E01.03: Art of the Swoon

[Avabelle]

Only on episode 3 and completely unspoiled. I haven’t read the books or any spoilers/future episode discussions.

This was the episode that sold the main couple for me. I get how people aren’t enamoured with Daphne but for me she works. She’s not a weak lady but she is quite innocent and she works well alongside the more worldly Simon. I like the banter between the two of them and I’m enjoying the slow build. The chemistry isn’t smoking but it is there and growing with each episode.

I don’t understand why mrs featherington is trying to help (in her eyes) Marina. I didn’t think that she even liked her? 
 

Eloise is the apparent fan favourite but for me she kind of grates. There are certain aspects of the character I like. In particular that she wants more from life then what women were given in those days. I just find the actress to be a bit over the top and the character to be a bit of a moan. 
 

An unspoiled assumption I’ve made so far is that:
 

Benedict is gay and might have an affair with the artist Lady Danbury got him into trouble with. Spoiler 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Avabelle

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, Avabelle said:

I don’t understand why mrs featherington is trying to help (in her eyes) Marina. I didn’t think that she even liked her? 

Since Marina is now part of the Featherington family, and therefore representative of the Featherington girls, if Marina gets a good (wealthy) husband, wealthy young men (and their mothers) will see the other Featherington daughters as worthy wives too. 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Avabelle said:

 

I don’t understand why mrs featherington is trying to help (in her eyes) Marina. I didn’t think that she even liked her? 
 

  Hide contents

 

Lady F is a practical woman who understands the way of the Ton.  She is also not a bad woman.  Marina is currently living with her daughters and if her secret gets out it will reflect badly on them as well. Lady F is trying to marry Marina off before that happens.  It sounds mercenary,  but Lady F knows better than the girls what happens to an unmarried girl who has a child.  She doesn't have to like Marina to want to spare her from that fate.

[nodorothyparker]

Marina is a member of the Featherington household. As a still unmarried woman, that makes her the responsibility of the Featherington parents. If it becomes publicly known that she's pregnant, people of their circle are probably less likely to try to do the math of it to figure out she came to the Featheringtons in that condition and more likely to assume that the family was lax in their supervision and chaperoning of her and start wondering about the daughters as well. That's a real consideration in Pride and Prejudice after unmarried Lydia runs off with Wickham. "Who would connect themselves with such a family?" Lady Featherington was already having trouble marrying off her girls before their father gambled away their dowries.

Also, for as mercenary as she's coming across, that scene where she took Marina to the poor side of town showed that she's a realist who knows what fate awaits Marina and her child if she isn't respectably married.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Also, for as mercenary as she's coming across, that scene where she took Marina to the poor side of town showed that she's a realist who knows what fate awaits Marina and her child if she isn't respectably married.

When I was about Marina's age, my father took me to skid row in Chicago for the same purpose. My parents, who were born in the 1920s, had viewpoints about marriage and society similar to the Featheringtons, while I, coming of age in the 60s and having not experienced The Great Depression, had a different point of view. The 2 generations depicted in this series are not much different than mine and my parents. Or maybe not much different than any 2 generations?

[RachelKM]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:08 PM, Maya said:

It would be difficult in this particular adaptation where mixed race couples are the norm though... same with the old guy passing the baby off as his own. 

Passing the child off as the old guy's would not be a problem.  Marina would still be the acknowledged mother.  

[eleanorofaquitaine]

The discussion around Phoebe Dynevor's looks and whether or not she would be a "Diamond of the First Water" remind me a little bit of the discussion that took place after the 1995 Pride and Prejudice and whether Susannah Harker was really "prettier" than Jennifer Ehle. (To my mind, both women were beautiful, so the argument was a little silly but putting that aside).  Beauty standards change. What is considered the height of fashionable beauty in one era isn't the same in another.  For the Regency period, it's my understanding that a more "classical" look would be considered the height of fashion, and I think that Dynevor has that look.

This may also been an era that didn't like a more showy kind of beauty - in other words, the Cressida Cowpers are considered a little gauche because she is too showy in her looks.  Daphne is both pretty and demure, and since we haven't really seen the other competition beyond Cressida and the Featherington girls, it's not that difficult to believe she'd be the diamond of that season.  

