as you wouldn’t be able to put much by.

Are you by chance on the spectrum?

Nope. But I’m a huge history nerd! I figure people that aren’t interested can just skim past, but I find that dcum has a LOT of history nerds and I often get really good suggestions here!

The whole "ew, you're taking history in my historical drama" people are quite strange. This show literally features actual historical people and covers some actual events (the baby race following the death of Princess Charlotte shown in the spinoff actually happened, though not as it was shown on the show).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss Cressida.

+1 also the modiste.

The modist and Cressida are gone?

Boo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate what they are doing with Francesca. Initially, I liked that her story showed a different type of love: most of the other stories have been a lot more dramatic (enemies to lovers, misunderstandings, let’s make up and rip each others clothes off)! But hers showed a simple, quiet love that was still genuine and deep and I dare say is more similar to most peoples’ ‘love stories’.

She is sooooo boring to watch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss Cressida.

+1 also the modiste.

The modist and Cressida are gone?

Boo.

They might be in the second half of the season. We'll see.

I wonder if Cressida will be in Eloise's season. I suspect she's next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just finished the first episode and it seemed so rushed to me. It really did not feel believable he would change his entire life course based on that interaction! And kind of gross he had been having sex with someone else a couple hours before that.

To me it is not that he was having sex with someone else but just that the bisexual plot line has always felt fake to me. Same as when they wanted to show that Colin was more sexually adventurous, they showed him in bed with TWO women. Like just the most basic and cliche thing possible.

I am interested to see if they address his bisexuality with Sophie as their love story progresses. Like does he tell her?

One thing that has always bugged me about it is that he obviously keeps it completely secret from his family, yet he's actually surprisingly not that careful about it when he is out at bars -- it looked pretty out in the open this season. Realistically, this would be the kind of thing that is NEVER spoken about "in society" especially not by his mother or the rest of his family. But it seems absurd it wouldn't be disclosed to Sophie, especially because of how the show likes to take a fairly modern approach to sexuality even while being set in Regency England.

If this were a real story, the truth is that Sophie would happily turn a blind eye to it even if she hated it because marrying Benedict would literally solve every problem she has whether she was into him or not. That he's actually a really nice guy from a genuinely good, not dysfunctional, not abusive family would make it a no brainer even if she was totally repulsed by his bisexuality. Though also if it was a real story, her sex life with him would likely be limited and then she'd wind up in charge of the kids and household while he continued to carry on affairs throughout their marriage. The idea that someone with Benedict's sexual history would settle down and be faithful to his wife at the age of 30 until death is silly.

So very curious how they will address it, if at all. It will be extra stupid if they just totally drop it and are like "well now that he's found 'the one' it doesn't matter." I just don't buy it. But I also would not really buy Sophie being into it or even participating in that lifestyle, unless they expand on her character in a way that would make that make sense.

I’m guessing you’ve never read a historical romance novel. The reformed rake trope is very popular.

The show is way more "woke" than the novels, though. Benedict is not even bi in the books, which are just straight up hetero historical romances. It's the same with Francesca's story -- they are making John's cousins a woman in order to infuse some LGBTQ diversity to the story, but that's not how it is in the books.

Which makes the "reformed rake" trope for Benedict problematic. Because in the book where he's just sleeping around a lot, the idea is that he falls in love with Sophie, his true love, and leaves that all behind him. But the show has set him up as a bisexual man where his bisexuality isn't him "being bad" the way the Benedict in the book is. It's an expression of who he is as a person. They went to great trouble to portray it that way with his whole menage a trois relationship.

So I'm curious if they even address his bisexuality with Sophie, or if any aspect of his past is ever truly "out of the closet" with her. If this were a modern story, audiences would want to see it disclosed both because of general disdain for any form of closeting and because it would feel dishonest in a modern relationship to conceal that from a romantic partner. But it's not a modern romance, and closeting is pretty essential in the time period Bradenton is set in, plus realistically disclosing to Sophie complicates the love story from her perspective, and Bridgerton is all about the feminine perspective.

This is why I wish they hadn't introduced these LGBTQ elements to the story in the show. It doesn't really work. It works great in a show like Heated Rivalry because all of these issues -- closeting, disclosure -- are an intrinsic part of the story, since the romance was conceived as a gay love story form the start. In Bridgerton it rings false. It's okay to just have a hetero romance, which is what this was. I think they mucked it up trying to be inclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate what they are doing with Francesca. Initially, I liked that her story showed a different type of love: most of the other stories have been a lot more dramatic (enemies to lovers, misunderstandings, let’s make up and rip each others clothes off)! But hers showed a simple, quiet love that was still genuine and deep and I dare say is more similar to most peoples’ ‘love stories’.

I agree. It's like it's not even the same character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciated the lesson in power imbalance that Benedict got from the cottage caretaker. Curious if they’re going to revisit that so directly again in the rest of the season.

I like Benedict well enough this season, but then that dolt went ahead and pissed me right off. Ooooo, I wanted to throw something at my TV with that mistress line. Make him crawl, Sophie.

It's realistic though, the most she could hope for due to the limitations of class. It was a different time. However, she'd of course be better off with a stable job for life versus a temporarily-more-luxurious mistress position that could end at any moment.

