Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how a few posters seem to be taking it personally whenever someone says they didn’t like this show. Aren’t we all allowed an opinion?

I don’t think it’s a big deal when somebody doesn’t like it but I call them on it if it’s a bad reason. Like if somebody likes Hamilton but thinks bridgerton should have had cast people of color as dukes and queens, or when they don’t like it because it’s predictable but they like other predictable shows, like maybe Sherlock or pride and prejudice, or they dont like it because of the lack of historical accuracy, not recognizing that it is a creative decision rather than a lapse in judgment.

I was an English major and I like dissecting stuff like this. My husband doesn’t like the show and I don’t think his reasons for not liking it are great, I don’t hold it against him or make him watch it or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really didn't see where this was explained in the show.

I have read Jane Austen. That was clearly set in this world, while Bridgerton is clearly set in a fantastical world. If you are going to make up your own world, you have to explain the rules there, and the character's behavior has to be consistent with those rules. Read Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really didn't see where this was explained in the show.

I have read Jane Austen. That was clearly set in this world, while Bridgerton is clearly set in a fantastical world. If you are going to make up your own world, you have to explain the rules there, and the character's behavior has to be consistent with those rules. Read Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings.

You really don’t. It can definitely be enjoyable without that, although I recognize that it kills the enjoyment for a lot of people. That a valid opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really didn't see where this was explained in the show.

I have read Jane Austen. That was clearly set in this world, while Bridgerton is clearly set in a fantastical world. If you are going to make up your own world, you have to explain the rules there, and the character's behavior has to be consistent with those rules. Read Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings.

It's a standard plot device for romances set in this period, it's probably not explained in the books and the show didn't bother for whatever reason

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really didn't see where this was explained in the show.

I have read Jane Austen. That was clearly set in this world, while Bridgerton is clearly set in a fantastical world. If you are going to make up your own world, you have to explain the rules there, and the character's behavior has to be consistent with those rules. Read Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings.

It's a standard plot device for romances set in this period, it's probably not explained in the books and the show didn't bother for whatever reason

Yes. And fun fact: it wasn’t even accurate. It’s highly doubtful the entail would have caused mr. Bennet to inherit the property. This doesn’t go to the objection of explaining to the reader what the tension was all about, but it’s interesting, and shows that something doesn’t have to be true for it to be an excellent plot device.

https://austenauthors.net/was-jane-austen-gasp-wrong-about-entails/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have one episode left. I still haven't decided out what I think of it. I may only be watching for the Duke.

Haha that’s the only reason I’m watching And I like the Bridgerton family’s interactions with each other. I can’t stand Daphne and she looks like a small child with the Duke which I find gross. But he is GORGEOUS!

+1000 That's the only reason why I stuck with this series. Haha. He is HOT and after I stopped focusing on the lame dialogue and inane plotlines, I settled in and just watched for him. It is beautifully filmed and is total escapism, but really he is the main draw. I didn't think he and Daphne had much chemistry and their sex scenes looked way too choreographed and staged (Normal People has raised the bar so high so nothing else can compare), but again he.is.hot. so who cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have one episode left. I still haven't decided out what I think of it. I may only be watching for the Duke.

Haha that’s the only reason I’m watching And I like the Bridgerton family’s interactions with each other. I can’t stand Daphne and she looks like a small child with the Duke which I find gross. But he is GORGEOUS!

+1000 That's the only reason why I stuck with this series. Haha. He is HOT and after I stopped focusing on the lame dialogue and inane plotlines, I settled in and just watched for him. It is beautifully filmed and is total escapism, but really he is the main draw. I didn't think he and Daphne had much chemistry and their sex scenes looked way too choreographed and staged (Normal People has raised the bar so high so nothing else can compare), but again he.is.hot. so who cares.

This. You watch this for the Duke. If you also enjoy other aspects-great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how a few posters seem to be taking it personally whenever someone says they didn’t like this show. Aren’t we all allowed an opinion?

I don’t think it’s a big deal when somebody doesn’t like it but I call them on it if it’s a bad reason. Like if somebody likes Hamilton but thinks bridgerton should have had cast people of color as dukes and queens, or when they don’t like it because it’s predictable but they like other predictable shows, like maybe Sherlock or pride and prejudice, or they dont like it because of the lack of historical accuracy, not recognizing that it is a creative decision rather than a lapse in judgment.

I was an English major and I like dissecting stuff like this. My husband doesn’t like the show and I don’t think his reasons for not liking it are great, I don’t hold it against him or make him watch it or anything.

So you’re the poster who challenges anyone who says they don’t like this show, by insisting their reasons are “wrong”? You do realize, no one has to justify their opinions to you, right? We can dislike it for any reason at all. So funny that you think otherwise.