[bijoux]

Speaking of the Diamond and so on, in one of the cast interviews, the acttess portraying the oldest Featherington sister says it's her third season. Is that true? I have no issue with her being several seasons in, I do however take issue with her being presented to the Queen. That was only done at the start of a girl's first season, wasn't it? 

[Door County Cherry]

This post was erased because it's wrong.

[Bellatrix]

On 12/31/2020 at 6:32 AM, Enginerd said:

I find it completely believable that upper class girls knew nothing of sex. Unlike the lower classes, they weren't living in small homes with thin walls and potential exposure to their parents' nocturnal activities, or to women giving birth nearby or nursing babies in view of others, or having to help with the farm animals. They lived in mansions with governesses and constant supervision. Any saucy activities or discussions could be kept in private rooms far from the eyes and ears of children and unmarried women. They didn't go to school with all manner of people sharing information. They were educated by their governesses and tutors in only "appropriate" subjects, which didn't include much anatomy. Their media was very limited, to approved books etc. All the adults and boys were strictly trained to keep any frank talk or salacious materials well away from proper young ladies. Their friends were carefully limited to girls who were sheltered in the same way. They had periods, but dealt with them with rags etc., no need to touch. They would likely have been taught to avoid touching their nethers, although they would have been told it was because it was dirty, being where pee and poop come out. No suggestion of possible titillation, and why would most of them think to try? The appeal of marriage was that you had status and security and decent companionship if you were lucky, and could have children, which just come naturally after you're married. They were conditioned from birth to set their boundaries of what was acceptable to think about or talk about so far back from actual sex that they would likely not have wondered up to that point what was that far past the boundary. Unless they were particularly inquisitive, like Eloise, and also not easily cowed by chastisement.

This is actually a really interesting question. What did Regency girls actually know?

I once asked my grandmother (born in the 1920's), if they knew, when they were young, how babies were made (the most polite phrasing I could find, lol), as she was the eldest primary source at hand, *g* She laughed really hard, and said that, no, they thought babies were found in the cabbage patch, rolling her eyes all the while. I took this to mean that they very well knew. And this was, of course, in a time before sex education in schools, before anything of the sort would have been mentioned on the radio, before television entirely. 

When we had sex education in school (before the Internet, but barely), at ten years old, a girl sincerely – she told me many years afterwards – thought the teacher was joking. This was the mid-1990's.

Did for instance Jane Austen know the specifics? My guess in her case would be yes.

But even if they knew the gist of it, or the mechanics, how much did they know? 

Katherine Howard, in 1541/2, writes in her confession:

“Examined whether I called him Husband, and he me Wife.— I do Answer, that there was Communication in the House that we
Two should Marry together ; and some of his Enemies had Envy thereat, wherefore he desired me to give him Leave to call me Wife, and that I would call him Husband. And I said I was content. And so after that, commonly he called me VVife, and many times I called him Husband. And he used many Times to Kiss me, and so he did to many other commonly in the House…

As for Carnall Knowledge, I confess as I did before, that diverse Times he hath lyen with me, sometimes in his Doublet and Hose, and Two or Thre Times naked : But not so naked that he bad nothing upon him, for he had al wayes at the least his Doublet, and as I do think, his Hose also, but I mean naked when his Hose were putt down. And diverse Times he would bring Wine, Strawberryes, Apples, and other Things to make good Chear, after my lady was gone to Bed.”

Which prompted some discussion regarding whether she actually knew what constituted intercourse, or if she thought that he had to be completely naked for that to be the case. This, in turn, prompted someone to mention that her mother, a married woman, back in the 1970's, had given her the advice that as long as she and her partner had clothes on it was impossible to have sex.

I actually do wonder if there was a cultural change between Jane Austen's generation and the one who came of age 20 years later. In her early novels, the ones written in the 1790's (even if they were published and somewhat edited/rewritten later), Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey, none of the main characters or their sisters have governesses or are sent away to school, while in her later novels written roughly two decades later, Fanny Price and the Miss Bertrams have a governess (Mansfield Park), Anne Elliot is sent away to school in Bath (Persuasion) and Emma Woodhouse naturally has her beloved governess Miss Taylor (Emma).