If you go back to the time period, being the mistress of a powerful man could actually be a pretty good power play and set you up pretty well for life. It depended very much on the couple — sometimes it was a true love situation where the man really did want to take care of her for life. Nelson’s mistress “lady hamilton” was born in poverty but did quite well for herself and his dying wish was that she be taken care of.

I’m not sure there was such a thing as a stable job for life in the 18th century — a housekeeper at a manor house is probably the closest you would get, but even that would depend on the family caring enough to provide for you in old age, as you wouldn’t be able to put much by.

Nelson's wishes were ignored and Lady Hamilton and her and Nelson's daughter were left begging. She died at 49 in massive debt. And this was after Nelson died a national hero.

Who is Nelson and who is Lady Hamilton? This is a thread about Bridgerton.

A) You should definitely know who Nelson is (Battle of Trafalgar?). B) Lady Hamilton was a famous mistress who died right around the time Bridgerton is set, so it is relevant for "what kind of life would a mistress in the Regency era have."

DP and I know who Admiral Nelson is but I actually would not expect that to be common knowledge -- he is a famous military leader from the Napoleonic wars, it's not like he was a king or president or something. It would be like expecting someone from France to know who Henry Knox is, which I would not.

NP. I certainly knew of Lord Nelson.

Also I'd never heard of Lady Hamilton before, I'd relegate her to "trivia." Yes, interesting in terms of Bridgerton but you could have nicely provided the background instead of assuming everyone knows about this fairly obscure historical figure you are talking about like she's a Real Housewife.

Ah yes, it is not as if there was a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge at your very fingertips, as you write here. Alas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciated the lesson in power imbalance that Benedict got from the cottage caretaker. Curious if they’re going to revisit that so directly again in the rest of the season.

I like Benedict well enough this season, but then that dolt went ahead and pissed me right off. Ooooo, I wanted to throw something at my TV with that mistress line. Make him crawl, Sophie.

It's realistic though, the most she could hope for due to the limitations of class. It was a different time. However, she'd of course be better off with a stable job for life versus a temporarily-more-luxurious mistress position that could end at any moment.

If you go back to the time period, being the mistress of a powerful man could actually be a pretty good power play and set you up pretty well for life. It depended very much on the couple — sometimes it was a true love situation where the man really did want to take care of her for life. Nelson’s mistress “lady hamilton” was born in poverty but did quite well for herself and his dying wish was that she be taken care of.

I’m not sure there was such a thing as a stable job for life in the 18th century — a housekeeper at a manor house is probably the closest you would get, but even that would depend on the family caring enough to provide for you in old age, as you wouldn’t be able to put much by.

Nelson's wishes were ignored and Lady Hamilton and her and Nelson's daughter were left begging. She died at 49 in massive debt. And this was after Nelson died a national hero.

Who is Nelson and who is Lady Hamilton? This is a thread about Bridgerton.

A) You should definitely know who Nelson is (Battle of Trafalgar?). B) Lady Hamilton was a famous mistress who died right around the time Bridgerton is set, so it is relevant for "what kind of life would a mistress in the Regency era have."

DP and I know who Admiral Nelson is but I actually would not expect that to be common knowledge -- he is a famous military leader from the Napoleonic wars, it's not like he was a king or president or something. It would be like expecting someone from France to know who Henry Knox is, which I would not.

NP. I certainly knew of Lord Nelson.

Also I'd never heard of Lady Hamilton before, I'd relegate her to "trivia." Yes, interesting in terms of Bridgerton but you could have nicely provided the background instead of assuming everyone knows about this fairly obscure historical figure you are talking about like she's a Real Housewife.

Ah yes, it is not as if there was a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge at your very fingertips, as you write here. Alas.

We are talking about the TV show Bridgerton. No one wants to look something up in an encyclopedia during a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anyone versed in Regency novels would. This is a silly thing to be snippy about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anyone versed in Regency novels would. This is a silly thing to be snippy about.

For those who aren’t versed in Regency novels, who is Pamela? And what does she have to do with Bridgerton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anyone versed in Regency novels would. This is a silly thing to be snippy about.

It's weird how people are so stubborn about learning a thing or two. I find it a lot of fun to learn about the inspirations behind media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anyone versed in Regency novels would. This is a silly thing to be snippy about.

For those who aren’t versed in Regency novels, who is Pamela? And what does she have to do with Bridgerton?

Pamela is a book from the mid 1700s (so about 80 years pre-Bridgerton setting) that involves a maid whose wealthy employer wants to make his mistress, but she refuses him and eventually her virtue wins him over and he marries her. The love interest is literally named Mr. B.

Now it's a somewhat heavy on the moralizing so it's not a terribly appealing book to modern audiences. It's a sentimentalist book.

But it's actually quite on point, plot wise, which is why it got brought up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anyone versed in Regency novels would. This is a silly thing to be snippy about.

It's weird how people are so stubborn about learning a thing or two. I find it a lot of fun to learn about the inspirations behind media.

I’m the first person that brought up lady hamilton and I thought I had actually provided enough historical context, so I apologize if I didn’t. I thought I said she was horatio Nelson’s mistress who came from a poor background but was accepted into society as his long term mistress and did quite well for herself during his lifetime.
I agree if people make historical references it is helpful to provide enough context to know who they are and why they might be relevant to the very loose histroy of Bton.