Also - you were an *English* major??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found it strange that the older Bridgerton sons (Anthony, Benedict, and Collin) weren’t married or being set up for marriage, as it seemed all the other young men were. They went to all the balls, but never asked anyone to dance. It was strange how the focus was entirely on Daphne.

That is all we SAW, if you get what I mean. Future seasons will be focused on different siblings. That's how the books work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how a few posters seem to be taking it personally whenever someone says they didn’t like this show. Aren’t we all allowed an opinion?

I don’t think it’s a big deal when somebody doesn’t like it but I call them on it if it’s a bad reason. Like if somebody likes Hamilton but thinks bridgerton should have had cast people of color as dukes and queens, or when they don’t like it because it’s predictable but they like other predictable shows, like maybe Sherlock or pride and prejudice, or they dont like it because of the lack of historical accuracy, not recognizing that it is a creative decision rather than a lapse in judgment.

I was an English major and I like dissecting stuff like this. My husband doesn’t like the show and I don’t think his reasons for not liking it are great, I don’t hold it against him or make him watch it or anything.

So you’re the poster who challenges anyone who says they don’t like this show, by insisting their reasons are “wrong”? You do realize, no one has to justify their opinions to you, right? We can dislike it for any reason at all. So funny that you think otherwise.

Also - you were an *English* major??

I don’t understand your last paragraph and why you think my being an English major is funny, but yes, I was, and it was lovely.

A lot of posters are challenging people who dislike the show and their reasons for it. Of course somebody can dislike something for any reason, but I can also say that reason isn’t good. Like if somebody doesn’t like game of thrones because it’s historically inaccurate (yes I have heard that), I can point out that it’s fantasy. And they are still free to dislike it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how a few posters seem to be taking it personally whenever someone says they didn’t like this show. Aren’t we all allowed an opinion?

I don’t think it’s a big deal when somebody doesn’t like it but I call them on it if it’s a bad reason. Like if somebody likes Hamilton but thinks bridgerton should have had cast people of color as dukes and queens, or when they don’t like it because it’s predictable but they like other predictable shows, like maybe Sherlock or pride and prejudice, or they dont like it because of the lack of historical accuracy, not recognizing that it is a creative decision rather than a lapse in judgment.

I was an English major and I like dissecting stuff like this. My husband doesn’t like the show and I don’t think his reasons for not liking it are great, I don’t hold it against him or make him watch it or anything.

So you’re the poster who challenges anyone who says they don’t like this show, by insisting their reasons are “wrong”? You do realize, no one has to justify their opinions to you, right? We can dislike it for any reason at all. So funny that you think otherwise.

Also - you were an *English* major??

Oh honey, this comes across as you desperately trying to justify yourself. Plus a lame attempt at trying to make someone feel inferior for going to college.

[Anonymous]

Hated it in the first 15 mins. Hated it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hated it in the first 15 mins. Hated it.

Funny you say this, I stopped around then. And after hearing about it, put it on and watched the second half of the first episode and then was hooked. First couple of scenes are THE WORST.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how a few posters seem to be taking it personally whenever someone says they didn’t like this show. Aren’t we all allowed an opinion?

I don’t think it’s a big deal when somebody doesn’t like it but I call them on it if it’s a bad reason. Like if somebody likes Hamilton but thinks bridgerton should have had cast people of color as dukes and queens, or when they don’t like it because it’s predictable but they like other predictable shows, like maybe Sherlock or pride and prejudice, or they dont like it because of the lack of historical accuracy, not recognizing that it is a creative decision rather than a lapse in judgment.

I was an English major and I like dissecting stuff like this. My husband doesn’t like the show and I don’t think his reasons for not liking it are great, I don’t hold it against him or make him watch it or anything.

So you’re the poster who challenges anyone who says they don’t like this show, by insisting their reasons are “wrong”? You do realize, no one has to justify their opinions to you, right? We can dislike it for any reason at all. So funny that you think otherwise.

Also - you were an *English* major??

I don’t understand your last paragraph and why you think my being an English major is funny, but yes, I was, and it was lovely.

A lot of posters are challenging people who dislike the show and their reasons for it. Of course somebody can dislike something for any reason, but I can also say that reason isn’t good. Like if somebody doesn’t like game of thrones because it’s historically inaccurate (yes I have heard that), I can point out that it’s fantasy. And they are still free to dislike it.

The point is that you are in no position to tell anyone that their reasons are “wrong.” Maybe it is you who is wrong? Just a thought.

And the comment about your major was in reaction to your writing. I’ll leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hated it in the first 15 mins. Hated it.

+1
My mom and I were comparing notes on how horrible it was. Which was entertaining, so I guess we did enjoy it, for that reason alone.