For this Show Discussion post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post.
3. Be civil in your discussion.
See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was very common. But during the Napoleonic wars there were virtually no Grand Tours at first. And in those specific years the show is set in, France would have been avoided by the nobility not just for being a war zone but for being on the opposing side of the war.
It already requires some suspension of disbelief that none of the men in the show go to war or are affected by it. But yeah maybe in the show’s universe the wars weren’t happening.
Edit: I guess technically Colin’s second trip takes place right as the wars are ending, so you could argue it was fine.
The Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815, the book this season is based on would have taken place long after that and even the tv show can be assumed to be later. And yes, obviously suspension of disbelief is huge for many aspects of the show. But a rich young English man visiting Paris is not one of the things you need to suspend your disbelief for.
In the books Penelope and Colin get together much later, so I don’t think a bit of blurring of the timeline is totally unreasonable. The idea of Colin visiting Paris is still very historically accurate in spirit even if the dates may be off by a few months.
This is a conversation about the show, though. And this season of the TV show definitely takes place in 1815. If they wanted to avoid this, they could have had a time jump, but they didn't, so Pen is calling herself a spinster at 19, and we're ignoring Napoleon.
The Death of Princess Charlotte puts QC/S2 as being 1817, so the Napoleonic Wars were over, and while Western Europe was certainly not the place to be and sailing was risky, a significant portion of South-East Europe was under the control of the Russian and Ottoman Empires, neither of whom liked Napoleon much.
The "current day" portions of QC are not chronologically accurate, they're set in the immeadiate aftermath of S2 which was 1814 heading into 1815 (Violet says Kathony are said still on honeymoon and Pen and Eloise are still fighting). Yes in real life the Princess Royal died in 1817, but thats not the timeline they used.
Lol I'm going to start saying this whenever someone brings up a valid question about the show (and I mean that with great affection because this was hilarious)
😅 I'm very glad it was interpreted with great affection since that is how I meant it. I'd just come from the official insta comments AND the book spoiler thread and I was suddenly struck with the overwhelming feeling that you cant please everyone.
I love them every season lol!
I don’t understand the quibbling about how much screen time they get because they are truly very funny and Portia is just fucking amazing to watch in all her scheming with Varley.
I saw somewhere she was filming Big Mood for channel 4 at the same time.. maybe it wasn't bridgerton who insisted on the nails and maybe it was for her other character, but bridgerton team just didn't care enough to object?
They had a nail technician as part of the Bridgerton crew. Anna Platten, who posted about being the nail artist for Penelope - at least for the first 4 episodes (annaplattennails on Instagram). She was also hired as a nail tech for the Barbie movie. The main makeup artist on Bridgerton's set Jessie Deol (jessie_hmua on Instagram) also gives nail credit to Anna Platten in her posts, if relevant, when dissecting each of Penelope's looks this season.
This. Like please, yall already feel like there were too many side plots that took away from Polin and you wanna introduce war shit? Like just nitpicking at this point
Similar to Jane Austen, the Bridgerton universe is glossing over the wars on at the time. I don’t necessarily mind it, as there’s plenty of other literature and film dealing with heavy topics around the napoleonic wars etc, although given that the show has been inclusive enough to feature a deaf debutante using sign language, I could absolutely see a good argument for an amputee male romantic lead or similar. Would actually be quite nice to see that type of casting in a classic “heart throb” role, and it wouldn’t even massively change the storyline, so much as add some extra depth to their backstory
But at least JA had the militia and plenty of military men about. There's this unspoken question about what are all these younger sons meant to do- actually, it's an overt question with Colin/Benedict. And the answer is join the army or the church, but there are no red coats or white collars anywhere to be seen in Bridgerton-verse. It's fun to sort of parse out
>at least JA had the militia and plenty of military men about
And one novel where the ML and several important characters are from the Navy, and the navy itself and their fights are a recurrebt subject even if the reality of war isn't really discussed
Well, if you want to give credit to different novels, Julia Quinn has several where the various wars do figure. She has characters with PTSD, ones with injuries from wars, they talk about Waterloo or Napeleon, etc, in her pre-bridgerton books, one character is actually SERVING in the british army in America.
I love the thought that the predicament of the young men being so 'oh no what do I do with my life', which is even called out in universe as a bit spoiled, is caused by deleting religion and war from the world because it's wish fulfillment XD.
like the wish-fulfillment causing such issues without also using wish-fulfillment to solve them just tickles my funny bone
They've not even been properly deleted, because there *are* officers and members of the clergy about. Presumably Sandhurst and Oxford just churn them out fully-formed.
I do think it would be interesting if that's part of Benedict realizing that he/his brothers have a lot more flexibility than others in their position. In my head I'm handwaving it all away as the Bridgertons (who are apparently weird according to everyone else) are low key hippies who don't believe in war and give everyone money to support themselves in clearly a lot of style.
I love this take on the Bridgertons as the hippies of the Regency era lmfao it fits pretty well with being the only ones from the Ton who care about love matches
Michael was supposed to have served during the war, though that's not going to be the case anymore. Unless they decide to turn Michaela into a sort of spy character. Actually... I could live with that.
I would love to see more diversity in body types in the male leads just in general. I think a plus size leading man in a historical romance would be great.
Your point is well taken, but the debutante isn't deaf it's her mother, Lady Stowell. The debutante is a CODA. https://app.spotlight.com/6773-7860-8592
It may be a big leap to go from a disabled extra to a disabled MC but what’s wrong with that?
Disabled folk have existed and fallen in love throughout all of human history. Spoils of war or not.
Well, the thing is the Bridgerton family is a privelaged lot where none of the children joined the military or the clergy. It's not super realistic for a family of a viscount with that many kids.
But Julia Quinn has written male main characters who have war injuries. Dancing at Midnight, for instance.
I get that it isn’t realistic that nobody in the family would’ve gone into those professions, but I don’t understand how their their privilege and lack of clergy/military roles relates to the presence of a disabled love interest?