I would think having a lot of free time and spending a lot of time at home in more varied company might lead to more distribution of knowledge, just by sitting and listening to married women talk, or running in and out of the kitchen and overhearing the kitchen maids' conversation, for example.

I also think the gossipy atmosphere and many more girls at a school might lead to some more distribution of knowledge.

The scenario described above which I have quoted have always seemed more Victorian than Regency to me, but perhaps this is the point in time in which this cultural change occurred.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Bellatrix

[bijoux]

2 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

@bijoux I think the actress must have been confused.  She's definitely in her first season.

  Hide contents

She may be conflating show knowledge with book knowledge.   In the book, it's her third season. 

 

Thanks. That right there is a big ol' red flag about Lord Featherington's finances. 

[Door County Cherry]

5 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Thanks. That right there is a big ol' red flag about Lord Featherington's finances. 

Actually I was wrong.   I'm tired and thought you were talking about Daphne. 

I don't know which seasons the girls are in except Penelope. I think this was mentioned in the show but I'll spoiler it because I remember it most from book.

Spoiler

All were out at the same time.  Penelope is out early than she would normally be which is why she's at the balls and Eloise is not.

 

[Nidratime]

On 1/2/2021 at 1:57 AM, RachelKM said:

Passing the child off as the old guy's would not be a problem.  Marina would still be the acknowledged mother.  

Any child born in a marriage is considered legally legitimate. Now, whether the child looks like the father -- whether suspected by the father or by anyone else is another issue. But, it's not a legal one.

[RachelKM]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

Any child born in a marriage is considered legally legitimate. Now, whether the child looks like the father -- whether suspected by the father or by anyone else is another issue. But, it's not a legal one.

I understand that. I was responding to someone who commented on the (admittedly out there idea) that Lady F pass the baby off as her own with a comment that it would hard for Lady F to do so in light of Marina's coloring, and presumably the baby's coloring (setting aside the fact that Marina is rather light skinned and the Cranes are apparently white and phenotype genes are weird).  The same post then went on to say that it would also be hard to pass the baby off as the old guy's.  I was just remarking on the fact that, to the extent that complexion would be considered, it would not be relevant where Marina were the acknowledged mother.

ETA:

For clarity, I believe a child born within a marriage was legitimate at birth unless the father denied the child at birth. Once a child was accepted as legitimate, the father could not change his mind later. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by RachelKM

[magdalene]

Daphne's looks remind me of a young Audrey Hephurn, she has that gamine thing about her.  I can see why men would find her lovely.

Her brothers are attractive too, with the exception of what's his name - Colin.  That actor seems miscast to me.  I know Eloise is supposed to be the bookish tom boy type but those bangs are unfortunate.

The costumes of the Featherington women are  amazing in their fugliness. Those colors and patterns - I can hardly stand to look at them, yet I can't look away.

This show is a lot of fun, the perfect escapism for me right now.

[Avabelle]

5 hours ago, magdalene said:

The costumes of the Featherington women are  amazing in their fugliness. Those colors and patterns - I can hardly stand to look at them, yet I can't look away.

Peacocking at its finest.

[bijoux]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJjh_DlHLv-/?igshid=17qy1gko7spvg

This does make me wish for the Bridgerton version of Survivor. I bet all the servants would love watching it. 😄

[peachmangosteen]

Honestly, that was probably my favorite scene of the whole show lol.

[bijoux]

6 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Honestly, that was probably my favorite scene of the whole show lol.

Yeah, looking back on the season, most of the things I want to see more of are Bridgerton siblings being siblings. That's a very good thing indeed. 

[shapeshifter]

11 hours ago, bijoux said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJjh_DlHLv-/?igshid=17qy1gko7spvg

18 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Yeah, looking back on the season, most of the things I want to see more of are Bridgerton siblings being siblings.

The siblings offer the most comic relief, IMO. 
In this clip, to me, it's like:
So you doubt the Bridgerton and Featherington girls don't know where babies come from? 
Well, clearly they can't boil water either, so...

