Discussion of the show Bridgerton on Netflix. This show is based on the Bridgerton book series by Julia Quinn. Each book in this eight book historical romance series features a member of the Bridgerton family. Premiered Dec 25, 2020. Season 2 premiered May 16, 2024.
Dear Readers let this Author guide you through a discussion about the ton’s story of the year. It is 1813 and Miss Daphne Bridgerton, the oldest Bridgerton daughter for those of you trying to keep track of that prolific brood, is in her third year on the Marriage Mart. Alas poor Daphne has not drawn the eye of any suitable gentlemen. It is rumored that Miss Bridgerton wants a love match, to think that such a thing could even happen!
In other news the new Duke of Hastings, Simon, has returned to town much to the ambitious mamas delights. His rakish ways have not slowed them down one bit, and they are determined to snatch him up for their offspring.
Desperate to change their circumstances Daphne and Simon concoct a scheme that will benefit them both. Gentle readers, as we all know life has a way of deterring the best laid plans. Scandal in the garden alters our couple’s lives forever. Please join this Author in conversing about “The Duke and I.”
- Lady Whistledown’s Society Book Club, April 2021
You can click on any of the questions below to go directly to that one, or feel free to add comments of your own. Any comments on other books must be covered with a spoiler tag.
Our next discussion will be for “The Viscount Who Loved Me” on May 7th (US Time).
Do you think marriages in the Regency era were happy ones?
It seems that with a focus around status, wealth and appearance, many of the marriages would be ones of function rather than love. However, I genuinely believe that love can grow as long as both partners are willing. Therefore, I think even the ones that didn’t start out as love matches could have grown into them.
As Portia Featherington says, “You find things to love.”
I like how you put that. You would hope that both parties were good with each other, but I have a feeling there were plenty of young women marrying older men.
In an ideal world, there were many fairytale relationships like the fictional ones in these books we all love. But popularized quotes like "Lie Back and Think of England" don't give me much assurance. I'm hoping it was just bad sex ed?
This is a little off topic from whether regency marriages were happy (because I don't know, I hope so). But I was so mad at Violet and her sex talk with Daphne. I think it was supposed to be funny, 'haha, mother too embarrassed to actually tell her daughter anything, so funny to ensure that a bride knows absolutely nothing about what to expect once she's married.'
Seriously, Violet telling Daphne that Simon would "perform certain intimacies upon [her] person" (because of course sex is performed "on" someone rather than with someone) and refusing to answer any of Daphne's questions other than to tell her that "it needn't be unpleasant" and "your husband will know" - of course followed by "don't be a nervous ninny." Aargh! 😡
That Violet couldn't put her daughter's needs above her own embarrassment really put a dent in the book's, up till then, portrayal of Violet as a great mother. Way to make sure your daughter leaves the conversation more confused and nervous than when the talk started.
It actually made sense for me when I first read it. Looking back however, considering how much i love Violet in every single book, it does feel a little out of character. I get, that she is very embarrased, talking about that sort of topic and wanting to keep it short, but not answering active questions feels weird to me.
I can see where you’re coming from. But actually, it makes me wonder if that was characteristics of the time. Women were very shy and reluctant to speak about “inappropriate” things that today would be considered everyday household topics. We talk about sex openly today, so naturally it’s expected that mothers talk to their kids about it. But in certain cultures, that’s not the case.
My family never talks about anything related to sex because in my culture, it’s never discussed. Therefore, my mother never gave me the sex talk and I found out from my friends. I don’t think that made her a bad mother, she was just doing what’s normal within the culture.
I imagine women in the 1800s might be scandalized to openly discuss anything sexual, so it certainly would be uncomfortable to talk about it with their daughters. Maybe Violet is the norm, and most women go into their first time more or less only half prepared?
I agree with what you said and u/Prealpha1 on how it felt OOC for Violet. She seemed like an regency mom that had a different approach to parenting (not completely out of the box, but not 100% traditional either).
It might have been played up for comedy value and the expense of the story? Like Anthonykicking Kate when she was clawing his leg lol (book 2 spoiler).
I think it was, for me it kept it from being funny, but I definitely think that's what JQ was going for. In the rest of the book Violet wasn't the kind of mother who would be so dismissive of her daughter's questions or her nerves, even leaving as Daphne said she had questions (people walking away from Daphne mid-conversation is a repeated theme in this book).
But for that scene i feel like it fits Anthony's character. I don't think it is out of character for Violet to be reluctant to speak about these things. Considering that Daphne is her first daughter it makes sense that it is hard for her. It also makes sense to me that she wants to keep it as short as possible. But I feel like she is such a good mother the rest of the time that it would make more sense if she swallowed her feelings and actually answered some questions. JQ's books are generelly very funny but that scene wasn't IMO.
I can totally see that. It was humorous for sure.
That's really true. Especially for someone who had 8 kids the topic of sex shouldn't have been so mortifying to her.