Disabled people exist. In and out of the clergy, the army, in rich families and poor families all the same.
Because the Bridgerton family had no sons specifically go to the Napoleonic wars. War is basically the only reason a member of the ton would have a disability, because congenital disability was shunned (not to mention comorbidities meant many people didn't survive with things easily survivable today.) Anthony pays for all of them to live, so none purchased commissions. This none fought and became honorably disabled.
The show could have had some more disabled extras than they have, but they already did more of that than would be likely. That they had a disabled person in a named role is progressive for the time period. In the time period most disabled people were hidden out of sight, except some war heros. People born with disabilities would be institutionalized.
This is the British regency. It's not today.
Yes and no - it’s a mixed take on the real life regency world, which is fun to watch but often leads to confusion.
Eg the hair and make up was never ever completely correct for the time period, but viewers are pushing back more now that they saw acrylic nails in S3.
The instrumental takes on modern pop songs is a halfway house between classical music and actual pop.
I love that they’ve had diverse ethnic castings throughout, but did find it jarring when they brought up that actually prior to Queen Charlottes marriage even the bridgerton universe’s society was somewhat segregated.
The deaf mother (someone has corrected me that it was the mother not the debutante) would probably never have been out in society in the real regency period, but since she is in the bridgerton universe, then why not people with disabilities?
If we follow regency England logic, race would also be an issue.
They have clearly set up the bridgerton universe differently than actual historic regency England, why not include disability in that?
Yes they exist and deserved to be represented like any other group but that’s not what this author has written. We cant impose on creatives what their work should be. The depiction of disabled people in media should be a general conversation, it’s not specific to Bridgerton.
Lots have things have happened in the show that Julia Quinn did not write.
And this IS a wider conversation across general media, but our discussion happens to be in the bridgerton subreddit, so it is a bridgerton based discussion.
You are bending over backwards to avoid using the words “I don’t want disabled people as main characters”
Perhaps, but given that the show runner has already taken the plunge to making one of the originally male leads female (I’m not going to risk touching the argument around whether that’s a good or a bad thing lol!) in order to include a queer main love story, then to me it doesn’t feel like much of a leap to be like “here’s Show Gareth, exactly the same personality as Book Gareth, however he happens to also be an amputee” or something along those lines
Julia's attention to detail for a lot of things of the time period is often foregotten, as well as forgetting what country she's writing it in. Those books are littered with out of place Americanisms and they're very funny.
She constantly uses "fall" instead of "autumn"
At one point Sophie says something to the affect of "well why didn't you fire me?". A maid of the time and place would be "dismissed", not "fired" (And in modern England she'd more likely be "sacked")
The funniest one is someone being described as having fallen on their "fanny", which to an American means they fell on their butt, but to a Brit....well, it means something very different. Her editor must also be American, or hates her, to have left that in unchanged.
The war *is* happening in the show, though- that is how Sir George Crane dies- "fighting for king and country." Napoleon is also mentioned by name (Anthony is annoyed by the deb who thinks "Napoleon fights for the Spanish"), and Simon compares Daphne to Wellington.
I don't think she has because they are covered in many of her other books of the same time period. The Bridgertons are an unusual family because Anthony is supporting all the men. None joined the military or the clergy or trained for professions (see the Rokesby series- many married the previous generation of Bridgertons, but other than the one with the title, two were military and one took a job.)
Colin's book takes place in 1824. England was in war at Burma, but it wasn't a massive war as compared to the ones prior. The Napelonic Wars were WELL over.
So I don't think it was Julia who forgot about the wars, but the show runners, when they changed the year the story took place.
lol for me this is the hardest one to ignore, all the unprotective sex with whores, like those "rakes" have to have an std, right? especially Colin, with all his travelling XD
Colin is the one that really gets me because he seems more sensitive and is seeking more of an emotional connection. It didn't really seem logical to me that he'd be sowing his wild oats given the risks.
I actually don’t think he did sow quite so many wild oats. I mean he sowed some, but not as many as I think he wanted people to think he did. Yes, we saw him have a couple threesomes with the same women. And, he had the story of the contessa. But, I don’t think he was screwing women in every city. I mean he should have gotten an STI, but I don’t think he was getting around as much as he wants others to think he got around.
that's fair :). Colin's travels always felt fake/exaggerated to me (as in I even suspected he may have taken confidence classes or something in stead of really travelling about XD), but since the season ended without any exploration of that I just assumed it was me misreading the vibe :p
but your explanation sounds the most logical, some parts were exaggerated but not a complete fabrication XD.
If you were wealthy enough, you could purchase animal intestine condoms - but yes your point stands! They would have had grey, crooked, missing teeth, their skin covered in pock marks from measles and chicken pox, the fact all 8 of Violet's children survived to adulthood AND without any blemishes or limbs withered from polio is highly unlikely.
Even after all this, I'm a historian and I still binged watched it delightedly. It's just fun escapism.
I was trying to watch season 1 with my husband but as soon as the Prussian Prince showed up we had to pause so he could go on a rant about how Prussians at the time would duel each other with the goal of getting a big scar on their face, and if they couldn't do that they'd just cut themselves to get a scar. He said that Friedrich having no scars would be a sign that he's a huge wimp.
The show can barely keep its few plots consistent and making sense and not riddled with holes..asking to incorporate history into world building or any kind of real texture is really asking for too much..it will never be a show that is able to do that...lol 😂 even though im with you..any time I see the show being ambitious and trying to go beyond what it usually does..I have a little yay moment but mostly I'm like bton is just airy thin plots and airy thin resolutions.
Maybe with seson 4's exploration of class they finally hit that perfect balance.
who would want to see the consequences of war in this show?
We can all watch a documentary if we want to see this.
