The Non-Bon-Ton: Unpopular Opinions

[MamaMax]

Ok guys, I am getting increasingly frustrated with the show. The first season it was quirky and kinda hot,  but now I'm finding it ridiculous and boring.

Let's lay down some snark! 

 

[LoveIsJoy]

Unpopular Opinion, but I thought the Francesca story was a big snooze.  I found the character to be beautiful but utterly uninteresting and forgettable.  Although her new beau/husband was pleasant, I wasn’t drawn to either character and felt no connection or chemistry between them.  I really wasn’t rooting for them like I was for Kate and Anthony last season.  Their “story” felt like filler to me and each time they appeared onscreen I had to keep reminding myself who they were.  
 

Early on, I had hopes Francesca’s story would get interesting when the queen discovered her love for playing the piano.  That maybe the queen would help her bypass the whole society ritual and focus on finding a placement for Francesca to study music.

But no, the queen’s discovery of her talent went nowhere interesting.  Francesca’s big drama was that she selected a nice guy over a nobleman with money and Queen Charlotte’s backing.  Yawn.  The story got more dull as the season went on.

Of course, I haven’t read the books, so maybe the writers were just being true to the source material.  I’ve no idea, but the pair just didn’t work for me.

[Orcinus orca]

I had difficulty in viewing Francesca as a late teen.  I don't know how old she is (IMDB only gives a birthdate but not a year) but I have to believe she is older than she is supposed to portray.  That rather took me out of the story whenever she was onscreen.

7 minutes ago, LoveIsJoy said:

 I found the character to be beautiful but utterly uninteresting and forgettable.  Although her new beau/husband was pleasant, I wasn’t drawn to either character and felt no connection or chemistry between them.

I agree. Unfortunately their so-called romance was the one following the Season 2 sizzle between Kate and Anthony and I honestly think no further pairings will ever live up to that.

As I said in another thread, I think things are going downhill.  The "one year later" ending just felt like a finale to me.  I didn't really get into Pen and Colin anyway so if they disappear that's fine but that would also be the end of Lady W.

I did not read the books nor do I intend to so I have no idea what I might miss by not watching Season 4 but, honestly, I couldn't care less at this point.

[Conotocarious]

Are these opinions unpopular? Judging by the internet response I would say this thread title is wrong.

 

My unpopular opinion? I liked Seasons 1, 2 and 3. 

Edited June 22 by Conotocarious

[chitowngirl]

I think Francesca’s storyline was uninteresting because it’s a setup for her book story.

[kittykat]

I go into this show completely suspending all disbelief about historical context.  We came for the regency sexy times and stayed for the regency sexy times.

My only gripe about season 3 was it basically follows the same beats as S1 did.  Act one: secret arrangement, Act two: get married, realize they actually love one another, massive betrayal.  Act three: come to terms with one another's faults, love grows deeper.

I'm still in for S4 because the masked ball name drop pretty much confirms that Benedict is up next and Luke Thompson is more than ready to headline a Bridgerton season.

16 hours ago, Orcinus orca said:

did not read the books nor do I intend to so I have no idea what I might miss by not watching Season 4 but, honestly, I couldn't care less at this point.

In the books Francesca's marriage is not even mentioned until Romancing Mr Bridgerton (book 4), which is set in 1824.  Francesca is married I believe in 1818.  I won't give up what happened, but until her book its only been a background mention.  

[PRgal]

Unpopular opinion:  I really liked the Mondrich storyline.  I even wrote about it on my Substack. 

[Agalea Charis]

Unpopular Opinions: 

Season One was ruined by that one episode that shall not be named. I will never understand why the writers, who are notorious for changing things up, included that in the show. It was never going to translate over well to a modern audience regardless of the show being a historical fantasy. It was unnecessary and did a disservice to both Daphne and Simon. It made them as a couple hard to root for. 

I also don't understand Simon's method of not getting anyone pregnant. Pregnancy can still happen regardless of when one pulls out. 

While Marina's situation was sympathetic, her attitude was not. It was hard to connect with her as a character as she seemed to have an axe to grind with everyone. She was failed by her children's father. He should never left for war without marrying her first. Had she been his wife, she would have gotten his benefits when he died. It makes no sense why this character was in the show in the first place other than to add extra drama to this season. I have read the books so Marina's placement in the story at that point made no sense. The writers did this character and this actress a disservice. 

Regardless of Penelope's romantic feelings for Colin, she was still someone who cared for him and didn't want to see him duped by Marina. However, I think Penelope should have written a letter to Lady Violet or to Colin. Exposing Marina in public was uncalled for and cruel. Besides standing up to Lady Portia for Penelope, Colin's shining moment was his devastation over being lied to by Marina and saying that he would have married her anyway. 

Speaking of bad writing decisions, having the Season Two climax be actually getting Edwina down the aisle was wild. This is my favorite season out of the three and Anthony and Kate are the best pairing in the series. But this wedding made everyone involved look dumb. Instead of focusing on the main couple of the season, the bulk of the series dragged on with that wedding. The show could have had more explanation of Kate's backstory rather than some shoehorned in wedding plot. 

I didn't like Edwina's "half sister" comment or her not being able to grasp the sacrifices Kate had made for their family. I can understand Edwina been angry with Kate but that comment was deliberately hurtful. Unless Lady Mary was completely catatonic after her husband's death, it makes no sense how she wasn't aware of the family's finances. Kate's correspondence with the Sheffield's didn't seem that bad considering in order for Edwina to have a dowry, she would need the inheritance. I like how they showed Anthony and Kate's self sacrificing actions ending up negatively impacting others but it didn't need to have been shown in a wedding storyline. While I love Anthony and Kate, the plot of that season was bad. 

Anthony and Kate's gazebo scene was much better than their kiss at the church scene. 

They should have brought back Lord Lumley for Edwina. He was adorable. The secondary love interests like Lumley, Dorset, and Debling just disappear and never come back. 

I don't mind Eloise. She isn't my favorite but she's never grated my nerves. I hope there is a lot of development coming her way because that would be interesting to see. 

