Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

Where did I say I watch either of those shows? I don’t. Weird that you would assume I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

I liked the sex But I otherwise agree with you. The colorblind casting, costumes, and modern slang and behavior, combined with many historical inaccuracies gave me the feeling that it was almost a sci-fi piece taking place some kind of alternate dimension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

Where did I say I watch either of those shows? I don’t. Weird that you would assume I do.

You are missing the point that most period dramas take liberties. Sometimes great liberties. Do you never watch period dramas? Or do you just know so little about history that you think it’s all accurate?
The Favorite https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/real-history-the-favourite-film-queen-anne-olivia-colman-hannah-greig/
Mary, Queen of Scots https://theconversation.com/mary-queen-of-scots-dont-worry-about-movie-accuracy-historians-cant-agree-on-who-she-really-was-either-109993

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm completely enthralled by the series, but acknowledge that the attempt to soften the non-consent scene from book to screen was a miss. Especially since Daphne's culpability was dealt with less in the show than in the book. That said, I loved this series so much. I loved Simon-Daphne's love story, especially these scenes:

- The touching yourself talk
- Simon's love speech appeal to the Queen
- The burn for you dialogue, especially Simon's morning, evening, night part
- Daphne's love speech in the rain.

Gawd yes. These all gave me so much life. And resulted in some fun sexy times with DH. I need more of this kind of content!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

DP. I liked this show, but it's different genre than the Tudors or Versailles.
I initially thought it would be kind of like Marie Antionette with Kristen Dunst. The sketchers and modern music and historical inaccuracies worked so well there. But it isn't really that either.

I think that what gets me about this show is that it is internally inconsistent.
-Everyone is afraid of whatever the queen might say, but it is completely dismissed if Lady Whistledown says something different.
-No one can even go for a walk unsupervised without scandal, but people are sneaking off and walking alone together all of the time.
-The men are supposedly Lords and Dukes of these great estates, yet, other than Lord Featherington, they don't seem to have any worries or responsibility at all. The only man that acts like a man is the Duke's friend the boxer.
-The mothers have an eye for their daughters to marry up in the world and they are shocked when someone marries for love, yet everyone seems to marry for love, and there are absolutely no consequences.
- There seems to be more or less a matriarchal society. The men and fathers have very little influence, and the most the male leads can really do is be "snagged" by the women. But at the same time, the women seem to think they have very little power and are constantly worried about being "ruined."

[Anonymous]

1) The Queen isn't in the books, so I think they did a lot of adlibbing there.
2) 100% Accurate. Getting caught ruins you, but sneaking off happened. It was the thrill of it all.
3) Accurate. Lords didn't work, that's what stewards were for. That's why they had so much disdain for new money, aka people who actually worked for it.
4) Fiction for the show vs the book. Very few people married for love.
5) Fiction for the show and the times. The men have all the power. Just think about it, Daphne is ruined if Simon just shrugs his shoulders and says oh well. Other than the duel, there wasn't any recourse. He couldn't be forced to the alter. Any women that takes the chance on a guy is ruined if he changes his mind. Just look at Marina when she thought her guy had lied to her. She had no options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

DP. I liked this show, but it's different genre than the Tudors or Versailles.
I initially thought it would be kind of like Marie Antionette with Kristen Dunst. The sketchers and modern music and historical inaccuracies worked so well there. But it isn't really that either.

I think that what gets me about this show is that it is internally inconsistent.
-Everyone is afraid of whatever the queen might say, but it is completely dismissed if Lady Whistledown says something different.
-No one can even go for a walk unsupervised without scandal, but people are sneaking off and walking alone together all of the time.
-The men are supposedly Lords and Dukes of these great estates, yet, other than Lord Featherington, they don't seem to have any worries or responsibility at all. The only man that acts like a man is the Duke's friend the boxer.
-The mothers have an eye for their daughters to marry up in the world and they are shocked when someone marries for love, yet everyone seems to marry for love, and there are absolutely no consequences.
- There seems to be more or less a matriarchal society. The men and fathers have very little influence, and the most the male leads can really do is be "snagged" by the women. But at the same time, the women seem to think they have very little power and are constantly worried about being "ruined."

DP.

This may be inconsistent, but it's also realistic. There were strong social norms, but people are still humans. Maybe because I'm Catholic, it seems so plausible! Before the sexual revolution in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1960s, sex among teens and the unmarried was strictly prohibited and socially censured. Yet, plenty of Catholic teenage girls got pregnant and went to "visit a distant relative" for several months as a way of hiding their pregnancy and putting their child up for adoption.

The three men with any real screen time that were also lords or dukes were all shown working and managing the affairs of the family and estate. The duke was drawn away from his honeymoon activities by the servant who told him what a mess the estate's books were in, and he subsequently working at that desk for long hours all the time after that. Daphne's brother is often shown in his study working and managing things. And the Featherington father, while pathetic and broke and clearly incompetent, is at least trying to set up a scam to fix his finances. The younger sons seem of an age where they're out of school but haven't set up professions or their own households yet. I would assume that's just a matter of time.