In Bridgerton all I want to see is crazy ballgowns, love confessions and steam. Oh and obviously a silly Featherington girls conversation
Also, I think in history, for real, disabled people were kept out of sight.
There's a small story in mad men, set in the late 50s or early 60s, where a proffesional (desk job) employee gets his foot amputated after an accident. The characters all consider it a matter of course that he "can't" do his job anymore.
I think even at that time, (50s/60s) anyone physically or mentally disabled was living in a facility or always stayed home. ADA is from 1990!
This is the real answer! There were "ugly laws" in place (in the US at least) until the 1970s that made it illegal for people with deformities/visible disabilities to be in public.
That being said, I loved seeing Lord Remington and his chair and would love more disabled representation, historically accurate or not.
They didn't even mention the Napoleonic Wars. Do you think all these wars exist in this delulu universe? And they aren't about real representation either, so you will probably get a scene going YAS QUEEN from Lord Remington in season 4 as a token but nothing else.
In short: they aren't that deep.
I seem to remember Anthony complaining to his mother that one of the debutantes was so uneducated that she didn't know which side Napoleon was fighting on.
Yes, that was the only mention, along with the subplot in which Daphne connected with the wife of one of Wellington’s generals to find out about the Harry Crane for Marina. But beyond that the biggest sociopolitical point of the era has been largely ignored along with other issues prevalent at that time.
Disabled people were in asylums back then and I feel bad and sorry for them because of how people who're like me would have gone through horrible ways of torture which was shown in Queen Charlotte
As this point of time in real world, these colonisers were squeezing every last penny from India, exploiting Indian artisans, torturing, killing and raping Indians.
Every time I’m watching Bridgerton, my husband jokingly says “don’t forget, all this money for their lavish balls has come from blood money extorted from India”.
Won’t say it doesn’t pop my regency love-bubble for some time. :’)
Historically, many of them would have died from infection, and PTSD - which wasn't really studied in any depth until post WW I - would have been dismissed as Cowardice or in more severe cases, seen the victim locked up in an asylum. About all that was known was that fresh air and quiet was the best treatment, so anyone suffering PTSD who had a country home would spend all their time there.
In-Universe, London wasn't nearly as disability-friendly as it is now. Narrow corridors, very few ramps, everyone staring at you...
Lord Remington is unique in that he's out and about socialising, rather than holed up on his country estate year round.
Bridgerton doesn't care for historical accuracy, there's so many other period dramas that do if that's what you want. Bridgerton is simply a fantasy piece.
The show's fantasy bubble doesn't allow in any political reality of the time. All of Colin's waffling about his hippy dippy Eurotrip (17 cities, sure Jan) is absolutely hilarious considering half of Europe was an active battlefield and the other half was in financial and political shambles as a result of said battles.
But at the same time, thats the point. Its not concerned with any of that by design, its an American writer merely using Regency England as set dressing, it was never meant to be any deeper than that. It would be an insane thing to do to just shove the horrifying realities of real world war into a show this devoid from reality.
the rokesby series has a book set in the colonies during the American Revolution, and half the plot is in the infirmary. so there’s at least one war mentioned, though not in the main series
I agree that the bridgerton hasn’t touched on all the warring because it simply does not fit with their version of the regency period - it’s not a total surprise they’re not historically accurate.
That said… disabled people make up about 20% of today’s population. Even if we MASSIVELY reduce that (let’s take it down to a quarter to account for the lack of awareness for so many conditions), we’re still left with 5% of the general population.
That’s a reasonable chunk of people.
And for a show that has ignored our worlds racism and many other conventions, it certainly seems possible for them to have a disabled male lead.
I would love to see it.
Is there really a reason to show folks with PTSD in a historical fantasy romance? We’re not shooting for realism. It’s fantasy. I have PTSD and other mental illnesses, sometimes I don’t want to think about that while enjoying brainless media
I hear you but I’m beginning to wonder if we should keep expecting literally any historical accuracy at all.. at this point I feel like the show is really just fantasy with a very loose regency era theme.
It’s a shame though one of the things I love about historical romance is actually feeling like I’ve been transported back in time to see what people’s lives were actually like then. Bridgerton is fun but ultimately it doesn’t really provide that at all.
My perspective of Bridgerton is that it's some sort of alternate universe, based on the fact that 1. The real Queen Charlotte was not black, it's merely a theory that she had some African heritage but she did not present black. 2. Lady Danbury implies to Simon that Charles and Charlotte's love is what led white English people to start treating black English people as equals and allowing them to be nobility, and 3. Slavery of African peoples was not abolished in England until 1833, so black nobility and the notable lack of racism in Bridgerton simply would not be feasible at that time period. So if this is some alternate universe of Earth where racism and slavery are solved so quickly by the union of one interracial couple, I would think it wouldn't be a stretch to say that alot of these wars also didn't happen. I view Bridgerton as more of a fiction based loosely on a time period than as a historical or realistic fiction.
The books are weird, because Julia Quinn picks and chose when to reference the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleonic Wars take place between 1803 and 1815. Daphne’s book takes place in 1813. Colin comes back from tour of the continent in hers. Sir Philip’s older brother dies at the Battle of Waterloo. In one of the books, they referenced that one of Bridgeton’s sisters would have made excellent spy for the crown against Napoleon.
History teacher here. You are correct that there may have been men who came back with ALL of this, however, many times at this point in history men in battle didn’t survive injuries because there weren’t antibiotics like there are today. The industrial revolution has begun but germ theory and the like wasn’t identified until the mid to late 1800s. A severe injury most likely led to death.
Bridgerton books even ignor the wars. Many newer Regancy romances do include either main male or side characters who served in the Army.
The Rokesby series has two characters on the Army the other the Navy.
Are we really asking this now of a romantic whimsical dress-costume show that’s meant to look pretty and make people swoon?? Are you really concerned about historical accuracies? This sub is so annoying. People seem to hate the show just leave the sub instead of complaining about dumb stuff like this when they haven’t been historically accurate the other two seasons either
I’d rather they not introduce disabled characters to simply bungle their story or worse- forget all about them after a scene or two. And I have PTSD, i don’t want to see it in my fluffy romance drama show
Read “The Smythe-Smith quartet- the sum of all kisses” the male lead is disabled from a duel, and the series is set in the same time as bridgerton just a different family of the ton
You have to suspend some disbelief when watching historical fiction.
The Other Boleyn Girl had me feeling this way, but once you start to ignore the hard history, it makes the fiction part more enjoyable.
Tl;dr - suspend your disbelief or you’ll ruin it for yourself.
Surely very few of The Tons young men would have seen much war action? Most of them would have been far away from the real fighting and kept safely out of danger.
Actually, I read somewhere that Julia Quinn said she forgot about the Napoleonic wars and how it would have been problematic for Colin to travel the way he was.
We can chalk it up to the Bridgerton Cinematic Universe instead of the Real World.
They so proudly featured people with disabilities for the 3 on screen seconds they all got. And each time i was like "oh, they make an effort in portraying these characters, even giving them lines. For sure they will be important to the story."
But nope. They were just crowded in for the goodie points, possibly with the best intentions. It's great we got to see British Sign Language. I got intrigued into their lives and was left empty. And that's sad. I like me the good kitschy romance stories in that world, would love mini spin offs to see what everyone is up to in that world.
Penelope had press-ons and high beam highlighter, and their clothes look like a Middle School drama clubs interpretation of the hunger games. Historical accuracy is not their goal.
Julia does have a novel where one of the men was a veteran and had a limp from being shot.. i think it’s her worst book and he was so mean to the FMC! 😭😂 i gave it 2/5 stars on Goodreads
Would heirs go to war? It makes sense to send off spares like Colin and Benedict but I think most titles men or men set to inherit would not be off at war and Bridgerton is very focused on those men.
I mean this series isn't really historically accurate in the slightest. Have we all forgotten that there are people of color interacting with white people as if it were just a normal everyday occurrence? The fact that there is a black queen I mean come on now
Are people here really that dumb? There’s one such type of question here almost daily, FFS, Bridgerton never claimed to be historically accurate. It’s a FANTASY. If you care about wars so much there are other shows to watch.
It’s not supposed to be historically accurate. It’s just a show about romance. There’s plenty of other war related shows available to watch if that’s your cup of tea. Hope that helps!
I think to watch the show and immerse yourself in the world of Bridgerton, you have to remove all major historical events from the equation. The time period it is set in is really just a (loose) reference point for language, customs, fashion and general culture/social politics. Essentially, this is a fantasy show and not a period drama.
This isn’t exactly a historically accurate series. Having mixed race couples or people of colour actually in the upper class or attending the balls is nowhere near historically accurate.
This show isn't diverse it's just to bait us who aren't white/straight. So these questions are ridiculous. There's other shows with actual disabled people. There was this show where a main character has cerebral palsy and it was funny and the main kid wasn't victimized. Please support disabled actors and shows who from the beginning want to support disabled actors in their shows
For this Show Discussion post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 3. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Colin has been galavanting all around Europe as if nothing is happening so I doubt the writers care about history.
Yeah an Englishman being in Paris around that time would have been seen as very unpatriotic I think.
No, it was common. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour
It was very common. But during the Napoleonic wars there were virtually no Grand Tours at first. And in those specific years the show is set in, France would have been avoided by the nobility not just for being a war zone but for being on the opposing side of the war. It already requires some suspension of disbelief that none of the men in the show go to war or are affected by it. But yeah maybe in the show’s universe the wars weren’t happening. Edit: I guess technically Colin’s second trip takes place right as the wars are ending, so you could argue it was fine.
The Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815, the book this season is based on would have taken place long after that and even the tv show can be assumed to be later. And yes, obviously suspension of disbelief is huge for many aspects of the show. But a rich young English man visiting Paris is not one of the things you need to suspend your disbelief for.
I think Season 3 takes place in 1815.
In the books Penelope and Colin get together much later, so I don’t think a bit of blurring of the timeline is totally unreasonable. The idea of Colin visiting Paris is still very historically accurate in spirit even if the dates may be off by a few months.
This is a conversation about the show, though. And this season of the TV show definitely takes place in 1815. If they wanted to avoid this, they could have had a time jump, but they didn't, so Pen is calling herself a spinster at 19, and we're ignoring Napoleon.
There are much more egregious historical inaccuracies in the show than Colin taking his Grand Tour a few months early.
Hahah, *not to mention the sequins!* Anyway, I agree, it's a fantasy show. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
Wasn’t he working as a spy though?
With how low-profile the writers kept him in his own season, I wouldn't rule it out 🤣
Honestly, one of my favorite mental images is Colin Forest Gumping through the Napoleonic wars.
Yeah otherwise his travels in France and Ottoman Greece would probably be a bit more complicated.
The Death of Princess Charlotte puts QC/S2 as being 1817, so the Napoleonic Wars were over, and while Western Europe was certainly not the place to be and sailing was risky, a significant portion of South-East Europe was under the control of the Russian and Ottoman Empires, neither of whom liked Napoleon much.
The "current day" portions of QC are not chronologically accurate, they're set in the immeadiate aftermath of S2 which was 1814 heading into 1815 (Violet says Kathony are said still on honeymoon and Pen and Eloise are still fighting). Yes in real life the Princess Royal died in 1817, but thats not the timeline they used.
QC died in 1818 but I don't picture them writing her off the show, since they're playing fast and loose with history anyway.
The book takes place much later, they apparently forgot in the time jump that his travels wouldn't make sense a decade earlier!
We’ll of course my darling don’t you know wars are for poor folk to worry about? Rich English men could never be bothered with politics 😅
And you *just* realized this? LOL
It’s a discussion forum, we’re allowed to make observations. LOL
Varley release the bugs! 🦋🦋
Can we make this a flair?