 

[tennisgurl]

I like Eloise, but why does every period show seem to be feel required to have the "ahead of her time young wealthy woman who wants to be a writer/adventurer/construction worker who's snarky and enjoys masculine things and isnt like the other girls" character? Really, its surprising that she isnt the main character, and instead Daphne is more of a lead. Normally Ahead of Her Time girl is the main character and her more traditionally feminine proper sister is her foil. 

I can see more of the chemistry between Simon and Daphne in this episode, they have a lot of nice banter and seem to really enjoy each others company and actually being real with each other, not having to keep so close to the Regency dating script. Too bad Simon is still stuck on this "I will never marry" daddy issues vow, so now he is pulling the old "push person I care about away for their own good by acting like a jerk" gambit, because this is a Regency romance and we need drama. I found Daphne a bit boring the first few episodes, but she has grown on me a lot. She is rather naïve and sheltered, but she isnt stupid and is quite witty and astute when needs be. 

The sibling moments are my favorite scenes in the show, they seem so warm and real and they add some extra levity to the show. They do seem like siblings, there is a lot of that exasperated fondness that you get from family and it feels very real, especially in the highly structured and scripted Regency era upper classes. 

Lady F forging the letter was quite surprising to me, but it shouldn't have been. She is a very pragmatic women who has to get three unmarried daughters with no money married, and now Mariana as well and her with a scandal on the way, so this seems like the best move. 

Edited January 7, 2021 by tennisgurl

[shapeshifter]

33 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

but why does every period show seem to be feel required to have the "ahead of her time young wealthy woman who wants to be a writer/adventurer/construction worker who's snarky and enjoys masculine things and isnt like the other girls" character? Really, its surprising that she isnt the main character,

I have read more Jane Austen than anyone needs, so, for me, all of the "ahead of her time young wealthy woman who wants to be a writer [etc.]" characters are stand-ins for Jane herself, whose main characters did not always embody her own traits.

[SeanC]

Not that this sort of media is concerned with historical accuracy (or needs to be), but for the record, a prince of the blood would not even be allowed to marry Daphne, let alone being pushed toward it by the queen. 

Daphne is a commoner -- a rich commoner, to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.  In fact, the real Queen Charlotte had multiple brothers-in-law or sons who attempted to marry into aristocratic families and whose wives were either never received at court or (after the Royal Marriages Act was passed; the law that would later give Princess Margaret so much trouble) whose marriages were legally invalid for lack of royal permission.

From the late 17th century through the beginning of the 20th century if you were of princely rank you couldn't marry anyone who wasn't also royalty.

[DearEvette]

Daphne wasn't a royal, true, but she was not a commoner.  The Bridgerton family was of the nobility class as part of the hereditary peerage.  Her father and now brother is a Viscount.

Commoners were generally anyone who was not either nobility or landed gentry.

 

[magdalene]

Is a Viscount higher ranked than your standard Lord Soandso?

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Daphne wasn't a royal, true, but she was not a commoner.  The Bridgerton family was of the nobility class as part of the hereditary peerage.  Her father and now brother is a Viscount.

Commoners were generally anyone who was not either nobility or landed gentry.

Anybody not of royal title is a commoner in one usage (see, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Lady Diana Spencer, both daughters of earls, but considered to be commoners who married into the House of Windsor).

Of course, in another sense it’s silly to use that term to describe members of the aristocracy.

[SeanC]

18 minutes ago, magdalene said:

Is a Viscount higher ranked than your standard Lord Soandso?

In the British peerage the order from highest to lowest is:

1.  Duke (Duchess)

2.  Marquess (Marchioness)

3.  Earl (Countess)

4.  Viscount (Viscountess)

5.  Baron (Baroness)

Barons were most likely to be introduced as “Lord”; for the higher ranks you’d be more likely to specify the title, though this wasn’t universal by any means.

Edited January 8, 2021 by SeanC

[Ohiopirate02]

11 hours ago, SeanC said:

Not that this sort of media is concerned with historical accuracy (or needs to be), but for the record, a prince of the blood would not even be allowed to marry Daphne, let alone being pushed toward it by the queen. 