Colin was not convincing as a leading man and the show would have benefited in having the current season as Benedict's story while continuing to develop Colin. Simon and Anthony both look and sound like adults so I found them more believable as leading men. 

Francesca and John's story should not have happened this season. This should have been introduced the season before Francesca's season for continuity purposes. 

Writing out the Featherington family next season would make the most sense as to why the show runners went out of book order. The cousins marrying cousins and the fake gemstones in America plots were pointless. 

Penelope is a mean girl. I understand that she was seen as the laughingstock of the ton but she did the same to others as Lady Whistledown. It made the entire thing hypocritical. I didn't like how this plot was justified as a girl boss moment when the column was used to make fun of other women. I didn't find that empowering. Penelope's popularity as a character might be in part due to the actress being so delightful. 

The men in Bridgerton go right for hitching up the skirts. The carriage scene did nothing for me. The sex scene on the futon looked so uncomfortable for a woman. Lady Whistledown was full of innuendos so it was strange that Penelope seemed to know nothing about sex. 

The sixth episodes of all three season are the weakest. Season One had that episode that shall not be named. Season Two had that silly non wedding. Season Three had the one where Cressida of all characters took center stage as Lady Whistledown by in which the episode at large was a drag. 

The current season was the most hyped season but is probably going to be the most forgettable. There wasn't an "I burn for you" or "You are the bane of my existence and the object of all my desires" level of memorability. 

It's a good thing Shondaland has so much pull in the industry because if next season is anything like this season, it would not be renewed for more. It's still baffling to me why it takes over two years to produce eight episodes when others shows with bigger productions and more episodes don't take that long. 

 

 

Edited June 23 by Agalea Charis

[quarks]

34 minutes ago, Agalea Charis said:

It's still baffling to me why it takes over two years to produce eight episodes when others shows with bigger productions and more episodes don't take that long. 

As I noted on another thread here, other shows with equal or bigger productions and the same amount of episodes are taking that long:

1.  The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power., Amazon: Season 1 premiered on September 1, 2022 with 8 episodes; season 2 is scheduled to premiere on August 29, 2024 with 8 episodes - that is, almost exactly two years later.

Season 3 is in pre-production, but has not started filming, and Amazon has not said anything about a release date. 

2. House of the Dragon, HBO: Season 1 premiered on August 1, 2022 with ten episodes; season 2 premiered on June 16, 2024 with 8 episodes. So almost two years.

Season 3 is in pre-production; HBO has not announced a release date.

3. The Gilded Age, HBO. Season 1 premiered on January 24, 2022 with 9 episodes; Season 2 premiered on October 29, 2023 with 8 episodes, a year and a half later. The season finale was last December.

Season 3 starts filming next month. HBO has not announced a release date, but it's very unlikely to be in 2024.

4. The Wheel of Time, Amazon: Season 1 premiered on November 19, 2021 with 8 episodes; season 2 premiered on September 1, 2023, with 8 episodes. 

Season 3 has wrapped filming and is currently in post-production, with no release date yet. There's some fan speculation that Amazon intends to release Rings of Power and The Wheel of Time in alternative years, but I haven't heard any official confirmation from Amazon.

5. The Last of Us, HBO. Season 1 premiered on January 15, 2023, with 9 episodes.  Season 2 is currently filming, and is expected to be released in 2025 - that is, two years later.

6. Andor, Disney: Season 1 premiered on September 21, 2022, with 12 episodes. Thanks to numerous BTS issues, Season 2 is not expected to premiere until 2025 - more than a two year delay.

7. Loki, Disney: Season 1 premiered on June 9, 2021 with 6 episodes; season 2 premiered on October 5, 2023 - again, more than a two year delay.

8. Wednesday, Netflix: Season 1 was released on November 23, 2022; as of June 2024, season 2 was still filming, and Netflix has not announced a release date.

Not all streaming shows are doing this, of course - Hulu's Only Murders in the Building has been releasing a new season every year since 2021 - but Bridgerton isn't alone here, either. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Agalea Charis said:

Unpopular Opinions: 

Season One was ruined by that one episode that shall not be named. I will never understand why the writers, who are notorious for changing things up, included that in the show. It was never going to translate over well to a modern audience regardless of the show being a historical fantasy. It was unnecessary and did a disservice to both Daphne and Simon. It made them as a couple hard to root for. 

I also don't understand Simon's method of not getting anyone pregnant. Pregnancy can still happen regardless of when one pulls out. 

While Marina's situation was sympathetic, her attitude was not. It was hard to connect with her as a character as she seemed to have an axe to grind with everyone. She was failed by her children's father. He should never left for war without marrying her first. Had she been his wife, she would have gotten his benefits when he died. It makes no sense why this character was in the show in the first place other than to add extra drama to this season. I have read the books so Marina's placement in the story at that point made no sense. The writers did this character and this actress a disservice. 

Regardless of Penelope's romantic feelings for Colin, she was still someone who cared for him and didn't want to see him duped by Marina. However, I think Penelope should have written a letter to Lady Violet or to Colin. Exposing Marina in public was uncalled for and cruel. Besides standing up to Lady Portia for Penelope, Colin's shining moment was his devastation over being lied to by Marina and saying that he would have married her anyway. 

Speaking of bad writing decisions, having the Season Two climax be actually getting Edwina down the aisle was wild. This is my favorite season out of the three and Anthony and Kate are the best pairing in the series. But this wedding made everyone involved look dumb. Instead of focusing on the main couple of the season, the bulk of the series dragged on with that wedding. The show could have had more explanation of Kate's backstory rather than some shoehorned in wedding plot. 

I didn't like Edwina's "half sister" comment or her not being able to grasp the sacrifices Kate had made for their family. I can understand Edwina been angry with Kate but that comment was deliberately hurtful. Unless Lady Mary was completely catatonic after her husband's death, it makes no sense how she wasn't aware of the family's finances. Kate's correspondence with the Sheffield's didn't seem that bad considering in order for Edwina to have a dowry, she would need the inheritance. I like how they showed Anthony and Kate's self sacrificing actions ending up negatively impacting others but it didn't need to have been shown in a wedding storyline. While I love Anthony and Kate, the plot of that season was bad. 

