Anonymous wrote:I miss Cressida.

Anonymous wrote:I miss Cressida.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how they are making Eloise out to be this year. She was so interesting in prior seasons.

I think it's a good character development arch. They are gearing up to make her think about getting married. She is also getting more defensive about not being married as former single women around her are getting married.

I can't wait to see her story.

I would actually love for Eloise to just stay on the shelf and develop her own career as a writer. And maybe have some occasional affairs with some socially inappropriate men (or even socially appropriate men trapped in socially appropriate marriages). I feel like that would be more historically accurate and truer to her character. But I get it’s not in keeping with the vibe of the show which is focused on the formula of hot sex and a beautiful wedding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just finished the first episode and it seemed so rushed to me. It really did not feel believable he would change his entire life course based on that interaction! And kind of gross he had been having sex with someone else a couple hours before that.

To me it is not that he was having sex with someone else but just that the bisexual plot line has always felt fake to me. Same as when they wanted to show that Colin was more sexually adventurous, they showed him in bed with TWO women. Like just the most basic and cliche thing possible.

I am interested to see if they address his bisexuality with Sophie as their love story progresses. Like does he tell her?

One thing that has always bugged me about it is that he obviously keeps it completely secret from his family, yet he's actually surprisingly not that careful about it when he is out at bars -- it looked pretty out in the open this season. Realistically, this would be the kind of thing that is NEVER spoken about "in society" especially not by his mother or the rest of his family. But it seems absurd it wouldn't be disclosed to Sophie, especially because of how the show likes to take a fairly modern approach to sexuality even while being set in Regency England.

If this were a real story, the truth is that Sophie would happily turn a blind eye to it even if she hated it because marrying Benedict would literally solve every problem she has whether she was into him or not. That he's actually a really nice guy from a genuinely good, not dysfunctional, not abusive family would make it a no brainer even if she was totally repulsed by his bisexuality. Though also if it was a real story, her sex life with him would likely be limited and then she'd wind up in charge of the kids and household while he continued to carry on affairs throughout their marriage. The idea that someone with Benedict's sexual history would settle down and be faithful to his wife at the age of 30 until death is silly.

So very curious how they will address it, if at all. It will be extra stupid if they just totally drop it and are like "well now that he's found 'the one' it doesn't matter." I just don't buy it. But I also would not really buy Sophie being into it or even participating in that lifestyle, unless they expand on her character in a way that would make that make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how they are making Eloise out to be this year. She was so interesting in prior seasons.

I think it's a good character development arch. They are gearing up to make her think about getting married. She is also getting more defensive about not being married as former single women around her are getting married.

I can't wait to see her story.

I would actually love for Eloise to just stay on the shelf and develop her own career as a writer. And maybe have some occasional affairs with some socially inappropriate men (or even socially appropriate men trapped in socially appropriate marriages). I feel like that would be more historically accurate and truer to her character. But I get it’s not in keeping with the vibe of the show which is focused on the formula of hot sex and a beautiful wedding.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how they are making Eloise out to be this year. She was so interesting in prior seasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how they are making Eloise out to be this year. She was so interesting in prior seasons.

I think it's a good character development arch. They are gearing up to make her think about getting married. She is also getting more defensive about not being married as former single women around her are getting married.

I can't wait to see her story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 no doubt it was a man yapping about Nelson…and probably a man saying she didn’t need to be lubricated. lol.

I was the one who first brought up Nelson and I’m a woman. The sexy stuff is all well and good but I find it so much more interesting to think about what’s true to the purported historical context and what’s different — it’s like how sci fi is interesting because it makes you think about what’s different from our current reality. My point was mainly that being a rich man’s mistress in that time frame was not a bad gig and better than most other options for non rich women, os we can’t really slam Benedict for offering it. I mean, think about a world in which you can’t marry the person you love unless they happen to be from the right family, have not been previously married, etc etc. So of course you will have a ton of people setting up long term relationships outside of marriage, because the heat wants what th heart wants, even 200+ years ago. If you think about it that way, the mistress thing is often kind of sweet. And they often had a sort of acknowledged place in society. (Let’s all remember too that the current Queen of England was once the long term mistress who was considered inappropriate for marriage just 50 years ago ….)

And for those who want to know more about admiral horatio Nelson’s great love of his life and mistress:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk_eoZDYERY

I get that. I think people are viewing it from the modern day lens though. And in that hot steamy scene it sort of ruined the moment. In fact, the music even stopped in that scene at that point.

The thing to also know with historical context is some of the artist/free love types ruined the lives of every woman who got involved with them. Shelley and Byron most spectacularly. So being a mistress could be a very fraught endeavor.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like how they are making Eloise out to be this year. She was so interesting in prior seasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Quit trying to make fetch happen

No one knows or cares about Pamela

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

There is no Pamela in Bridgerton, Season 4, the topic of this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished episode 4. Goddamn. This is way better than Season 2 or 3. It might even top Season 1. The scene with Benedict and Sophie in the stairwell was so hot…he licked two of his fingers….omg! I need a cold shower. Of course it was totally ruined with the whole “Be my mistress” line.

Violet was a trip with the whole inviting Lady Danbury’s brother over for tea.

Omg really?? I didn’t get the finger licking at all. If she’s really going to come in 45 seconds or whatever, she’s already lubricated. And if she wasn’t, licking your fingers like that wouldn’t help. He barely moistened them. It was just kind of icky.

Totally disagree. He was making sure he wouldn’t hurt her. He doesn’t know if she’s lubricated enough. Plus she’s a virgin!

See, this is the kind of dialogue I enjoy about Bridgerton. Napoleon—who the heck cares? Talk to me about a man who understands proper lubrication!

To be fair, Bridgerton is about sex, not about history. It is a fantasy. People who are trying to relate it to real history do not get the point of the show.

+1 if you can’t suspend your disbelief, you will hate the show. It isn’t attempting to be historically accurate it’s basically just the aesthetic vibe and mating style of the regency era put into a modern show. You have multiple interracial marriages between nobility in the show, that is already killing the historical accuracy of the show. Just have fun with it.

You have to suspend disbelief but the show does actually assume you have some idea of Regency tropes. What's going on with the king, why does everyone wear high waisted dresses, What's up with the social strata.

They assume you have some base knowledge from watching or reading Jane Austen.

Ok, sure, but the show does not assume knowledge if Admiral Nelson's mistress. Even the costumes are anachronistic -- the queen dresses like Marie Antoinette because it's fun, it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. And they play fast and loose with high society as it suits them, especially on the race stuff. For instance the embrace of the Mondrichs. Which is fun, those are good characters and really charismatic actors. But totally absurd in terms of historical accuracy.

They don't want you thinking too hard about what Regency England was actually like.

Probably not but it's a fun jumping off point, particularly if you read some of the over the top sentimentalist stuff (I took a whole class on it in college).

Pamela, she's a maid whose wealthy employer (Mr. B) wants to make her his mistress (he's really quite terrible) and she holds out, ends up married and joining upper society. And to be clear, this book is ridiculously over the top and moralistic, but it's kind of on point and was written a solid 70 years before Bridgerton takes place. I'm betting the author who wrote Bridgerton had probably read those novels.

Who the hell is Pamela??

Oh come on, I'm barely literate and even I know who Pamela is.

Anonymous wrote:Violet in her bedroom is the hottest person on the show. She made the hot dude who came to have tea disappointing by comparison, and I'm a straight woman.