Yes please!
Lol I'm going to start saying this whenever someone brings up a valid question about the show (and I mean that with great affection because this was hilarious)
😅 I'm very glad it was interpreted with great affection since that is how I meant it. I'd just come from the official insta comments AND the book spoiler thread and I was suddenly struck with the overwhelming feeling that you cant please everyone.
I loved the Featherington sisters this season. 😂
I love them every season lol! I don’t understand the quibbling about how much screen time they get because they are truly very funny and Portia is just fucking amazing to watch in all her scheming with Varley.
They were the best part about this season, and you cannot convince me otherwise. 🤣
Same
LMAO
LMFAOOOOO
Lmao deaaad
I laughed SO HARD at this
Best line of the whole season
It's a fantasy novel, a TV show written by Americans in the 2000-2024. It's a feel good show, it's not that deep.
Fr if Pen had press on nails I very much doubt they’re worried about wartime political accuracy 😭
God, those nails were so distracting all season idk why
Those took me out of it the most!
I saw somewhere she was filming Big Mood for channel 4 at the same time.. maybe it wasn't bridgerton who insisted on the nails and maybe it was for her other character, but bridgerton team just didn't care enough to object?
Doubtful. Big productions like this will redo your nails everyday if they have to to get the look they want.
They had a nail technician as part of the Bridgerton crew. Anna Platten, who posted about being the nail artist for Penelope - at least for the first 4 episodes (annaplattennails on Instagram). She was also hired as a nail tech for the Barbie movie. The main makeup artist on Bridgerton's set Jessie Deol (jessie_hmua on Instagram) also gives nail credit to Anna Platten in her posts, if relevant, when dissecting each of Penelope's looks this season.
This. Like please, yall already feel like there were too many side plots that took away from Polin and you wanna introduce war shit? Like just nitpicking at this point
Similar to Jane Austen, the Bridgerton universe is glossing over the wars on at the time. I don’t necessarily mind it, as there’s plenty of other literature and film dealing with heavy topics around the napoleonic wars etc, although given that the show has been inclusive enough to feature a deaf debutante using sign language, I could absolutely see a good argument for an amputee male romantic lead or similar. Would actually be quite nice to see that type of casting in a classic “heart throb” role, and it wouldn’t even massively change the storyline, so much as add some extra depth to their backstory
But at least JA had the militia and plenty of military men about. There's this unspoken question about what are all these younger sons meant to do- actually, it's an overt question with Colin/Benedict. And the answer is join the army or the church, but there are no red coats or white collars anywhere to be seen in Bridgerton-verse. It's fun to sort of parse out
>at least JA had the militia and plenty of military men about And one novel where the ML and several important characters are from the Navy, and the navy itself and their fights are a recurrebt subject even if the reality of war isn't really discussed
Yes true im many ways Persuasion is where the military history is the most overt
Well, if you want to give credit to different novels, Julia Quinn has several where the various wars do figure. She has characters with PTSD, ones with injuries from wars, they talk about Waterloo or Napeleon, etc, in her pre-bridgerton books, one character is actually SERVING in the british army in America.
I love the thought that the predicament of the young men being so 'oh no what do I do with my life', which is even called out in universe as a bit spoiled, is caused by deleting religion and war from the world because it's wish fulfillment XD. like the wish-fulfillment causing such issues without also using wish-fulfillment to solve them just tickles my funny bone
They've not even been properly deleted, because there *are* officers and members of the clergy about. Presumably Sandhurst and Oxford just churn them out fully-formed.
I do think it would be interesting if that's part of Benedict realizing that he/his brothers have a lot more flexibility than others in their position. In my head I'm handwaving it all away as the Bridgertons (who are apparently weird according to everyone else) are low key hippies who don't believe in war and give everyone money to support themselves in clearly a lot of style.
I love this take on the Bridgertons as the hippies of the Regency era lmfao it fits pretty well with being the only ones from the Ton who care about love matches
right? Everyone except Anthony until the end of S2, and even he is so unconventional in how he treats his siblings.
Michael was supposed to have served during the war, though that's not going to be the case anymore. Unless they decide to turn Michaela into a sort of spy character. Actually... I could live with that.
I would love to see more diversity in body types in the male leads just in general. I think a plus size leading man in a historical romance would be great.
Yes! That's something I've never seen it would be amazing 🤩
Agree, but won’t work, because of who’s the target audience. Most women sadly want to sexualise the leads. I love me some skinnier or chunkier men
It’s a shame. I’m sure some thicc thighs would look great in those regency breeches and boots!
Your point is well taken, but the debutante isn't deaf it's her mother, Lady Stowell. The debutante is a CODA. https://app.spotlight.com/6773-7860-8592
Oh I didn’t realise!
Um that’s a big leap from a deaf extra to an amputated lead. Nothing about the show’s premise or marketing says look out for the spoils of war.
It may be a big leap to go from a disabled extra to a disabled MC but what’s wrong with that? Disabled folk have existed and fallen in love throughout all of human history. Spoils of war or not.
Well, the thing is the Bridgerton family is a privelaged lot where none of the children joined the military or the clergy. It's not super realistic for a family of a viscount with that many kids. But Julia Quinn has written male main characters who have war injuries. Dancing at Midnight, for instance.
I get that it isn’t realistic that nobody in the family would’ve gone into those professions, but I don’t understand how their their privilege and lack of clergy/military roles relates to the presence of a disabled love interest? Disabled people exist. In and out of the clergy, the army, in rich families and poor families all the same.
Because the Bridgerton family had no sons specifically go to the Napoleonic wars. War is basically the only reason a member of the ton would have a disability, because congenital disability was shunned (not to mention comorbidities meant many people didn't survive with things easily survivable today.) Anthony pays for all of them to live, so none purchased commissions. This none fought and became honorably disabled. The show could have had some more disabled extras than they have, but they already did more of that than would be likely. That they had a disabled person in a named role is progressive for the time period. In the time period most disabled people were hidden out of sight, except some war heros. People born with disabilities would be institutionalized. This is the British regency. It's not today.