Anthony and Kate's gazebo scene was much better than their kiss at the church scene. 

They should have brought back Lord Lumley for Edwina. He was adorable. The secondary love interests like Lumley, Dorset, and Debling just disappear and never come back. 

Colin was not convincing as a leading man and the show would have benefited in having the current season as Benedict's story while continuing to develop Colin. Simon and Anthony both look and sound like adults so I found them more believable as leading men. 

Francesca and John's story should not have happened this season. This should have been introduced the season before Francesca's season for continuity purposes. 

Writing out the Featherington family next season would make the most sense as to why the show runners went out of book order. The cousins marrying cousins and the fake gemstones in America plots were pointless. 

The sixth episodes of all three season are the weakest. Season One had that episode that shall not be named. Season Two had that silly non wedding. Season Three had the one where Cressida of all characters took center stage as Lady Whistledown by in which the episode at large was a drag. 

The current season was the most hyped season but is probably going to be the most forgettable. There wasn't an "I burn for you" or "You are the bane of my existence and the object of all my desires" level of memorability. 

It's a good thing Shondaland has so much pull in the industry because if next season is anything like this season, it would not be renewed for more. It's still baffling to me why it takes over two years to produce eight episodes when others shows with bigger productions and more episodes don't take that long. 

I agree with all of this. It was really hard to be sympathetic to Marina with her attitude. It stinks because it should have been a really good story because she made the mistake of not marrying the father of her child and really thought he was coming back for her. And it was a very serious situation.

I agree with the episode that shall not be named. I can't believe they actually went with it. I really thought they wouldn't and have Daphne confront Simon.

I always thought Simon's method to not get pregnant was one the least likely to work. 

I agree Penelope should have told Eloise or Violet and if she couldn't do that write to Violet. I don't like Colin's reaction to it or him in season two.

He doesn't seem get or care that Marina was trying to trap him in a marriage.  She never really loved him and is shocked when she doesn't want to start an affair or run off with him in season two. I really don't get it. That's also someone who should not be be marrying in the following season. 

And Marina continues to be terrible saying she doesn't need his forgiven. So she doesn't feel at all bad what she did to him?

I agree about the wedding in season two. It was just bad. Poor Edwina finally gets a clue at the alter about Anthony and Kate which was just horrible and humilating. And completely unnecessary. 

[Agalea Charis]

25 minutes ago, quarks said:

Not all streaming shows are doing this, of course - Hulu's Only Murders in the Building has been releasing a new season every year since 2021 - but Bridgerton isn't alone here, either. 

I get that not all are like this. I was thinking of shows like Game of Thrones. Poldark came out yearly and that was a historical romance like Bridgerton. Poldark might be the most comparable of all shows being an hour long period piece with the same number of episodes. 

I think since Bridgerton is only eight episodes, the show would benefit by doing a ninety minute or two episode premiere, then dropping the episodes weekly. Or increasing the episode count to ten. 

[Roseanna]

15 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

she made the mistake of not marrying the father of her child

Marina had no power whether to marry her lover - it was entirely his choice.

But of course we haven't told the circumstances: maybe there was no time as his regiment left or maybe her father refused his proposal and sent Marina to London to forget him (her reason of her sudden visit was never explained).

Let's remember that Marina became interested to marry another man only after Lady Featherington and her servant had falsified the letter from Marina's lover saying he wanted nothing to do with her and their child. Lady F claimeed she did it to Marina's own good: she had to learn that all men are traitors, but after Daphne found a way to find out her lover's intentions, Lady F seemed just cruel.  

[LoveIsJoy]

2 hours ago, Agalea Charis said:

Season One was ruined by that one episode that shall not be named. I will never understand why the writers, who are notorious for changing things up, included that in the show. It was never going to translate over well to a modern audience regardless of the show being a historical fantasy. It was unnecessary and did a disservice to both Daphne and Simon. It made them as a couple hard to root for. 

I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory.  But can anyone provide a synopsis of “the episode that shall not be named?”  It sounds like some found it utterly unforgettable (and not in a good way) but I have personally forgotten large chunks of season 1.  Thanks.

[Roseanna]

20 minutes ago, LoveIsJoy said:

I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory.  But can anyone provide a synopsis of “the episode that shall not be named?”  It sounds like some found it utterly unforgettable (and not in a good way) but I have personally forgotten large chunks of season 1.  Thanks.

Quote

With the help of her lady's maid, Daphne figures out that Simon could have children if he chose to, but is deliberately withdrawing early to avoid impregnating her. Later, while having sex with Simon, she holds him down so he cannot withdraw, and confronts him afterward, accusing him of lying to her about being infertile.

 

[andromeda331]

14 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Marina had no power whether to marry her lover - it was entirely his choice.

Your right. I forgot that would be his choice. It would be nice to know more about it though. His brother didn't know anything about her. Did their parents' know and say no or was he keeping it a secret? If so why? 

Quote

Let's remember that Marina became interested to marry nother man only after Lady Featherington and her servant had falsified the letter from Marina's lover saying he wanted nothing to do with her and their child. Lady F claimeed she did it to Marina's own good: she had to learn that all men are traitors, but after Daphne found a way to find out her lover's intentions, Lady F seemed just cruel.  

It really was. I get Lady F wanted to get Marina to take the situation seriously. I can see her assuming that he wasn't coming back for Marina. That is a lot more common and honestly I probably would assume that too. Daphne was able to use her position to find out what happened to him. Lady F didn't although I'm not sure if she would have been able to. Marina didn't think Daphne would find out anything because she was a woman. I'm not sure how accurate that is though. Wouldn't Lady or Lord F be able to talk to the military or someone to find out? Of course Lord F would have to actually do something. 

[quarks]

4 minutes ago, Agalea Charis said:

I get that not all are like this. I was thinking of shows like Game of Thrones. Poldark came out yearly and that was a historical romance like Bridgerton. Poldark might be the most comparable of all shows being an hour long period piece with the same number of episodes. 

I think since Bridgerton is only eight episodes, the show would benefit by doing a ninety minute or two episode premiere, then dropping the episodes weekly. Or increasing the episode count to ten. 

