Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. If you think the sex was realistic, I really don’t know what to tell you.

As a newlywed you weren’t having lots and lots of sex?!? That’s a rough honeymoon period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dp. It seems like you had a problem with the colorblind casting. You also thought the sex was explicit when all they really showed was his tush. You might just be a little prudish.

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to love this SO MUCH but I found it completely unwatchable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. If you think the sex was realistic, I really don’t know what to tell you.

It was better than realistic. I can only fantasize about the stair scene.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. If you think the sex was realistic, I really don’t know what to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Same!

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. If you think the sex was realistic, I really don’t know what to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to love this SO MUCH but I found it completely unwatchable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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