The whole Bridgerton clan is lost in one way or another.
So true! It wouldn't have become a saying if it didn't have some truth to it. I haven't researched much into actual history, but I do have a feeling many of the matches were made were more business transactions with the hope the couple would be able to tolerate each other.
No, the vast majority definitely wasn't. Most couples were basically strangers before getting married.
Women had little or even no choice regarding who their spouse was gonna be. It was usually the decision of the father or oldest brother. People dislike Anthony's behavior in the show regarding Daphne's suitors because it differs from his book portrayal and even though I get that, it's sadly a far more realistic portrayal of how things worked back then. With the difference that Anthony came around eventually and realised he was wrong, most Alpha males didn't. They treated their female relatives as property.
And when the woman wasn't under the control of her father or brother anymore, her husband was the one in charge. Yes, there were certainly cases where love grew between husband and wife or at least they liked each other enough and had a happy life. But the odds weren't in favor of that. It's extremely difficult for a relationship to be satisfying for both parts when in the outside world there's so much inequality between them. If a husband was abusive, cheated or threw all the family's money away, there was nothing that the woman could do about it.
And even if you managed to have a happy marriage as a woman in the regency era, there was still the societal pressure about producing an heir that fell entirely on you. And even if your husband was understanding and didn't hold the inability of birthing a male child against you, you'd live your entire life worrying about what will happen to you and your daughters if your husband dies before they are married and the new heir refuses to provide for you.
To conclude, the regency era would be enjoyable in real life if you were a rich white straight male. True happiness for other parties was the exception, not the norm. It's important to keep in mind that the romanticized versions of past eras we see on TV are mostly that, romanticized. And that goes for most past eras, even relatively recent ones like the 50s, I hear women saying they'd like to live at that period and I'm like why?
It makes you wonder why so many romance novels are set in the Regency era? Is it because the idea of a love match during that time would be so out of the norm and therefore more romantic?
Yes that's definitely one of the main reasons. It's so far away in the past that it feels like a fairytale at this point. This is enhanced by the fact that you don't really see what happens after the happily ever after.
I have read historical romances set in the 20st century and while I enjoyed them greatly, they do not have the same "magical" element.
I suppose there is something about a dashing man with a title!
Yeah that’s a really interesting question and I have to agree. I have to think that Jane Austen writing romantic novels during that time period has to help as well. So people read those now and fall in love with them and decide to write their own stories in that period that reflect modern values (and have sex scenes lol). Plus all the costuming and sets tend to look amazing.
I also think there’s something interesting about a world that’s definitely different from our own but still similar enough that it doesn’t feel completely alien. A place where they have all these rules on conduct and things can so easily fall into scandal. There’s definitely something intoxicating about scandal and drama. I’m thinking about the show here but think about how excited everyone gets for that scene when Daphne and Simon briefly touch hands in the art gallery. People would think it’s cute in a modern show but in the regency era setting it’s hot as hell. It’s so much easier to flirt with scandal in that era and I think people love reading/watching that.
Those are great points! I like what you said about it being somewhat similar to life as we know, but just different enough. Almost like we’re living vicariously through the characters and in a controlled environment. Things are pretty, characters are attractive and they always have a happy ending.
I think people also like the “forbidden” aspect of romance back then- chaperones, physical distance, not using Christian names! It creates a lot of high-risk buildup- if you give in, you’re compromised, etc.
I like that point, it makes sense too. There is something about the stolen kiss that is just appealing.
I think they were generally happy. I would think the lower income people were more able to marry for love so they were happier there. The Ton I wonder if they were more likely to be happy with their families rather than their spouse. They'd generally have kids quickly and in rapid succession and a mother who busies herself raising kids and keeping a house would have plenty of distraction. We know they didn't always sleep in the same room and it wasn't uncommon to go to the country or the city for half the year with the kids and leave the husband behind working.
Very true. You hope it would be enough to keep them happy.
If Daphne had not gone off into the garden do you think they would have still ended up getting married?
I think this is something that is different in show and book. I think in the book there was a high chance that something similar might have happened at another time since they both had those feelings for each other. In the show Daphne would have gotten engaged the same evening which would have stopped things from happening for sure.
Great points, it really did seem in the book that they were headed that way. In the show do you think Daphne would have accepted the Prince even though she ran outside?
She did say that she was going to be a princess, propably just in the heat of the moment though. I do however think that if that night had happened without any incident, that the Duke would have left as he originaly planned, Daphne would have gone back inside and then the Prince would have asked the question. I don't think that she would have been able to say no at that point.
Did you find it interesting that she was the one who made the move into the garden? They weren't in an argument like they were in the show.
I agree. It seemed to be inevitable to them that it would happen sooner rather than later.
TBH, that makes it better in the books imo. As you say it seemed inevitable and you could feel it. In the show you can feel that they have feelings for each other but it also feels a little bit like they got lucky that they got together in the end.