Most women were dependent on men, maybe even especially wealthy women, to maintain a respectable lifestyle. Women generally could not own property, inherit property, or control their own financial affairs. Legally, they had very few rights. They had to marry well, and would have no hope of doing so if they were morally/sexually compromised. The stain of compromise would extend to their whole family, including unmarried sisters. In that context, the men actually did have the power to call the shots, but the women had to be adept at manipulating the situation (and the men) to get what they needed. Jane Austen's novels were written as a pointed critique of this reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) The Queen isn't in the books, so I think they did a lot of adlibbing there.
2) 100% Accurate. Getting caught ruins you, but sneaking off happened. It was the thrill of it all.
3) Accurate. Lords didn't work, that's what stewards were for. That's why they had so much disdain for new money, aka people who actually worked for it.
4) Fiction for the show vs the book. Very few people married for love.
5) Fiction for the show and the times. The men have all the power. Just think about it, Daphne is ruined if Simon just shrugs his shoulders and says oh well. Other than the duel, there wasn't any recourse. He couldn't be forced to the alter. Any women that takes the chance on a guy is ruined if he changes his mind. Just look at Marina when she thought her guy had lied to her. She had no options.

Okay. So I am not looking for it to be historically accurate. I get that it is some kind of alternate dimension/timeline. I am okay with that.

1) Ahh...I see. I did like the queen. I thought she was dry and funny. It was just inconsistent.
2) It wasn't necessarily shown as a thrill. People were just hanging out and talking, and then all of a sudden they would remember that they weren't supposed to be seen together. Sometimes they didn't really even like each other.
3) It isn't just not working, they don't seem to have any worries, responsibility, or real attachment. The Duke and the oldest Bridgerton brother are both young men who have been handed a crushing amount of responsibility at a young age with little to no guidance following the deaths of their fathers, and this has no effect on them at all. In fact, the only time there is a consequence for anything they do is when the oldest Bridgerton brother gets overly involved in Daphne's social life.
4) I didn't read the book. It was just so odd in the show.
5) Yes, they kept saying that Daphne and Marina would be ruined, but I don't see how they actually would be. They are both beautiful and friends with some powerful women. And there seems to be this storyline that no men would want to marry them if their reputations were tarnished, but the men seem to pretty much marry whomever they please. I didn't see them going around checking up on reputations. And it was unclear to me what the consequences would be if they didn't get married at all.

[Anonymous]

Truly awful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) The Queen isn't in the books, so I think they did a lot of adlibbing there.
2) 100% Accurate. Getting caught ruins you, but sneaking off happened. It was the thrill of it all.
3) Accurate. Lords didn't work, that's what stewards were for. That's why they had so much disdain for new money, aka people who actually worked for it.
4) Fiction for the show vs the book. Very few people married for love.
5) Fiction for the show and the times. The men have all the power. Just think about it, Daphne is ruined if Simon just shrugs his shoulders and says oh well. Other than the duel, there wasn't any recourse. He couldn't be forced to the alter. Any women that takes the chance on a guy is ruined if he changes his mind. Just look at Marina when she thought her guy had lied to her. She had no options.

Okay. So I am not looking for it to be historically accurate. I get that it is some kind of alternate dimension/timeline. I am okay with that.

1) Ahh...I see. I did like the queen. I thought she was dry and funny. It was just inconsistent.
2) It wasn't necessarily shown as a thrill. People were just hanging out and talking, and then all of a sudden they would remember that they weren't supposed to be seen together. Sometimes they didn't really even like each other.
3) It isn't just not working, they don't seem to have any worries, responsibility, or real attachment. The Duke and the oldest Bridgerton brother are both young men who have been handed a crushing amount of responsibility at a young age with little to no guidance following the deaths of their fathers, and this has no effect on them at all. In fact, the only time there is a consequence for anything they do is when the oldest Bridgerton brother gets overly involved in Daphne's social life.
4) I didn't read the book. It was just so odd in the show.
5) Yes, they kept saying that Daphne and Marina would be ruined, but I don't see how they actually would be. They are both beautiful and friends with some powerful women. And there seems to be this storyline that no men would want to marry them if their reputations were tarnished, but the men seem to pretty much marry whomever they please. I didn't see them going around checking up on reputations. And it was unclear to me what the consequences would be if they didn't get married at all.

Huh? Getting married is literally the ONLY option for these women. Yes, you could perhaps continue to live with your parents, if they could afford to keep you, but you would never have any agency of your own. You exist at the whims of your father or husband, period. A wealthy widow would maybe be the only exception. There was very little paid employment for women, and getting any kind of job would be a catastrophic social ostracization from everything you have ever known. This is before the welfare state, so there is no safety net.