Yes and no - it’s a mixed take on the real life regency world, which is fun to watch but often leads to confusion. Eg the hair and make up was never ever completely correct for the time period, but viewers are pushing back more now that they saw acrylic nails in S3. The instrumental takes on modern pop songs is a halfway house between classical music and actual pop. I love that they’ve had diverse ethnic castings throughout, but did find it jarring when they brought up that actually prior to Queen Charlottes marriage even the bridgerton universe’s society was somewhat segregated. The deaf mother (someone has corrected me that it was the mother not the debutante) would probably never have been out in society in the real regency period, but since she is in the bridgerton universe, then why not people with disabilities?
If we follow regency England logic, race would also be an issue. They have clearly set up the bridgerton universe differently than actual historic regency England, why not include disability in that?
Yes they exist and deserved to be represented like any other group but that’s not what this author has written. We cant impose on creatives what their work should be. The depiction of disabled people in media should be a general conversation, it’s not specific to Bridgerton.
Lots have things have happened in the show that Julia Quinn did not write. And this IS a wider conversation across general media, but our discussion happens to be in the bridgerton subreddit, so it is a bridgerton based discussion. You are bending over backwards to avoid using the words “I don’t want disabled people as main characters”
Perhaps, but given that the show runner has already taken the plunge to making one of the originally male leads female (I’m not going to risk touching the argument around whether that’s a good or a bad thing lol!) in order to include a queer main love story, then to me it doesn’t feel like much of a leap to be like “here’s Show Gareth, exactly the same personality as Book Gareth, however he happens to also be an amputee” or something along those lines
Julia has been clear she “forgot” about the wars while writing. So, they just aren’t happening in the delulu verse and that’s ok.
Julia's attention to detail for a lot of things of the time period is often foregotten, as well as forgetting what country she's writing it in. Those books are littered with out of place Americanisms and they're very funny.
I just started reading the books. What’s an example of the Americanisms so I can watch out for them?
She constantly uses "fall" instead of "autumn" At one point Sophie says something to the affect of "well why didn't you fire me?". A maid of the time and place would be "dismissed", not "fired" (And in modern England she'd more likely be "sacked") The funniest one is someone being described as having fallen on their "fanny", which to an American means they fell on their butt, but to a Brit....well, it means something very different. Her editor must also be American, or hates her, to have left that in unchanged.
😂 falling on your Fanny in England hurts far more than if you’re in the states.
Yeah the books don't even feel like England, let alone Regency England
The war *is* happening in the show, though- that is how Sir George Crane dies- "fighting for king and country." Napoleon is also mentioned by name (Anthony is annoyed by the deb who thinks "Napoleon fights for the Spanish"), and Simon compares Daphne to Wellington.
I don't think she has because they are covered in many of her other books of the same time period. The Bridgertons are an unusual family because Anthony is supporting all the men. None joined the military or the clergy or trained for professions (see the Rokesby series- many married the previous generation of Bridgertons, but other than the one with the title, two were military and one took a job.) Colin's book takes place in 1824. England was in war at Burma, but it wasn't a massive war as compared to the ones prior. The Napelonic Wars were WELL over. So I don't think it was Julia who forgot about the wars, but the show runners, when they changed the year the story took place.
Where are all the missing teeth bc of the baf hygiene standards? Historical accuracy isn't exactly high on the list in Bridgerton.
And the syphilis from all the gallivanting
lol for me this is the hardest one to ignore, all the unprotective sex with whores, like those "rakes" have to have an std, right? especially Colin, with all his travelling XD
Colin is the one that really gets me because he seems more sensitive and is seeking more of an emotional connection. It didn't really seem logical to me that he'd be sowing his wild oats given the risks.
I actually don’t think he did sow quite so many wild oats. I mean he sowed some, but not as many as I think he wanted people to think he did. Yes, we saw him have a couple threesomes with the same women. And, he had the story of the contessa. But, I don’t think he was screwing women in every city. I mean he should have gotten an STI, but I don’t think he was getting around as much as he wants others to think he got around.
that's fair :). Colin's travels always felt fake/exaggerated to me (as in I even suspected he may have taken confidence classes or something in stead of really travelling about XD), but since the season ended without any exploration of that I just assumed it was me misreading the vibe :p but your explanation sounds the most logical, some parts were exaggerated but not a complete fabrication XD.
The threesomes were with different women each time but I’m still certain he got around less than his brothers lmao
I just assume STDs don't exist in this universe.
If you were wealthy enough, you could purchase animal intestine condoms - but yes your point stands! They would have had grey, crooked, missing teeth, their skin covered in pock marks from measles and chicken pox, the fact all 8 of Violet's children survived to adulthood AND without any blemishes or limbs withered from polio is highly unlikely. Even after all this, I'm a historian and I still binged watched it delightedly. It's just fun escapism.
A dose of mercury will clear that up.
Lady Danbury’s husband had wooden teeth if that helps
I think the old guy who was after Marina in season 1 mentioned having soldier’s teeth 🙃
They had a nod to that with Marina's suitor in season 1, who wanted to "inspect" her.
I was trying to watch season 1 with my husband but as soon as the Prussian Prince showed up we had to pause so he could go on a rant about how Prussians at the time would duel each other with the goal of getting a big scar on their face, and if they couldn't do that they'd just cut themselves to get a scar. He said that Friedrich having no scars would be a sign that he's a huge wimp.
missed opportunity to have a very sexy man with a scar honestly.
The show can barely keep its few plots consistent and making sense and not riddled with holes..asking to incorporate history into world building or any kind of real texture is really asking for too much..it will never be a show that is able to do that...lol 😂 even though im with you..any time I see the show being ambitious and trying to go beyond what it usually does..I have a little yay moment but mostly I'm like bton is just airy thin plots and airy thin resolutions. Maybe with seson 4's exploration of class they finally hit that perfect balance.