Maybe? 

But Poldark and Game of Thrones both ended in 2019 - before the year that was 2020, aka the year that accelerated this trend.

Which was started at least in part by - Game of Thrones, which released season 8 two years after season 7. 

And for multiple purely technical reasons, I'm not sure that Poldark is a good comparison. Just to start with, unlike all of the shows I listed, Poldark wasn't intended for worldwide simultaneous release in multiple languages. It apparently took three years for the Dutch version to be released, for instance, and it's still not available in nearly the same number of languages as Bridgerton is. 

[Agalea Charis]

26 minutes ago, LoveIsJoy said:

I’m sorry, I have a terrible memory.  But can anyone provide a synopsis of “the episode that shall not be named?”  It sounds like some found it utterly unforgettable (and not in a good way) but I have personally forgotten large chunks of season 1.  Thanks.

The episode that shall not be named is the sixth episode of the first season. Prior to this, Daphne and Simon are caught kissing in the garden by Anthony. Anthony demands that Simon marry her or they duel. Simon refuses to marry Daphne and accepts a duel. This means one man will die and the one who survives will have to leave the country since dueling is illegal. Daphne interrupts the duel begging Simon to reconsider. He then tells her that he cannot have children and doesn't want to rob her of being a mother which is what she wants. Daphne then gives up her dream of having children to marry Simon. 

The episode that shall not be named contains a lot of sex. When Simon and Daphne have sex, Simon withdraws each time. (Which is not effective birth control). Daphne is very uninformed about bedroom activities so she is none the wiser. However, she starts putting two and two together, asking the staff questions about how sex works and how babies are made. 

The next time they are doing the deed, Daphne climbs on top of him and as Simon says "wait" he ejaculates inside of her, clearly not wanting to. Daphne then yells at him for taking advantage of her naivety in order to justify her taking advantage of him. Simon can have children. But he will not have children due to his traumatic upbringing. He told Daphne he could not. 

There is a version of this in the books. 

This is a very divisive scene with some calling it downright assault. When the episode aired it sparked a lot of conversation about how males are treated in these scenarios. 

My unpopular opinion is Daphne violated the trust and consent of her husband's body. She even admits that was her intent. It wasn't done out of naivety or cluelessness. Her actions were deliberate. Simon should have been upfront with her about his thoughts on having children. But that does not excuse what Daphne did which she does excuse herself in her own words. It is rather unsettling. No matter what Simon omitted in telling her, the response to that shouldn't be to take advantage of a spouse. Her speech to him afterwards is very jarring considering she outright says people who are in love don't lie or fool each other. After doing exactly that to her husband. The show treats Simon as the one who is more in the wrong which is unfortunate. 

I cannot believe the writers included this in a romance show between the main couple of the season. This scene in a modern context was never going to be seen in a good light. Even in a fantastical period drama. It was such a bad way of getting the audience to root for them. A more compelling story would have been Daphne putting the pieces together, then having a big fight with Simon about it, traveling back to her family home to deal with Colin's mess, thus giving Simon the space and time to work through his past. Maybe with Lady Danbury. Then Daphne and Simon could come back together with more insight and better communication. There was no reason to put that scene in there. The writers already changed so much about the stories, this one could have been changed as well. An audience in 2020 was not going to receive this very well from a couple people were supposed to be fans of. 

[LoveIsJoy]

Thank you so much @Agalea Charis and @Roseanna for your detailed replies!  Now I do remember that plot after all.  And, yes, I can see why it was such a problematic episode. 

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, Agalea Charis said:

A more compelling story would have been Daphne putting the pieces together, then having a big fight with Simon about it, traveling back to her family home to deal with Colin's mess, thus giving Simon the space and time to work through his past. Maybe with Lady Danbury. Then Daphne and Simon could come back together with more insight and better communication. There was no reason to put that scene in there. The writers already changed so much about the stories, this one could have been changed as well. An audience in 2020 was not going to receive this very well from a couple people were supposed to be fans of. 

I really thought that's what was going to happen. 

[Roseanna]

I must confess that I don't understand why the hero and heroine couldn't do things that the audience (or a part of it) can't accept.

One of the task of fiction is IMO to let people safely experience things (f.ex. revenge) they can't or wouldn't do IRL. 

Also, acts and scenes who get different interpretations often lead to most interesting discussions.

And finally, just as IRL, people make mistakes and hurt others. What matters most is whether they are willing to take responsibility for their actions and try to atone them. 

Therefore, I think that it was understandable that if a person is angry towards a person she loves who has lied to her, she every easily acts as Daphne did. However wrong she acted, it would have been dishonest screenwring to make her act in the rational and moral way. But the writers did a wrong decision to let Daphne act to the end as if she had done nothing wrong and had only to learn to understand Simon's past. Although she hadn't ever heard of such concepts as "consent", Simons decision to refuse to have sex with her showed that also he had lost all trust in her.  

 

[HappyHanna]

15 hours ago, Agalea Charis said:

It was never going to translate over well to a modern audience regardless of the show being a historical fantasy.

My unpopular opinion - the books are terrible and have not aged well.  I guess because I didn't read them back when they came out, but I have no loyalty to their storylines, and writers should change away. I only started reading after last season, and as I loved season 2 (another unpopular opinion lol) I went right for that book. I was horrified, not only was it a repeat of "now they have to get married because they were together alone" from the Daphne storyline, Kate had no spice once they got together. Anthony was a jerk and she never put up a fight. 

[quarks]

On related notes:

1. I was kinda less than happy that after Simon made it abundantly clear that he did not want children, his happy ending included a baby. 

I know, I know, the CUTE BABIES is a staple of the romance genre, but it just kinda rubbed me the wrong way that Daphne got what she wanted and Simon....kinda didn't.

2. But speaking of what Daphne wants:

In season 1, Eloise and Daphne talk about Hyacinth's birth; Eloise makes it clear that even though it's been over a decade, she's still traumatized. In season 2 it becomes clear that Anthony is carrying the trauma of his father's sudden death and Hyacinth's birth, to the point where he has become so terrified of getting attached to anyone that he decides not to marry the woman he's falling for and instead marry her sister - someone he likes but isn't in love with and won't be falling in love with, because he can't handle watching someone he loves either die or go through something similar to Hyacinth's birth.