Daphne is a commoner -- a rich commoner, to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.  In fact, the real Queen Charlotte had multiple brothers-in-law or sons who attempted to marry into aristocratic families and whose wives were either never received at court or (after the Royal Marriages Act was passed; the law that would later give Princess Margaret so much trouble) whose marriages were legally invalid for lack of royal permission.

From the late 17th century through the beginning of the 20th century if you were of princely rank you couldn't marry anyone who wasn't also royalty.

The prince here though was a German prince.  If he was seriously considering marrying Daphne, then he was most likely a younger son.  He spent much of his youth and was educated in England which further supports this.  Those minor German princes were not that wealthy and needed the money Daphne could bring.  

[SeanC]

7 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The prince here though was a German prince.  If he was seriously considering marrying Daphne, then he was most likely a younger son.  He spent much of his youth and was educated in England which further supports this.  Those minor German princes were not that wealthy and needed the money Daphne could bring.  

The custom applied to princes on the continent as well.  At most you could marry morganatically, which did not make the bride a princess or bring any succession rights.

[Growsonwalls]

Wasn;'t the point of the "ton" being presented to the queen was so they could vary sundry noblemen looking for wives? Which happened to include the prince? Everyone presented to the prince would have had some noble title.

[Roseanna]

On 1/8/2021 at 6:29 AM, SeanC said:

Anybody not of royal title is a commoner in one usage (see, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Lady Diana Spencer, both daughters of earls, but considered to be commoners who married into the House of Windsor).

Plus, "Lady" (or "Lord" for their brothers) was only a courtesy title. They weren't peers, members of the Upper House of Parliament.

[Featherhat]

On 1/8/2021 at 2:03 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

The prince here though was a German prince.  If he was seriously considering marrying Daphne, then he was most likely a younger son.  He spent much of his youth and was educated in England which further supports this.  Those minor German princes were not that wealthy and needed the money Daphne could bring.  

Many German "noble/royal" families still insist on "equal marriages" for their children today, even though the ranks have been legally abolished. Because the House Rules haven't been updated in 100 years and dictate who can inherit everything. 

Queen Mary aka May of Teck a hundred years late was considered a poor relation by some because her father was the son of a morganatic marriage to a mere Countess, even though her mother was a British princess. A Viscount's daughter would be well below even a second son Princeling's station, especially the Queen's nephew or close cousin. Britain never had morganatic marriage though and if you were married that was that despite gossip. 

I think it definitely worked as a plot point for this non realistic show though and has been used in many romance novels. 

[shapeshifter]

39 minutes ago, Featherhat said:

I think it definitely worked as a plot point for this non realistic show though and has been used in many romance novels. 

Not being terribly familiar with the genre of romance novels, I ask: 
Is it generally acceptable to the readers of romance novels to make up rules for marriage between classes and between commoners and royalty for such a novel so long as those rules are adhered to within the novel just as, say, in scifi, it's okay to be able to travel FTL (faster than the speed of light) so long as the results are consistent (e.g., either time travel is involved or it's not)?

[eleanorofaquitaine]

This is a world that includes Black dukes and other member of the aristocracy, so I think it is safe to say that the rules of the actual aristocracy in early 19th century England aren't the same rules as the rule of early 19th century Bridgerton England.

With regard to Eloise, I like the character but I'm partial to liking the outspoken, bookish kind of heroines. On another note, the actress reminds me an awful lot of Carey Mulligan - they look a lot alike to my eyes. 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

Just now, shapeshifter said:

Is it generally acceptable to the readers of romance novels to make up rules for marriage between classes and between commoners and royalty for such a novel so long as those rules are adhered to within the novel just as, say, in scifi, it's okay to be able to travel FTL (faster than the speed of light) so long as the results are consistent (e.g., either time travel is involved or it's not)?

In general, most romance novels that are set in this period will acknowledge class differences or barriers for romance/marriage. It's actually pretty unusual for romance novels to include actual kings or princes (or princesses) as characters - if they are involved at all, they are usually secondary characters.  So the rules around marrying royalty don't come up but a lot of books in the genre understand that there are unwritten rules around marriage in the aristocracy - in fact, it often becomes a plot point. 

[Featherhat]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Not being terribly familiar with the genre of romance novels, I ask: 
Is it generally acceptable to the readers of romance novels to make up rules for marriage between classes and between commoners and royalty for such a novel so long as those rules are adhered to within the novel just as, say, in scifi, it's okay to be able to travel FTL (faster than the speed of light) so long as the results are consistent (e.g., either time travel is involved or it's not)?

It really depends on the book. Some writers try to get things as "historically accurate" (as far as we can tell) as possible and if they introduce say a big class difference then explore it thoroughly. Others do explore it and use it for drama but don't let the real life rules and potential shunning afterwards affect the outcome. The same applies to sex. 

Others don't care and will have a duke falling in love with the maid and an off hand comment about how he doesn't care about what society thinks because he's rich and powerful. 

As @eleanorofaquitaine said royalty are generally not involved and especially not as the Hero/Heroine. Quinn does bring in a Russian Prince in the same role in a different series but whilst the arcane rules about Russian court life are mentioned the fact that she's an Earl's daughter and not a princess isn't a factor.

[Mirabelle]

On 1/5/2021 at 12:38 PM, bijoux said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJjh_DlHLv-/?igshid=17qy1gko7spvg

This does make me wish for the Bridgerton version of Survivor. I bet all the servants would love watching it. 😄

I also like the scene immediately right after where apparently they couldn't figure out where the cups were kept because they're both chugging right out of the bottles. 

[SoWindsor]

It seems I’m in the minority but I love Daphne and think she and Simon have wonderful chemistry. The actress definitely reminds me of Keira Knightly and Hillary Duff’s sister Haylee. And maybe some other actresses that I can’t place just yet.

I think our standards of beauty have gotten a bit warped with filters and plastic surgery hence why many don’t think Daphne is pretty enough to be the diamond. 
 

Also I don’t particularly like Eloise. Feels like she’s trying to hard to be different. Feels forced.

[janie jones]

Am I the only one who thought at first that Lady Featherington was taking Marina to see a midwife about an abortion?

[ouinason]

No, you are not.

[shoetingstar]

On 12/27/2020 at 11:55 AM, toomuchtv said:

I’m just really not getting that daphne is truly the most beautiful, eye catching, belle of the season. The actress seems to have no presence to me.

THIS is why I came to forum. I've felt this way from the moment the Queen picked her among all the women. I guess that how the casting of this role when? I also thought she looked about 12. She's an average girl and there's nothing wrong with that but stop telling us she is this stunning BEAUTY among all the ladies in this town. She really doesn't even have the witty-enough personality to counter it. I notice they keep the other ladies plain. Like that tall blonde mean girl who wanted the Prince so badly. They give her weird hats and awful makeup. Marina is the one exception and they had to saddle her with a pregnancy so she wouldn't be competition. 

The actress is fine though and I'm otherwise, enjoying the show. 😄

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by shoetingstar

[ouinason]

Lets be real, the queen picked Daphne to praise on a whim.  Or based it more on her poise and calm in the moment than her looks alone.

[shoetingstar]

9 minutes ago, ouinason said:

Lets be real, the queen picked Daphne to praise on a whim.  Or based it more on her poise and calm in the moment than her looks alone.

Yes, that's what I fanwanked so I wouldn't be distracted lol. And to be fair the Prince is rather bland too. Everyone else is rather vibrant, even the characters I dislike.

[DearEvette]

On 1/9/2021 at 9:16 PM, eleanorofaquitaine said:

It's actually pretty unusual for romance novels to include actual kings or princes (or princesses) as characters - if they are involved at all, they are usually secondary characters.  So the rules around marrying royalty don't come up but a lot of books in the genre understand that there are unwritten rules around marriage in the aristocracy - in fact, it often becomes a plot point. 