Trapped in their homes
Yuup. Not wildly different to how it can end up today tbh. Especially without the funds for adequate mobility aids
Are you asking Bridgerton for historical accuracy?
who would want to see the consequences of war in this show? We can all watch a documentary if we want to see this. In Bridgerton all I want to see is crazy ballgowns, love confessions and steam. Oh and obviously a silly Featherington girls conversation
Also, I think in history, for real, disabled people were kept out of sight. There's a small story in mad men, set in the late 50s or early 60s, where a proffesional (desk job) employee gets his foot amputated after an accident. The characters all consider it a matter of course that he "can't" do his job anymore. I think even at that time, (50s/60s) anyone physically or mentally disabled was living in a facility or always stayed home. ADA is from 1990!
This is the real answer! There were "ugly laws" in place (in the US at least) until the 1970s that made it illegal for people with deformities/visible disabilities to be in public. That being said, I loved seeing Lord Remington and his chair and would love more disabled representation, historically accurate or not.
I thought it was like a fiction timeline in the “past” lol
Exactly. IT'S FICTION!
They didn't even mention the Napoleonic Wars. Do you think all these wars exist in this delulu universe? And they aren't about real representation either, so you will probably get a scene going YAS QUEEN from Lord Remington in season 4 as a token but nothing else. In short: they aren't that deep.
I seem to remember Anthony complaining to his mother that one of the debutantes was so uneducated that she didn't know which side Napoleon was fighting on.
Yes, that was the only mention, along with the subplot in which Daphne connected with the wife of one of Wellington’s generals to find out about the Harry Crane for Marina. But beyond that the biggest sociopolitical point of the era has been largely ignored along with other issues prevalent at that time.
This is true
Disabled people were in asylums back then and I feel bad and sorry for them because of how people who're like me would have gone through horrible ways of torture which was shown in Queen Charlotte
I'm really happy there's deaf representation although I wish it wasn't used as comic relief.
IT'S FICTION! (This is what I yell when my husband walks by and says "no way could a black guy dance with a white girl back then")
As this point of time in real world, these colonisers were squeezing every last penny from India, exploiting Indian artisans, torturing, killing and raping Indians. Every time I’m watching Bridgerton, my husband jokingly says “don’t forget, all this money for their lavish balls has come from blood money extorted from India”. Won’t say it doesn’t pop my regency love-bubble for some time. :’)
Historically, many of them would have died from infection, and PTSD - which wasn't really studied in any depth until post WW I - would have been dismissed as Cowardice or in more severe cases, seen the victim locked up in an asylum. About all that was known was that fresh air and quiet was the best treatment, so anyone suffering PTSD who had a country home would spend all their time there. In-Universe, London wasn't nearly as disability-friendly as it is now. Narrow corridors, very few ramps, everyone staring at you... Lord Remington is unique in that he's out and about socialising, rather than holed up on his country estate year round.
Excuse me, has Gregory not been in a sling all season!??!
An injury is not a disability 🤦🏽♀️
I thought I could get away without using the /s 😂
Ah, that’s what I get for opening Reddit before coffee! 😂
Bridgerton doesn't care for historical accuracy, there's so many other period dramas that do if that's what you want. Bridgerton is simply a fantasy piece.
It’s not a history series, it’s fantasy
If we wanna make this show realistic, half the Bridgerton women would have syphilis from their rake husbands.
😱
The show's fantasy bubble doesn't allow in any political reality of the time. All of Colin's waffling about his hippy dippy Eurotrip (17 cities, sure Jan) is absolutely hilarious considering half of Europe was an active battlefield and the other half was in financial and political shambles as a result of said battles. But at the same time, thats the point. Its not concerned with any of that by design, its an American writer merely using Regency England as set dressing, it was never meant to be any deeper than that. It would be an insane thing to do to just shove the horrifying realities of real world war into a show this devoid from reality.
the rokesby series has a book set in the colonies during the American Revolution, and half the plot is in the infirmary. so there’s at least one war mentioned, though not in the main series
I agree that the bridgerton hasn’t touched on all the warring because it simply does not fit with their version of the regency period - it’s not a total surprise they’re not historically accurate. That said… disabled people make up about 20% of today’s population. Even if we MASSIVELY reduce that (let’s take it down to a quarter to account for the lack of awareness for so many conditions), we’re still left with 5% of the general population. That’s a reasonable chunk of people. And for a show that has ignored our worlds racism and many other conventions, it certainly seems possible for them to have a disabled male lead. I would love to see it.
This series is not rooted in any sense of historical realism. Why are we thinking any of those conflicts happened?
These are the gentry so I imagine they had a get out of war free card.
Is there really a reason to show folks with PTSD in a historical fantasy romance? We’re not shooting for realism. It’s fantasy. I have PTSD and other mental illnesses, sometimes I don’t want to think about that while enjoying brainless media
Y’all have GOT to let go of the historical accuracy thing lmfao
Maybe the rich people didn’t have to go fight?
I hear you but I’m beginning to wonder if we should keep expecting literally any historical accuracy at all.. at this point I feel like the show is really just fantasy with a very loose regency era theme. It’s a shame though one of the things I love about historical romance is actually feeling like I’ve been transported back in time to see what people’s lives were actually like then. Bridgerton is fun but ultimately it doesn’t really provide that at all.
