Reply to Bridgerton: new Netflix series

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bridgerton: new Netflix series "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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.  
[b]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.   [/b]  
[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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  
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics