Bridgerton Season 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only reason people got mad initially is not that historical references were brought up, but that the poster or posters who brought them up mentioned them with zero context and then got annoyed by and insulted people who were like "who is Nelson? what is Pamela? what does this have to do with the show?"

I think it's fine to discuss the historical references but don't be a pedantic jerk about it. Not everyone is a history nerd and it is absolutely possible to watch and enjoy this show knowing literally nothing about Regency England. If you want to bring up historical references, be ready to explain it and give context, and try to do so with a good attitude.

Can we move on now?

This is it exactly!!! Thank you!

For the record, I’m the one who was asking who were those people. I am not a history nerd and generally don’t like history. I was taken aback by the rudeness of the replies when I asked for context. It seems like maybe that person doesn’t have appropriate affect?

I would love to move on though and get back to discussion of the show!!!

Yes, let’s talk about the history of dancing in the show! Did anyone read the NYT article on it? very interesting about waltzing vs more social dances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

Totally disagree. Sophie was originally working for another family. She does not work for Benedict. Benedict’s mother hired her as a favor for Benedict. Benedict has not sexually assaulted or kidnapped her and she’s not 15. These were not unwelcome advances either that she resisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only reason people got mad initially is not that historical references were brought up, but that the poster or posters who brought them up mentioned them with zero context and then got annoyed by and insulted people who were like "who is Nelson? what is Pamela? what does this have to do with the show?"

I think it's fine to discuss the historical references but don't be a pedantic jerk about it. Not everyone is a history nerd and it is absolutely possible to watch and enjoy this show knowing literally nothing about Regency England. If you want to bring up historical references, be ready to explain it and give context, and try to do so with a good attitude.

Can we move on now?

This is it exactly!!! Thank you!

For the record, I’m the one who was asking who were those people. I am not a history nerd and generally don’t like history. I was taken aback by the rudeness of the replies when I asked for context. It seems like maybe that person doesn’t have appropriate affect?

I would love to move on though and get back to discussion of the show!!!

Yes, let’s talk about the history of dancing in the show! Did anyone read the NYT article on it? very interesting about waltzing vs more social dances.

I am interested but don't have a NYT subscription. Can you summarize or gift link? Would love to know more, the dance sequences are always something I enjoy. I also always enjoy those in Austen movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

Omg are you this dense in real life? Accept that some people don’t want to spend the whole thread listening to your history lessons without context. And if someone asks a question for clarification about the trivia, no need to be rude. You’re also feee to skip the posts you aren’t interested in without snark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

Totally disagree. Sophie was originally working for another family. She does not work for Benedict. Benedict’s mother hired her as a favor for Benedict. Benedict has not sexually assaulted or kidnapped her and she’s not 15. These were not unwelcome advances either that she resisted.

Benedict is much pushier in the book. Book Benedict is kind of terrible and then show has improved him significantly.

[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:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

Omg are you this dense in real life? Accept that some people don’t want to spend the whole thread listening to your history lessons without context. And if someone asks a question for clarification about the trivia, no need to be rude. You’re also feee to skip the posts you aren’t interested in without snark.

NP here, people weren't asking for context, they were literally complaining about people discussing Regency era figures, telling people NOT to discuss them. Go back and look at the posts.

Asking for context is fine, going "Stop posting about history, this is Bridgerton" just comes across as petulant.

Julia Quinn's work isn't terribly accurate but she did do some research into the era.

[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:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

Omg are you this dense in real life? Accept that some people don’t want to spend the whole thread listening to your history lessons without context. And if someone asks a question for clarification about the trivia, no need to be rude. You’re also feee to skip the posts you aren’t interested in without snark.

NP here, people weren't asking for context, they were literally complaining about people discussing Regency era figures, telling people NOT to discuss them. Go back and look at the posts.

Asking for context is fine, going "Stop posting about history, this is Bridgerton" just comes across as petulant.

Julia Quinn's work isn't terribly accurate but she did do some research into the era.

When are you going to move on from this? It’s time to grow up and be the bigger person. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by some anonymous posters. Please let’s get back to discussing the show. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

Totally disagree. Sophie was originally working for another family. She does not work for Benedict. Benedict’s mother hired her as a favor for Benedict. Benedict has not sexually assaulted or kidnapped her and she’s not 15. These were not unwelcome advances either that she resisted.

Well there’s no fairy godmother or glass slipper so I guess Cinderella cannot be an influence either!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only reason people got mad initially is not that historical references were brought up, but that the poster or posters who brought them up mentioned them with zero context and then got annoyed by and insulted people who were like "who is Nelson? what is Pamela? what does this have to do with the show?"

I think it's fine to discuss the historical references but don't be a pedantic jerk about it. Not everyone is a history nerd and it is absolutely possible to watch and enjoy this show knowing literally nothing about Regency England. If you want to bring up historical references, be ready to explain it and give context, and try to do so with a good attitude.

Can we move on now?

This is it exactly!!! Thank you!

For the record, I’m the one who was asking who were those people. I am not a history nerd and generally don’t like history. I was taken aback by the rudeness of the replies when I asked for context. It seems like maybe that person doesn’t have appropriate affect?

I would love to move on though and get back to discussion of the show!!!

Yes, let’s talk about the history of dancing in the show! Did anyone read the NYT article on it? very interesting about waltzing vs more social dances.

I am interested but don't have a NYT subscription. Can you summarize or gift link? Would love to know more, the dance sequences are always something I enjoy. I also always enjoy those in Austen movies.

Enjoy! https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/arts/dance/bridgerton-waltz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LFA.Nfyc.KWUWI1i2PteT&smid=url-share

There’s a lot there but the historical aspect is that waltz was the first dance that you would do only with your partner (as opposed to switching partners during the dance) and that dance was the only acceptable way to actually touch a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

Totally disagree. Sophie was originally working for another family. She does not work for Benedict. Benedict’s mother hired her as a favor for Benedict. Benedict has not sexually assaulted or kidnapped her and she’s not 15. These were not unwelcome advances either that she resisted.