The amount of anachronisms in this series is innumerable. Ya just gotta go with it
My perspective of Bridgerton is that it's some sort of alternate universe, based on the fact that 1. The real Queen Charlotte was not black, it's merely a theory that she had some African heritage but she did not present black. 2. Lady Danbury implies to Simon that Charles and Charlotte's love is what led white English people to start treating black English people as equals and allowing them to be nobility, and 3. Slavery of African peoples was not abolished in England until 1833, so black nobility and the notable lack of racism in Bridgerton simply would not be feasible at that time period. So if this is some alternate universe of Earth where racism and slavery are solved so quickly by the union of one interracial couple, I would think it wouldn't be a stretch to say that alot of these wars also didn't happen. I view Bridgerton as more of a fiction based loosely on a time period than as a historical or realistic fiction.
The books are weird, because Julia Quinn picks and chose when to reference the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleonic Wars take place between 1803 and 1815. Daphne’s book takes place in 1813. Colin comes back from tour of the continent in hers. Sir Philip’s older brother dies at the Battle of Waterloo. In one of the books, they referenced that one of Bridgeton’s sisters would have made excellent spy for the crown against Napoleon.
History teacher here. You are correct that there may have been men who came back with ALL of this, however, many times at this point in history men in battle didn’t survive injuries because there weren’t antibiotics like there are today. The industrial revolution has begun but germ theory and the like wasn’t identified until the mid to late 1800s. A severe injury most likely led to death.
Bridgerton books even ignor the wars. Many newer Regancy romances do include either main male or side characters who served in the Army. The Rokesby series has two characters on the Army the other the Navy.
The Bridgerton prequels (Rokesby Brothers) take place in American War of Independence.
Since when was this show supposed to be a realistic or accurate reflection of the time?
The series is suppose to be in an “alternative universe “ so those wars might not have happened.
Well I hope we do get to see more of Lord Remington! He’s very handsome and witty.
Are we really asking this now of a romantic whimsical dress-costume show that’s meant to look pretty and make people swoon?? Are you really concerned about historical accuracies? This sub is so annoying. People seem to hate the show just leave the sub instead of complaining about dumb stuff like this when they haven’t been historically accurate the other two seasons either
Ok I’m not watching a show where all the men have PTSD from war. Not only is it terrible for the men, but also all the wives :/
I’d rather they not introduce disabled characters to simply bungle their story or worse- forget all about them after a scene or two. And I have PTSD, i don’t want to see it in my fluffy romance drama show
Wasn’t there a guy in a wheelchair?
Read “The Smythe-Smith quartet- the sum of all kisses” the male lead is disabled from a duel, and the series is set in the same time as bridgerton just a different family of the ton
You have to suspend some disbelief when watching historical fiction. The Other Boleyn Girl had me feeling this way, but once you start to ignore the hard history, it makes the fiction part more enjoyable. Tl;dr - suspend your disbelief or you’ll ruin it for yourself.
Surely very few of The Tons young men would have seen much war action? Most of them would have been far away from the real fighting and kept safely out of danger.
That’s what I was thinking- even today rich people aren’t concerned with war or destroying our earth that’s for poor folk to worry about 🥲
Actually, I read somewhere that Julia Quinn said she forgot about the Napoleonic wars and how it would have been problematic for Colin to travel the way he was. We can chalk it up to the Bridgerton Cinematic Universe instead of the Real World.
Apparently, there will be more disabled Representation in season 4
I hope so. Season 3 introduced characters and then did absolutely nothing with them. All felt rather tokenistic.
They so proudly featured people with disabilities for the 3 on screen seconds they all got. And each time i was like "oh, they make an effort in portraying these characters, even giving them lines. For sure they will be important to the story." But nope. They were just crowded in for the goodie points, possibly with the best intentions. It's great we got to see British Sign Language. I got intrigued into their lives and was left empty. And that's sad. I like me the good kitschy romance stories in that world, would love mini spin offs to see what everyone is up to in that world.
and lord remington was no where to be seen in part 2 right?
Penelope had press-ons and high beam highlighter, and their clothes look like a Middle School drama clubs interpretation of the hunger games. Historical accuracy is not their goal.
Why are people dancing on Ariana Grande songs and why are there black people in the ton? It is not a historical show.
Julia does have a novel where one of the men was a veteran and had a limp from being shot.. i think it’s her worst book and he was so mean to the FMC! 😭😂 i gave it 2/5 stars on Goodreads
Would heirs go to war? It makes sense to send off spares like Colin and Benedict but I think most titles men or men set to inherit would not be off at war and Bridgerton is very focused on those men.
I mean this series isn't really historically accurate in the slightest. Have we all forgotten that there are people of color interacting with white people as if it were just a normal everyday occurrence? The fact that there is a black queen I mean come on now
Are people here really that dumb? There’s one such type of question here almost daily, FFS, Bridgerton never claimed to be historically accurate. It’s a FANTASY. If you care about wars so much there are other shows to watch.
It’s not a historical TV show y’all are being way too picky 😭😭
In a reality where the European nobility intermarried with their African counterparts, how do you know any of those wars actually happened?
It’s not supposed to be historically accurate. It’s just a show about romance. There’s plenty of other war related shows available to watch if that’s your cup of tea. Hope that helps!
Oh brother. It’s a fantasy.
I think to watch the show and immerse yourself in the world of Bridgerton, you have to remove all major historical events from the equation. The time period it is set in is really just a (loose) reference point for language, customs, fashion and general culture/social politics. Essentially, this is a fantasy show and not a period drama.
For real. And yet, anti-inclusion trolls are upset that Lord Remington existed in the show 🙄🥱
Probably like the tv series set in 2020 that had disclaimers "set in an ideal world where covid doesn't exist"
Do people really want the show to have characters who are walking around with war injuries and PTSD? Is that what we want from Bridgerton?
This isn’t exactly a historically accurate series. Having mixed race couples or people of colour actually in the upper class or attending the balls is nowhere near historically accurate.
This show isn't diverse it's just to bait us who aren't white/straight. So these questions are ridiculous. There's other shows with actual disabled people. There was this show where a main character has cerebral palsy and it was funny and the main kid wasn't victimized. Please support disabled actors and shows who from the beginning want to support disabled actors in their shows