Bridgerton Season 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the season ended with Benedict and Sophie dancing at the ball?

You have to watch post credits. I don't know why they did that. They get married.

Agree, it was stupid to put it at the very end of the credits -- A lot of people have Netflix set to autostart another show during the credits so I bet a ton of people missed it.

Also it doesn't just show their wedding, it also includes some hints about next season.

Yes! I just went back and saw it! Can’t believe I missed it!

How realistic is it that they would have Sophie (who they are trying to pass off as legitimate) walked down the aisle by another servant? Come on.

What gave you the idea that it’s a realistic show?

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t fit into the storyline they created to hide the fact that Sophie isn’t nobility. They want Sophie to be accepted by the ton so they pass her off as nobility…only to have her walked down the aisle by a servant. It doesn’t fit their own plan to have her legitimized.

That is totally different from saying well they play modern music.

It looks like a pretty private event, with only close family and friends. I'm sure they made excuses to the ton or had the wedding outside of the city to be able to invite only true friends. She doesn't want her stepmother there, surely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Dp. Alternative histories are fine. Nothing wrong with imagining a world without racism or the slave trade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

It's fun fiction folks, not a regency historical documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

But…but…but…Pamela! Napoleon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've only watched the first two of the last four episodes, but totally agree that so far it's lackluster. I thought the scene where Benedict and Sophie finally do it was so boring, and that Benedict in particular came off as whiny and boring.

In theory, the social conflict of Benedict not being allowed to marry a maid due to social convention, and Sophie being unable to accept being his mistress because of what happened with her mom and her own experience growing up illegitimate, is interesting to me. But the way it's portrayed is so dull. It's too much standing around explaining the unfairness of the situation to each other, not enough action.

I also thought it was very unrealistic when Benedict tells Sophie he's had relationships with men, and she takes like zero beats to be like "sure, yeah, I get that -- what a dumb social convention and I have absorbed and moved on from your bisexuality easily." I'm not saying she needed to object to it, I like the idea of her being open about it. I just think it's incredibly unrealistic that it would be like a side note for these characters. I agree with the PP who said it would have been more interesting to see a transformation in Sophie, where she goes from super restrained (out of necessity) to being willing to buck social rules in pursuit of her own freedom and happiness. The bisexual storyline could have been part of that, but instead I'm supposed to believe that a woman who is freaking out at the idea of being a mistress would be like "oh yeah, sex with men, cool" and then move right along? In Regency England? Sorry, but no. It makes no sense.

I totally agree with this. They just totally glossed over Benedict’s bisexuality. There’s no way Sophie wouldn’t have been shocked.

Also, in the last episode of the season Sophie was a perfect dancer - she knew all the steps. But didn’t she say in episode 1 that’s she’s not a good dancer? How would she have learned that dance while working as a maid? It doesn’t make sense.

Also, Mrs. Mondrich and Lady Danbury had told the Queen that Benedict had fallen in love with a maid. But then when they presented her, they said she was actually nobility. Did the Queen wonder what happened to the maid? Wouldn’t she have been angry with Mrs. Mondrich for lying about the maid story?

I figured she learned how to dance while she was taking Eloise and hyacinth to dance lessons, and she too practiced.

Yes, the queen was informed that Benedict fell for the maid. However, the queen loves love and they gave her a plausible explanation of who Sophie was and Araminith vouched for Sophie nobility. Watch the queen’s face. She knew they were lying, but she accepted it because she loves love. Also, she basically told Mondrich she knew it was a lie. Queen told Mondrich something to the effect that she was playing with fire and took quite a chance.

I thought she was lying about not being able to dance to hide her real identity.

Not being able to dance is part of the identity she was trying to hide at the ball.

At The cottage she didn't try to hide that she was educated and could speak French.

So I think she really could not dance but somehow learned, probably from accompanying Hyacinth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are wrong. Throughout the Africa continent there are rich cultural histories. Just because you are unaware of the existence does not make it so. Like Black people have been incorporated into the Bridgerton saga, so has the East and South East Asian people. Or in your mind, you really think that Kate and Sophie would have been accepted as in Charles III court, or British society period. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are overthinking all of this. Bridgerton is based on a romance novel. Romance novels are not meant to be historically accurate, and neither is the Bridgerton onscreen adaptation. Romance novels are very white. Maybe you can argue that the screen adaptation is trying to present a revisionist portrayal of race in the romance genre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are overthinking all of this. Bridgerton is based on a romance novel. Romance novels are not meant to be historically accurate, and neither is the Bridgerton onscreen adaptation. Romance novels are very white. Maybe you can argue that the screen adaptation is trying to present a revisionist portrayal of race in the romance genre.

The interesting thing is that all that was created specifically for the show, as was Charlotte and much of the non couple narratives. I don't think the show would exist at all without this change, the books themselves are somewhat repetitive and don't really have the wit of the show.

There's some question about their handling of the racial issues, but it's at least trying to portray a positive spin on things when fleshing this out. It js pretty clearly a fantasy, though fantastical elements from fiction work there way into popular history and becomes someone's default (Amadeus's portrayal of Salieri, Robin Hood's popular conception of Richard the Lionheart).

My favorite example of this is the wildly varied popular narratives on Richard III, where you either have Shakespeare's over the top villian or Philippa Gregory type "totally innocent" guy and there's sort of nothing in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are overthinking all of this. Bridgerton is based on a romance novel. Romance novels are not meant to be historically accurate, and neither is the Bridgerton onscreen adaptation. Romance novels are very white. Maybe you can argue that the screen adaptation is trying to present a revisionist portrayal of race in the romance genre.

The interesting thing is that all that was created specifically for the show, as was Charlotte and much of the non couple narratives. I don't think the show would exist at all without this change, the books themselves are somewhat repetitive and don't really have the wit of the show.

There's some question about their handling of the racial issues, but it's at least trying to portray a positive spin on things when fleshing this out. It js pretty clearly a fantasy, though fantastical elements from fiction work there way into popular history and becomes someone's default (Amadeus's portrayal of Salieri, Robin Hood's popular conception of Richard the Lionheart).

My favorite example of this is the wildly varied popular narratives on Richard III, where you either have Shakespeare's over the top villian or Philippa Gregory type "totally innocent" guy and there's sort of nothing in between.

What's up with Salieri?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are overthinking all of this. Bridgerton is based on a romance novel. Romance novels are not meant to be historically accurate, and neither is the Bridgerton onscreen adaptation. Romance novels are very white. Maybe you can argue that the screen adaptation is trying to present a revisionist portrayal of race in the romance genre.

The interesting thing is that all that was created specifically for the show, as was Charlotte and much of the non couple narratives. I don't think the show would exist at all without this change, the books themselves are somewhat repetitive and don't really have the wit of the show.

There's some question about their handling of the racial issues, but it's at least trying to portray a positive spin on things when fleshing this out. It js pretty clearly a fantasy, though fantastical elements from fiction work there way into popular history and becomes someone's default (Amadeus's portrayal of Salieri, Robin Hood's popular conception of Richard the Lionheart).

My favorite example of this is the wildly varied popular narratives on Richard III, where you either have Shakespeare's over the top villian or Philippa Gregory type "totally innocent" guy and there's sort of nothing in between.

What's up with Salieri?

He and Mozart had a very normal professional rivalry but absolutely nothing like in Amadeus. Salieri taught Mozart's son and promoted some of Mozart's work. Amadeus also shows Salieri as this kind of solitary sexless monk, in real life he was married and had eight children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte WAS really black.

Not by any meaningful modern standard. The most that can be said is that she had an ancestor about 500 years back (15 generations ago) who may have been a Moor, which was a broad category that included both blacks and Arabs. I am very white but a quarter Sicilian — there is a really high chance that if you go back 15 generations on my Sicilian side (and maybe even my Irish side), you would find a Moor. But it would be super offensive to Black people if I were to announce that I was Black.

With 15 generations back, it’s pretty unlikely you’d find any genetic trace of it if you did a dna test on her. (Although it might be really interesting if you did!). I don’t know enough about genetics to be sure, but if the line traced back directly matrilineal, then she would have a DNA trace of it though, because mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from mother to daughter so you can always trace a matrilineal line that way, absent mutation.

There are actually a lot of British that have an ancestor of moorish descent — 500 years ago thy didn’t think as much in racial terms and there were a lot of moors that went from Spain to England for various reasons (the reconquista, accompanying Catherine of Aragon etc), and so long as you converted to Christianity, you could intermarry with no problems. I heard a really interesting podcast with someone that did a ton of research into 15th and 16th century English church records. She then contacted the descendants who had no idea that their great grandfather times 25 was Moorish!

I could say more about the Queen charlotte debate but I know I’m already boring most of you with th history stuff.

You are missing the directionality of that claim though. Also no one is talking about modern standards.

Queen Charlotte is dead. She is not walking around claiming she is black for street cred. Agree that if a current British royal started claiming "I'm black" based on ancient lineage, people would rightfully tell them to be quiet. Of course the current British royals are too busy trying to disown some family members who are actually black to make that claim. Just like if you, a white lady, tried to claim you were black.

Rather, the people who say "Queen Charlotte was black" tend to be trying to pierce the assumption that British royalty, or British culture, is purely anglo or even purely European. It's to make a point about what British, or English, heritage really is, and to too challenge engrained notions of white "purity" within British aristocracy.

Bridgerton, which has a black creator, has chosen to engage in that dialogue with a portrayal of Regency England where many people, including the Queen, do not merely have darker skin and hair and rumors of Moorish ancestry, but are visually black. It's unrealistic, of course, but it has also led to many people learning for the first time about how NOT pure most European bloodlines are, including royal ones. That's actually a useful development.

Having seen portraits of Charlotte and her parents, what you're typing is wokery gibberish. Ok there may be a Moor (which isn't the black as we see it these days, sub saharan African) but North African, who may have been Charlotte's ancestor 500 years earlier (500!), maybe, somehow now she is mixed race? What? Who came up with this crap?

What I find ignorant is how Bridgeton creates a wildly unhistorical narrative because of how deeply racist people were at that time period. The Earls of Mansfield had a black ward who they treated as a family member as she was mixed race offspring of a relative, but when company came, she had to dine alone. And she never mixed in polite society. That's the reality. No amount of Bridgerton revisionism pandering to the silly sensibilities of modern woke people desperate to change the past can ever change the historical truth. Be honest, don't make up stuff because you have a chip on your shoulders. Funny no one is going around claiming some African chieftain was really white because of a slave from Europe sold by Arab traders to his ancestors 500 years ago. Because it doesn't fit the narrative (and there were European slaves captured by the Barbary pirates sent to North Africa). Make a show about that.

Bridgerton is not a documentary nor does anyone watching it think it's an accurate historical representation of the time period it portrays. They dance to modern pop songs at balls, the clothes and decor often incorporate modern anachronisms, and yes they play fast and loose with both racial and gender norms of the time.

YOU are more than welcome to make a show about how regency London actually handled race. I would watch it! But everyone understands Bridgerton is intentionally ahistorical. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

The cynical in me can see Bridgerton revisionism is really a chip on the shoulder revisonism because there is no comparable black history or culture. That's why it's not revising Asian or South Asians into British cultural history because they already have their long and established cultural histories.

Anyhow, I do fully expect future generations of blacks to fully believe Queen Charlotte was black just as some insist Cleopatra was really black.

You are overthinking all of this. Bridgerton is based on a romance novel. Romance novels are not meant to be historically accurate, and neither is the Bridgerton onscreen adaptation. Romance novels are very white. Maybe you can argue that the screen adaptation is trying to present a revisionist portrayal of race in the romance genre.

The interesting thing is that all that was created specifically for the show, as was Charlotte and much of the non couple narratives. I don't think the show would exist at all without this change, the books themselves are somewhat repetitive and don't really have the wit of the show.

There's some question about their handling of the racial issues, but it's at least trying to portray a positive spin on things when fleshing this out. It js pretty clearly a fantasy, though fantastical elements from fiction work there way into popular history and becomes someone's default (Amadeus's portrayal of Salieri, Robin Hood's popular conception of Richard the Lionheart).

My favorite example of this is the wildly varied popular narratives on Richard III, where you either have Shakespeare's over the top villian or Philippa Gregory type "totally innocent" guy and there's sort of nothing in between.

What's up with Salieri?

He and Mozart had a very normal professional rivalry but absolutely nothing like in Amadeus. Salieri taught Mozart's son and promoted some of Mozart's work. Amadeus also shows Salieri as this kind of solitary sexless monk, in real life he was married and had eight children.

Mind blown! Thank you. Please keep the classical music gossip coming!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the season ended with Benedict and Sophie dancing at the ball?

You have to watch post credits. I don't know why they did that. They get married.

Agree, it was stupid to put it at the very end of the credits -- A lot of people have Netflix set to autostart another show during the credits so I bet a ton of people missed it.

Also it doesn't just show their wedding, it also includes some hints about next season.

Yes! I just went back and saw it! Can’t believe I missed it!

How realistic is it that they would have Sophie (who they are trying to pass off as legitimate) walked down the aisle by another servant? Come on.

What gave you the idea that it’s a realistic show?

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t fit into the storyline they created to hide the fact that Sophie isn’t nobility. They want Sophie to be accepted by the ton so they pass her off as nobility…only to have her walked down the aisle by a servant. It doesn’t fit their own plan to have her legitimized.

That is totally different from saying well they play modern music.

It looks like a pretty private event, with only close family and friends. I'm sure they made excuses to the ton or had the wedding outside of the city to be able to invite only true friends. She doesn't want her stepmother there, surely.

Yes, very private -- it's at the county house that Benedict and Sophie will live at while they hope the ton quiets down over the rumor (that they are trying to counteract) that Sophie is a maid with no noble blood. It's entirely family and close friends.

Note that in other seasons, the weddings always happen in London. And that in seasons 1 and 3, we see big receptions after with the whole ton. Not the case here.