We get hints that Colin and possibly even Francesca are also still traumatized from both events. 

So it's a bit surprising that Daphne not only wants children, but is eager to go through with it, and even more surprising that she didn't take more steps to find out about the entire process before meeting Simon. I mean, yes, I get it, one theme here is that many adolescent girls are kept sheltered from all this - but as we also learn in the first season, at least one of her maids is very well informed and presumably could have told her more.

Without necessarily losing all the drama, either - Simon still could have had his "yeah, that's a no on the children" thing, only for Daphne to find out that he is still physically capable, just emotionally unwilling. 

[janie jones]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

I was kinda less than happy that after Simon made it abundantly clear that he did not want children, his happy ending included a baby.

I never interpreted it as Simon not wanting to have kids as much as him refusing to have kids. He was avoiding having kids out of spite for his father. So once he let go of his spite, he didn't really have a reason to not "want" kids anymore. I don't think it was portrayed as an "oh, you'll change your mind one day and want kids" situation, which is something that would have bothered me.

[quarks]

2 hours ago, janie jones said:

I never interpreted it as Simon not wanting to have kids as much as him refusing to have kids. He was avoiding having kids out of spite for his father. So once he let go of his spite, he didn't really have a reason to not "want" kids anymore. I don't think it was portrayed as an "oh, you'll change your mind one day and want kids" situation, which is something that would have bothered me.

I don't think it was just spite though.

The show continues to compare and contrast the reactions of Simon and Daphne when they see cute little babies and children. Daphne is clearly wistful and upset: this is something she wants. 

Simon interacts with more children than Daphne does throughout the season, largely because he also interacts with the Mondrich kids. And at no point during any of these interactions does he ever express a desire for children.  When he joins the Bridgertons for dinner, he enjoys himself, but again, does not go, wow, I wish I could have this. Same after his interactions with Hyacinth and Gregory.  There's no wistfulness or regret - he enjoys children, as far as that goes, but he doesn't regret having them, and shows no interest in having them.

It reaches the point where he is willing to risk getting killed rather than enter a marriage and risk having children.  He only changes his mind when he realizes that if they don't get married, Daphne is ruined.  

Once he does agree to have children, it's again, not because he wants them, but because Daphne correctly points out that sticking to this vow means he's still under his father's influence, and, at least equally importantly, because if he doesn't agree, he loses Daphne. 

 

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, quarks said:

On related notes:

1. I was kinda less than happy that after Simon made it abundantly clear that he did not want children, his happy ending included a baby. 

I know, I know, the CUTE BABIES is a staple of the romance genre, but it just kinda rubbed me the wrong way that Daphne got what she wanted and Simon....kinda didn't.

2. But speaking of what Daphne wants:

In season 1, Eloise and Daphne talk about Hyacinth's birth; Eloise makes it clear that even though it's been over a decade, she's still traumatized. In season 2 it becomes clear that Anthony is carrying the trauma of his father's sudden death and Hyacinth's birth, to the point where he has become so terrified of getting attached to anyone that he decides not to marry the woman he's falling for and instead marry her sister - someone he likes but isn't in love with and won't be falling in love with, because he can't handle watching someone he loves either die or go through something similar to Hyacinth's birth.

We get hints that Colin and possibly even Francesca are also still traumatized from both events. 

So it's a bit surprising that Daphne not only wants children, but is eager to go through with it, and even more surprising that she didn't take more steps to find out about the entire process before meeting Simon. I mean, yes, I get it, one theme here is that many adolescent girls are kept sheltered from all this - but as we also learn in the first season, at least one of her maids is very well informed and presumably could have told her more.

Without necessarily losing all the drama, either - Simon still could have had his "yeah, that's a no on the children" thing, only for Daphne to find out that he is still physically capable, just emotionally unwilling. 

 

2 hours ago, quarks said:

I don't think it was just spite though.

The show continues to compare and contrast the reactions of Simon and Daphne when they see cute little babies and children. Daphne is clearly wistful and upset: this is something she wants. 

Simon interacts with more children than Daphne does throughout the season, largely because he also interacts with the Mondrich kids. And at no point during any of these interactions does he ever express a desire for children.  When he joins the Bridgertons for dinner, he enjoys himself, but again, does not go, wow, I wish I could have this. Same after his interactions with Hyacinth and Gregory.  There's no wistfulness or regret - he enjoys children, as far as that goes, but he doesn't regret having them, and shows no interest in having them.

It reaches the point where he is willing to risk getting killed rather than enter a marriage and risk having children.  He only changes his mind when he realizes that if they don't get married, Daphne is ruined.  

Once he does agree to have children, it's again, not because he wants them, but because Daphne correctly points out that sticking to this vow means he's still under his father's influence, and, at least equally importantly, because if he doesn't agree, he loses Daphne. 

 

Generally, the choice of wanting children or not, is a modern problem, due to effective preventive methods (and even that wasn't 100-% sure). During his marriage Simon had taken the risk that the interrupted intercourse could have failed. 

Also, it's a modern way to solve problems that if one spouse wants children and another not, they can divorce. Simon and Daphne can't do that. 

So, I can't see there is a problem even if Simon just wants to get rid of his hate toward his father and/or not to lose Daphne, as he does his decision consciously and willingly. (Thankfully, Daphne didn't get pregnant before.)

And actually, there was no guarantee that they would have children (many couples didn't). The only thing Simon did decide was to abandon control and letting life decide. 

[maddie965]

Unpopular opinion: I wish they would do more with Queen Charlotte. I liked her series a lot, and I think there could be more to her plot than chasing diamonds and hating LW.

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, quarks said:

I don't think it was just spite though.

The show continues to compare and contrast the reactions of Simon and Daphne when they see cute little babies and children. Daphne is clearly wistful and upset: this is something she wants. 

Simon interacts with more children than Daphne does throughout the season, largely because he also interacts with the Mondrich kids. And at no point during any of these interactions does he ever express a desire for children.  When he joins the Bridgertons for dinner, he enjoys himself, but again, does not go, wow, I wish I could have this. Same after his interactions with Hyacinth and Gregory.  There's no wistfulness or regret - he enjoys children, as far as that goes, but he doesn't regret having them, and shows no interest in having them.

It reaches the point where he is willing to risk getting killed rather than enter a marriage and risk having children.  He only changes his mind when he realizes that if they don't get married, Daphne is ruined.  

Once he does agree to have children, it's again, not because he wants them, but because Daphne correctly points out that sticking to this vow means he's still under his father's influence, and, at least equally importantly, because if he doesn't agree, he loses Daphne. 

 

Simon's hang up was having legitimate issue not having kids in the general sense. He didn't want to marry and sire a son who would keep the title and bloodline going. He was also being incredibly shortsighted with this goal. Regency dukes had a boatload of people dependent upon them from servants to small farmers who worked their lands to the various people living in the villages on their land who paid them rent. All of these people expected something from their lord in exchange for their labor and rents. A new duke would have been found if Simon had died without a legitimate male heir. Simon's FU to his father may have made things worse for those dependent upon the Duke of Hastings. I do remember the show having Simon realize this when he finally starts to give a shit about his estate. 

[PRgal]

14 hours ago, janie jones said:

I never interpreted it as Simon not wanting to have kids as much as him refusing to have kids. He was avoiding having kids out of spite for his father. So once he let go of his spite, he didn't really have a reason to not "want" kids anymore. I don't think it was portrayed as an "oh, you'll change your mind one day and want kids" situation, which is something that would have bothered me.

I thought it was quite clear (at least in the books) that Simon refused to have kids out of fear that he'd be just like his father.  I think his dad was the way he is because he didn't know how to mourn the death of his wife.  It pretty much shows the toxic masculinity that is still very prevalent in 2024, unfortunately.  I've noticed that many of the men in Bridgerton ARE sensitive (I love Colin for that.  He'd be an ideal husband today, for sure.  And I'm pretty sure a 2024 Colin wouldn't care if Pen brings home seven figures while he's barely pulling six) . 

[Roseanna]

35 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I thought it was quite clear (at least in the books) that Simon refused to have kids out of fear that he'd be just like his father.  I think his dad was the way he is because he didn't know how to mourn the death of his wife. 

If I remember right, he didn't care for his wife at all, she may well die if only he got an heir.

[Roseanna]

49 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Regency dukes had a boatload of people dependent upon them from servants to small farmers who worked their lands to the various people living in the villages on their land who paid them rent. All of these people expected something from their lord in exchange for their labor and rents. A new duke would have been found if Simon had died without a legitimate male heir. Simon's FU to his father may have made things worse for those dependent upon the Duke of Hastings. I do remember the show having Simon realize this when he finally starts to give a shit about his estate. 

That.

However, in the end of 1st season Simon and Daphne wanted to stay in London in order to be "alone" (funny - there were also dozens of servants in  the town house).

This is presented as "romantic" but it's sheer irresponsibility.

[quarks]

6 hours ago, Roseanna said:

 

Generally, the choice of wanting children or not, is a modern problem, due to effective preventive methods (and even that wasn't 100-% sure). During his marriage Simon had taken the risk that the interrupted intercourse could have failed. 

Also, it's a modern way to solve problems that if one spouse wants children and another not, they can divorce. Simon and Daphne can't do that. 

So, I can't see there is a problem even if Simon just wants to get rid of his hate toward his father and/or not to lose Daphne, as he does his decision consciously and willingly. (Thankfully, Daphne didn't get pregnant before.)

And actually, there was no guarantee that they would have children (many couples didn't). The only thing Simon did decide was to abandon control and letting life decide. 

I don't think I would call this a modern problem. Yes, reliable birth control wasn't a thing, but some methods did exist, as did some forms of abortion - and some people, especially among the wealthy, could and did choose not to marry.

I think the most famous example of this is Elizabeth I, who, yeah, did have other things going on (mother and stepmother both executed, what sounds awfully like sexual abuse when she was 14 although her contemporaries were more focused on the political treason part of that, and so on), not just not wanting kids, but....whatever the reason, she resisted the pressure to marry and produce an heir.

Probably more pertinent to this discussion: the 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790 - 1858), who wasn't exactly celibate (we know about at least some of his mistresses), but who also chose not to marry or have children. He could have attended at least some of the balls featured in Bridgerton. Probably not the Queen's balls because he tended to hang out with the Prince Regent, but other balls. His cousin inherited his dukedom; his barony went into abeyance.

Was this common? I don't think so, but these examples show it could happen.

And although divorce was extremely difficult and expensive, it could and did happen; an official separation was another option. Again, this was something that happened during the time period. Lord Byron and his wife Annabella officially separated after one year of a horrific marriage in 1816; one of Byron's mistresses, Lady Caroline Lamb, officially separated from her husband William Lamb in 1826; William Lamb later became the Prime Minister of the UK. More sadly, Percy Bysshe Shelley left his first wife, Harriet, for the then Mary Godwin in 1816. Harriet committed suicide, and Shelley married Mary; he was discussing a separation from her when he died in 1822,

Somewhat earlier, but also somewhat connected to Bridgerton: Sir Charles Bunbury and Lady Sarah Lennox were divorced - fully divorced, with an Act of Parliament - in 1776. The Bridgerton connection is that Lady Sarah Lennox and George III had a flirtation back in the day, before he married Queen Charlotte.  

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, quarks said:

Probably more pertinent to this discussion: the 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790 - 1858), who wasn't exactly celibate (we know about at least some of his mistresses), but who also chose not to marry or have children.

But that shows the essential difference: he didn't marry (and had a  nephew who inherited the title and the fortune).

In an age where marriage and procreation was connected Simon failed as a man: she married Daphne but consciously refused to give her children (and he was "forced" to marry her because of his own actions), which meant that according to the standard of the age theirs was no true marriage.

BTV, Simon could have revenged on his father in an even damaging way: by giving Daphe a liberty to have sex with other men, so that the heir of the title wouldn't be his father's biological grandson. 

[maddie965]

Were adoptions common then? I guess not. Just wondering.

[Ohiopirate02]

58 minutes ago, maddie965 said:

Were adoptions common then? I guess not. Just wondering.

Actually yes, it really depended on social class and rarely would someone of a higher class seek out a random child to raise. Also, aristocratic titles and their associated holdings could only be passed down to legitimate (male) heirs of the body. These aristocrats could and did take in wards to be raised along with their children, but those wards would never inherit. It is still that way today in the UK. Some of them would have their own fortunes left by their dead parents, others would be given some sort of sum from their guardian to help set them up in life. It really depended upon how flush the aristocrat was. Aristocrats were not taking in random kids off the street, but the children of extended family members or close friends.

And someone had to raise the bastard or natural children of the aristocracy. They had to be raised by somebody and that was not always the parents. Those children would be farmed based on their mother's social standing to be raised by couples of similar social standing. It ran the gamut as to how much contact these children had with their biological parents. Some were raised with their legitimate siblings, some were raised by other people but had contact with their parent or parents growing up, and others were kept secret. Aristocratic men were expected to take care of their by-blows in some capacity. This is what brought Lord Berbrooke down in Season One, he got his maid pregnant and refused to care for the child. 

People of the middle and lower classes would also adopt. Again usually the orphans of family members and close friends. Sometimes they would adopt through the foundling hospitals or work houses, but that was not as common. This is a time where people did believe nature was more important than nurture and would not want to raise the child of a whore or other lower class individuals who made too many bad choices. Those children led short tragic lives with many of them getting "adopted" by people to be exploited. 

[quarks]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Also, aristocratic titles and their associated holdings could only be passed down to legitimate (male) heirs of the body.

All of that, but I would like to put a tiny asterisk next to this sentence: women could and did inherit titles and holdings in some exceptional cases.

And I'm adding this asterisk mostly because I just found out that one of the houses Bridgerton filmed in this season is outright owned by one of those exceptions: The Right Honorable The Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, Nancy Jane Marie Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, who is the 28th person to hold the title.

(I swear I am not making that up. I know it sounds like it, but I am not.)

Lady Willoughby de Eresby was not able to inherit her father's earldom, which went extinct, but she did inherit the barony - the sixth woman to do so, so, no, this was not/is not just a 20th century thing.

She is the current owner of Grimsthorpe Castle, which is apparently where the balloon ball and the balloon launch were filmed. 

There's another, more famous example, although it's fictional, from Pride and Prejudice. As Lady Catherine de Bourgh herself graciously informs us in the middle of insulting people:

"....I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh's family."

Since Rosings isn't entailed from the female line, Anne de Bourgh gets to inherit the estate, if she survives her mother.

[Orcinus orca]

14 minutes ago, quarks said:

The Right Honorable The Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, Nancy Jane Marie Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby

All I could think of when I read that name was the scene in The West Wing with Marion Cotesworth-Hay.  

And when the ship struck the Francis Scott Key bridge, I couldn't talk about it without intoning "the Francis Scott Key key".

I know, off top. Couldn't help myself.

Good information on heritage everyone!

[chitowngirl]

Actor Christopher Guest is the perfect example of illegitimate and adopted children not inheriting. He inherited the Baron Haden-Guest title, and not his older brother, since Anthony’s parents were not married at the time of his birth. Christopher’s children will not inherit the title since they were adopted. I believe Christopher’s brother Nicholas will inherit the title.

[quarks]

1 hour ago, chitowngirl said:

Actor Christopher Guest is the perfect example of illegitimate and adopted children not inheriting. He inherited the Baron Haden-Guest title, and not his older brother, since Anthony’s parents were not married at the time of his birth. Christopher’s children will not inherit the title since they were adopted. I believe Christopher’s brother Nicholas will inherit the title.

But adopted children could inherit estates, if not titles.

Jane Austen's brother, Edward Austen, was adopted by Thomas and Catherine Knight, and inherited the Knight estates - making him much wealthier than the rest of his family. He later changed his name to Edward Austen Knight.

This may have partially inspired the character of Frank Churchill in Emma - a character who was also adopted by wealthier relatives, inheriting their estate.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, quarks said:

All of that, but I would like to put a tiny asterisk next to this sentence: women could and did inherit titles and holdings in some exceptional cases.

In the Middle Ages a man could get a title "jure uxoris", by right of his wife who had no brothers. It was thus the future Kingmaker became Earl of Warwick and his father earlier became Earl of Salisbury.

Also the king of Scots Robert Bruce's father married Countess of Carrick and became Earl of Carrick but gave the title to his son while still living.   

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, quarks said:

But adopted children could inherit estates, if not titles.

Jane Austen's brother, Edward Austen, was adopted by Thomas and Catherine Knight, and inherited the Knight estates - making him much wealthier than the rest of his family. He later changed his name to Edward Austen Knight.

This may have partially inspired the character of Frank Churchill in Emma - a character who was also adopted by wealthier relatives, inheriting their estate.

Yes, but these estates weren't entailed which meant that only (biological) male descendants (in some cases a cousin of three decree) could inherit. 

However, in the Middle Ages, daughters could inherit if there were no sons and, unlike sons, girls in such a case inherited equally. So it was no wonder that Earl of Warwick's two daughters married royal dukes. 

 

 

[PRgal]

I find all of this inheritance/titles thing so dated.  Wish they'd update it so that it would be more same-sex friendly, especially with families having children through surrogacy/IVF/donor conception.  They have a lot of catching up to do.

[RachelKM]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

I find all of this inheritance/titles thing so dated.  Wish they'd update it so that it would be more same-sex friendly, especially with families having children through surrogacy/IVF/donor conception.  They have a lot of catching up to do.

Well, it literally took until this past decade for the UK to update the royal succession rules to absolute primogeniture instead of male-preference primogeniture.  Consequently, Princess Charlotte is third in line for the throne behind only her father (William) and her older brother, Prince George, instead of fourth behind Prince Louis.  And that was only done to benefit the optics of the royal family.  I doubt they will bother with the male-only primogeniture other titles anytime soon. 

Edited June 26 by RachelKM

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, RachelKM said:

 I doubt they will bother with the male-only primogeniture other titles anytime soon. 

Yeah because the they in your sentence includes Parliament. Why take the time to overhaul an entire outdated system that benefits a couple hundred people in a country of over 67 million? Parliament has more pressing matters to discuss. It's a lot of work to make things "fairer" for a handful of people when all is said and done.

[chaifan]

My "unpopular opinion" has to do with the episode-that-shall-not-be-named, but seems to be getting a lot of discussion here.  Here's an excerpt of what I wrote in that episode thread:

Quote

Popular Post

December 30, 2020

I rewatched the scene in question, and then watched again with captions on.  Simon said "wait" twice, never said "no", never said "stop".  Never gave any physical indication he wanted to stop having sex - body language or facial expression.   He's actively physically participating in sex the entire time, even as he said "wait".   "Wait" is something you say during sex when you've rolled over onto the remote control, not when you've suddenly decided to withdraw consent to having sex.   I have to think the writers intentionally didn't have Simon say "no" or "stop" or somehow try to stop having sex.  "Wait" was the one word equivalent of "oh, fuck... she's figured out my plan but I really don't want to stop having sex right now... oh, fuck."

* * * 

Yes, Daphne had specific intent going into that romp, and that was to get Simon to come inside her instead of pulling out.  But I don't see how she did anything that forced Simon to do anything, nor stop doing if he really wanted to do so.  Simon didn't regret the sex, he regretted getting too caught up in having Daphne on top to exercise his normal control and pull out.  We've seen him physically pull away from her before, there's no reason he couldn't have simply rolled over.  My take is Simon didn't stop having sex because, at that moment, he didn't want to stop having sex.  His choice.

Emphasis is mine, now.  I think saying Daphne "forced" Simon, or "held him down", or saying she violated his consent is not consistent with what was shown on screen. 

 

[mledawn]

I won't be quoting a post marked popular to state an unpopular opinion, but the writers botched that interaction and my unpopular opinion remains the same, Simon did not want to continue having sex. That's the opposite of consent.

S1 remains my least favourite season.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, chaifan said:

My "unpopular opinion" has to do with the episode-that-shall-not-be-named, but seems to be getting a lot of discussion here.  Here's an excerpt of what I wrote in that episode thread:

Emphasis is mine, now.  I think saying Daphne "forced" Simon, or "held him down", or saying she violated his consent is not consistent with what was shown on screen. 

 

Well, it's about interpretation. Did Simon's face tell about pleasure of pain? 

In any way, Daphne knows that Simon hasn't ejaculated inside her, but after learning who kids are made, she doesn't ask him why, but makes him do it.

As for "partipating", if a woman had an orgasm during rape, she doesn't "participate in sex". The same standard applies to men.     

6 hours ago, mledawn said:

I won't be quoting a post marked popular to state an unpopular opinion, but the writers botched that interaction and my unpopular opinion remains the same, Simon did not want to continue having sex. That's the opposite of consent.

Yeah, if we use the modern term of consent, its essence is that concent must be given beforehand and of free will, it can revoked in any time and it doesn't mean that if one had consented to some kind of sex, one has consented to different or all kind of sex, or if one has consented earlier, one has consented also later.   

However, I don't condemn the scene itself - characters must be allowed to act also wrongly. What I think is wrong is that Daphne was never made realize that also she has acted wrongly.

On the other had, I understand that she acted in the way she did because she was mad at him for lying to her - and after this scene he seems not to understand at all that omission is also lying.

So they both betrayed the other.

[janie jones]

Per the FRIES model of consent (Freely given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific), not only was the "reversible" aspect violated since he indicated that he wanted her to stop (although I think part of what people are interpreting differently is how serious he was when he wanted her to stop -- but that's where "enthusiastic" comes into play), but so was "informed," as he had no idea she intended to have him finish inside her, as was "specific," since he consented to have sex wherein he ejaculated on the floor for the poor maids to clean up, not sex wherein he ejaculated inside her.

Do I think the characters would consider it rape? No.

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, janie jones said:

Per the FRIES model of consent (Freely given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific), not only was the "reversible" aspect violated since he indicated that he wanted her to stop (although I think part of what people are interpreting differently is how serious he was when he wanted her to stop -- but that's where "enthusiastic" comes into play), but so was "informed," as he had no idea she intended to have him finish inside her, as was "specific," since he consented to have sex wherein he ejaculated on the floor for the poor maids to clean up, not sex wherein he ejaculated inside her.

Do I think the characters would consider it rape? No.

Thanks for specific info. I have heard it, but didn't remember it exactly (and didn't know English terms).

However, it's IMO problematic to judge a character for a act according to ethic she hadn't never heard and forget that in that age (even in that alternative universe) marriage was chiefly for procreation of (legitime) children. 

On the other hand, regardless of age, lying (also by omission) and misusing of trust *was* wrong and in that respect both Simon and Dasphne were guilty. But it's the crux of romance that it's possible to forgive as well as grow as a person. 

Therefore I don't think it was wrong from Simon to dare to have children as it meant that he abandoned his revenge on his father. It's true that fertily as a sign of happy marriage is a cliche in romance (but not eight children!), but so is also the heroine's beauty. 

BTV, I came only to think that when Daphne rode on Simon, it was the first time *she* controlled sex. 

[quarks]

I just find it fascinating that we've all spent more time discussing Simon and Daphne, or for that matter Penelope, than about the show's decision to give Portia a happy ending despite, well, everything.

Don't get me wrong: I like Portia, and I adore Polly Walker, and I get that Portia is a side character, and was never presented as a particularly ethical person to start with, and I also get that people disagree about Simon, Daphne, and Penelope, which creates discussion. But there's just been so much time analyzing/focusing on Simon, Daphne, and Penelope, and then there's "oh, right, Portia robbed people this is fine."

[mooncalf]

Speaking of Portia, I found her season 3 storyline with Penelope the most interesting part of the season,  edging out any romance *and* the Eloise and Cressida storylines.