Well there’s no fairy godmother or glass slipper so I guess Cinderella cannot be an influence either!

There is the glove she left behind. And the countless interviews with the actors regarding the influence of Cinderella. Not one of them has mentioned Pamela though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read Pamela. A quick google search led me to this description:

Pamela tells the story of a fifteen-year-old maidservant named Pamela Andrews, whose employer, Mr. B, a wealthy landowner, makes unwanted and inappropriate advances towards her after the death of his mother. Pamela strives to reconcile her strong religious training with her desire for the approval of her employer in a series of letters and, later in the novel, journal entries all addressed to her impoverished parents. After various unsuccessful attempts at seduction, a series of sexual assaults and an extended period of kidnapping, the rakish Mr. B eventually reforms and makes Pamela a sincere proposal of marriage.

This doesn’t sound like the Cinderella storyline of Bridgerton at all to me. Kidnapping, sexual assault and she’s only 15. And actually works for Mr. B. Completely different.

Sophie actually works for Mr B here, and he has comported himself inappropriately (trying to get her to be his mistress.) Pamela is considered one the first British novels. So the plot of Season 4 can fairly be said to be a mashup of Cinderella and Pamela, at least in spirit.

Totally disagree. Sophie was originally working for another family. She does not work for Benedict. Benedict’s mother hired her as a favor for Benedict. Benedict has not sexually assaulted or kidnapped her and she’s not 15. These were not unwelcome advances either that she resisted.

Well there’s no fairy godmother or glass slipper so I guess Cinderella cannot be an influence either!

There is the glove she left behind. And the countless interviews with the actors regarding the influence of Cinderella. Not one of them has mentioned Pamela though.

I bet none of the writers have actually read Pamela.

[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:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

Omg are you this dense in real life? Accept that some people don’t want to spend the whole thread listening to your history lessons without context. And if someone asks a question for clarification about the trivia, no need to be rude. You’re also feee to skip the posts you aren’t interested in without snark.

NP here, people weren't asking for context, they were literally complaining about people discussing Regency era figures, telling people NOT to discuss them. Go back and look at the posts.

Asking for context is fine, going "Stop posting about history, this is Bridgerton" just comes across as petulant.

Julia Quinn's work isn't terribly accurate but she did do some research into the era.

When are you going to move on from this? It’s time to grow up and be the bigger person. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by some anonymous posters. Please let’s get back to discussing the show. JFC.

You mean the HISTORICAL ROMANCE show? The one that seeks to in part use history as part of the story telling and inspiration?

[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:I realize this is going to enrage the "don't teach me history" people, but I'm just saw the most interesting fact. Apparently an extremely niche historical error in Season 4 is that Benedict is actually swimming a more modern stroke, the front crawl wasn't used in Britain until later in the 1800s, someone in that era would have been swimming breast stroke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_crawl
https://blog.myswimpro.com/2023/05/30/the-history-of-swimming-strokes/

As someone who learned to swim so young it honestly never even occurred to me that the swimming stroke we sort of consider default is pretty modern. I could have guessed that for something like butterfly but not front crawl.

So THIS is an interesting bit of trivia to add to the Bridgerton discussion.

Making every other post about Pamela Who Cares is not.

OMG stop. The plot is literally lifted from Pamela.

DP. That hasn’t been confirmed from the show’s writers though, has it?

It doesn’t need to be confirmed ….

It’s just a coincidence then. Also there is the Cinderella thing.

I don’t understand what you think this conversation is about? It is an artistic/literary production in a long traditions of getting inspiration from the historical era. Of course there are myriad influences visible including common plots and novels - I mean if you didn’t see the reference to Mr Darcy in the lake (which is actually from the miniseries and not the book!) I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody is claiming that they plagiarized or whatever but the influence of various sources (Pamela, Cinderella, the BBC Pride and Prejudice) are easy to see!

You seem to be trying to start something over nothing. Responding rudely if someone doesn’t 100 percent agree with you. It’s very odd. I think I know you. You are the Dr. Collins lover from the The Pitt thread. You like to stir up drama in turn every thread about a show.

I don’t watch The Pitt, so no. But yes I am pushing back against the PPs who claim that discussing the historical background and literary/artistic influences is somehow out of line.

No one said that. But you continue to go on and on in detail about regency history and this is supposed to be a fun discussion about the tv show itself. You were rude when someone asked who was Pamela, or who was Nelson, like how could they not know?

Do you want to actually discuss the show? Do you have opinions about the characters or plot lines? Or are you going to continue to just bring up history? Yes there are influences - we get that.

Omg are you this controlling about everything in your real life? Please accept that what some people think is fun to discuss about the show (history, influences) is not what you think is fun, and just skip those posts.

Omg are you this dense in real life? Accept that some people don’t want to spend the whole thread listening to your history lessons without context. And if someone asks a question for clarification about the trivia, no need to be rude. You’re also feee to skip the posts you aren’t interested in without snark.

NP here, people weren't asking for context, they were literally complaining about people discussing Regency era figures, telling people NOT to discuss them. Go back and look at the posts.

Asking for context is fine, going "Stop posting about history, this is Bridgerton" just comes across as petulant.

Julia Quinn's work isn't terribly accurate but she did do some research into the era.

When are you going to move on from this? It’s time to grow up and be the bigger person. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by some anonymous posters. Please let’s get back to discussing the show. JFC.

You mean the HISTORICAL ROMANCE show? The one that seeks to in part use history as part of the story telling and inspiration?

I see you’re unable to move on. It was too much to ask.