And men of that class only wanted to marry virgins who had been guarded at every minute from even the whiff of scandal. That's why they got married at 15, 16, 17 and the fresh crop of girls coming out was like a feeding frenzy. You married a virgin and then screwed anyone else you wanted to on the side.

[Anonymous]

Are we allowed to post TikTok links here? My adult daughter sent me this raunchy Bridgerton one:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJWNQ5r9/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) The Queen isn't in the books, so I think they did a lot of adlibbing there.
2) 100% Accurate. Getting caught ruins you, but sneaking off happened. It was the thrill of it all.
3) Accurate. Lords didn't work, that's what stewards were for. That's why they had so much disdain for new money, aka people who actually worked for it.
4) Fiction for the show vs the book. Very few people married for love.
5) Fiction for the show and the times. The men have all the power. Just think about it, Daphne is ruined if Simon just shrugs his shoulders and says oh well. Other than the duel, there wasn't any recourse. He couldn't be forced to the alter. Any women that takes the chance on a guy is ruined if he changes his mind. Just look at Marina when she thought her guy had lied to her. She had no options.

Okay. So I am not looking for it to be historically accurate. I get that it is some kind of alternate dimension/timeline. I am okay with that.

1) Ahh...I see. I did like the queen. I thought she was dry and funny. It was just inconsistent.
2) It wasn't necessarily shown as a thrill. People were just hanging out and talking, and then all of a sudden they would remember that they weren't supposed to be seen together. Sometimes they didn't really even like each other.
3) It isn't just not working, they don't seem to have any worries, responsibility, or real attachment. The Duke and the oldest Bridgerton brother are both young men who have been handed a crushing amount of responsibility at a young age with little to no guidance following the deaths of their fathers, and this has no effect on them at all. In fact, the only time there is a consequence for anything they do is when the oldest Bridgerton brother gets overly involved in Daphne's social life.
4) I didn't read the book. It was just so odd in the show.
5) Yes, they kept saying that Daphne and Marina would be ruined, but I don't see how they actually would be. They are both beautiful and friends with some powerful women. And there seems to be this storyline that no men would want to marry them if their reputations were tarnished, but the men seem to pretty much marry whomever they please. I didn't see them going around checking up on reputations. And it was unclear to me what the consequences would be if they didn't get married at all.

Huh? Getting married is literally the ONLY option for these women. Yes, you could perhaps continue to live with your parents, if they could afford to keep you, but you would never have any agency of your own. You exist at the whims of your father or husband, period. A wealthy widow would maybe be the only exception. There was very little paid employment for women, and getting any kind of job would be a catastrophic social ostracization from everything you have ever known. This is before the welfare state, so there is no safety net.

And men of that class only wanted to marry virgins who had been guarded at every minute from even the whiff of scandal. That's why they got married at 15, 16, 17 and the fresh crop of girls coming out was like a feeding frenzy. You married a virgin and then screwed anyone else you wanted to on the side.

+1. If a woman's father had an entailed estate, it would go to the male heir upon his death. She would be at the mercy of the heir not to be tossed out of the with nothing. (Read or watch Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice.) Women also were not educated in anything useful at the time, so it's not like they could support themselves with a career. The daughters of the wealthy learned to sing, play the pianoforte, stitch a pretty pillow, paint or draw, and maybe learn to speak French.

Because heirs were almost exclusively male, the requirement of a virgin bride was not just the result of some puritanical belief. A man needed to know that a child born to his wife was actually his. This is especially true of a first born son, who would be the sole heir to a title and an entailed estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

Where did I say I watch either of those shows? I don’t. Weird that you would assume I do.

Why is the sex too much? I mean I think most newlyweds have that much. I mean Anthony was only having sex like once a day still. It's realistic and hot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

Where did I say I watch either of those shows? I don’t. Weird that you would assume I do.

You are missing the point that most period dramas take liberties. Sometimes great liberties. Do you never watch period dramas? Or do you just know so little about history that you think it’s all accurate?
The Favorite https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/real-history-the-favourite-film-queen-anne-olivia-colman-hannah-greig/
Mary, Queen of Scots https://theconversation.com/mary-queen-of-scots-dont-worry-about-movie-accuracy-historians-cant-agree-on-who-she-really-was-either-109993

Of course I watch period dramas. I loved Victoria, Downton Abbey, Pride and Prejudice, Emma, The Crown, Brideshead Revisited, A Room With a View, etc. And while all of these shows take their share of liberties, they are all firmly rooted in (mostly) historical accuracy. No surprise, I hated both movies you linked. I think your snarky comment makes it clear - you prefer the salacious, accuracy-free versions of “history.” Which is why you argue with anyone who doesn’t agree with your rave review of Bridgerton.

[Anonymous]

I just keep thinking back to the necklace the prince gave Daphne and how she left it outside!! Kept waiting for her to go back for it - and she never even returned it to the prince! I know, trivial and unimportant but it bugged me.