Romance novels are like tv shows, once something becomes popular that thing becomes very much "in."  Early days of romance, medieval romance was very popular and kings and queens were always speaking characters.  Heroines were usually ladies in waiting very close to the queen, there was lot of court intrigue and the heroes were very much high in the King's confidence. Then Julie Garwoood and Diana Gabaldon showed up and Highlander romances pushed out the purely court medieval romances.  Suddenly every hero was in a plaid and saying "dinna fash ye'self lassie."  The Battle of Culloden was in every book and Bonnie Prince Charlie was always a lightning rod plot character.

It was when the Regency romance took supremacy that the kings/queens dissolved into the background.  Interestingly in most books it is the Prince Regent aka Prinny who will make a brief appearance, very few mention Charlotte.

[ouinason]

True, Charlotte usually only gets a passing mention if the heroine is being presented, and generally the prelude to that and the gown itself are way more prevalent.  

And Prinny gets mentioned a lot, usually very unflatteringly.  Or makes a guest appearance to be a total waste of time and air who is unreasonable and might prove to be an obstacle for the main couple somehow, without noticing or caring.  

[shoetingstar]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:32 PM, Enginerd said:

I find it completely believable that upper class girls knew nothing of sex. Unlike the lower classes, they weren't living in small homes with thin walls and potential exposure to their parents' nocturnal activities, or to women giving birth nearby or nursing babies in view of others, or having to help with the farm animals. They lived in mansions with governesses and constant supervision. Any saucy activities or discussions could be kept in private rooms far from the eyes and ears of children and unmarried women. They didn't go to school with all manner of people sharing information. They were educated by their governesses and tutors in only "appropriate" subjects, which didn't include much anatomy. Their media was very limited, to approved books etc. All the adults and boys were strictly trained to keep any frank talk or salacious materials well away from proper young ladies. Their friends were carefully limited to girls who were sheltered in the same way. They had periods, but dealt with them with rags etc., no need to touch. They would likely have been taught to avoid touching their nethers, although they would have been told it was because it was dirty, being where pee and poop come out. No suggestion of possible titillation, and why would most of them think to try? The appeal of marriage was that you had status and security and decent companionship if you were lucky, and could have children, which just come naturally after you're married. They were conditioned from birth to set their boundaries of what was acceptable to think about or talk about so far back from actual sex that they would likely not have wondered up to that point what was that far past the boundary. Unless they were particularly inquisitive, like Eloise, and also not easily cowed by chastisement.

An earlier time of course, but I am reminded of King Louise The XVI and Marie Antoinette. Not having children for years until her brother took Louise aside and got the details of what they were, or rather, were not doing. There was nothing physically wrong (though there is speculation). They were apparently equally clueless and not uh...completing the act. He then gave the King "The Talk" I guess lol. They did not conceive until that intervention. That was in 1777. Bridgerton is supposed to be early 19th century, 1813 according to wiki.

[Growsonwalls]

42 minutes ago, shoetingstar said:

An earlier time of course, but I am reminded of King Louise The XVI and Marie Antoinette. Not having children for years until her brother took Louise aside and got the details of what they were, or rather, were not doing. There was nothing physically wrong (though there is speculation). They were apparently equally clueless and not uh...completing the act. He then gave the King "The Talk" I guess lol. They did not conceive until that intervention. That was in 1777. Bridgerton is supposed to be early 19th century, 1813 according to wiki.

Louis was the rarity at that time: a monarch who was a gentle lad, not highly sexed. From the bios I've read Louis and Marie just weren't sexually or personally that compatible. Even after they conceived they spaced their kids out in a rather modern way -- a child in 1778, 1781, 1785 and 1786. They didn't have a baby every year. I think Louis was one of those husbands who respected "not tonight" and thus the practical spacing out of their kids. Louis and Marie were also considered to be more hands-on parents.

[janie jones]

16 hours ago, shoetingstar said:

I also thought she looked about 12.

I had to look up the actress's age because some of the scenes in later episodes made me uncomfortable. I thought she was like 15.

[iwantcookies]

Daphne looks 16 to me. She is a very pretty girl.

[bijoux]

I like her looks more and more as time goes, even though the bangs kill me. Violet, who do you hate, Daphne or me? But I just can’t get over her snooze worthy personality.