Yes! I definitely agree. I also felt like it felt less like a fit of passion and more like they finally found a situation to be together which they both wanted.
A question that i had: What makes people dislike this book so much compared to the others. It rankes low for almost everyone (including me). Do you think it is because of "that scene" or is it just that future books got better as JQ got better at writing.
I think the infamous scene is one of the reason but they are other things.
Colin and Anthony's books are the most popular ones because they are the most witty and playful men (The author managed to balance the daddy issues and the wit better with Anthony than Simon. Simon is too much defined by his need to not have children). They are both tamed by "plain" women who they didn't see at first but fall in love gradually with because they are smart and are more than meet the eyes. The women just had to be themselves and to tell the men things like it it.
I don't think Daphne is as relatable as Peneloppe and Kate who are true underdogs. Daphne seems kinda forceful to me: she lied to Simon about people seeing them in the garden because she is so sure he loves her and she have sex with him unconscious because she can't accept his decision.
That's a great question, and I don't even know that I can pinpoint a reason. I definitely think that scene didn't help. I wonder if people find it kind of bland?
I loved reading that book and laughed at several points while reading it in basically one sitting. If someone had toldme then, that it would rank last for me I wouldn't have believed it. I also don't really have any reason why it ranks last for me, it just does somehow.
I think this is part of it for me. I read Anthony's book a couple of weeks ago because so many people on here say it's their favorite. While there was much I didn't like about it, it was entertaining and a really quick read. So I assumed this book would be similar.
But man did I struggle with this one. Every time I tried to read it I would get distracted and forget to go back to the book. The past few days I had to force myself to read more than a chapter at a time, because even that much was a bit of a challenge.
I don't know how much is that this book was bland, or that I already knew the basic outline of the story from watching the show, or maybe just that JQ improved her writing between the first and second books, but I barely finished this one in time and I didn't even attempt the 2nd epilogue.
I do reccomend to give the 2nd epiloge a try, it is just as wholesome as the other ones and has a few other Bridgertons in it. I just read in another comment that you haven't read all of the books yet so I would also reccomend to wait with that if you want to avoid spoilers.
I will trust you on that and give it a read. I know the 2nd epilogues were written later, so maybe if the issue is that JQ's writing improved after TD&I, then maybe I'll breeze through 🙂. I'm not at all spoilerphobic (except for things where not knowing something is the point). But if a romance novel is ruined because a few details are already known, then it probably wouldn't have held up anyway.
It has nothing to do with that scene. I think the book is ok. But compared to the rest, I found it non-memorable. I also am not a fan of the fake relationship trope.
That's a good way to phrase it. I find that I can recall parts of the other books better than I can this one.
I realise that aswell right now, talking about it so much lol. To bad i borrowed it to a friend.
Yeah, I guess in the end it actually is to bland. I think for me it is that, that makes it rank low in general. "That scene" made it last place for me in the end, when it might have been like 6tg or 7th without it.
What do you think is it about Daphne that make men view her more as a friend rather than marriage material?
I think she had an assertive personality. In the first ballroom scene, Simon says something along the lines of "I thought you didn't have suitors because Anthony was scaring them off. But I think you're managing all on your own actually." This was after she condescended him lol.
Add to that, she's a bit of tomboy. In that same ballroom scene, she punched Anthony in view of others and that garnered a few "curious looks". I think in modern times, she and her personality would be fine, but during this regency era it was unfashionable.
Good point about being a tomboy. I wonder if her interactions with her brothers made other men look at her as just a friend?
Probably that and the gender norms of the time, she might not have been viewed as wifely and the got overlooked by the suitors
I find it interesting though that we never really saw, or at least in my opinion ways of her not acting like anything but a lady. Do you recall anything like that?
Probably didn't help haha. And since she had three of them growing up, that's three social circles of seeing her as a friend.
That's true I did't even think of that!
I also feel like it is possible that she just looked up to her older siblings when she was young (as most kids do i think) and it just so happened, that all of them were boys. All of them playing together propably just made her be quite like them.
I had to look that word up, but I think tomboy describes her perfectly! I think she is just to straightforward or not demure enough for the "average regencymale".
Exactly! She's just your average modern woman. We're lucky in that regard
I know it's not a historical novel but this friendzone thing bother me a little bit. Daphne is pretty, nice, rich and come from a respectable family. These men had to be really difficult when love or lust were not the number ones reasons people were getting married at the time 😅 I prefer the other explanation: her rejecting some marriage proposal because she wants a true match like her parents.
I can totally see what you're saying. In that day an age when it seemed a match was made for the benefit of both families and was a more business like transaction her not receiving offers doesn't make a lot of sense.
If a lot of the men knew her brothers growing up, it's possible they also watched her grow up. They may not see her as an adult woman.
I can totally see that. To them she was just a little sister.
I personally am really curious as to why Daphne is friend-zoned. She acts so lovely, lady-like, generous, and kind - probably more so than most of her sisters. She is also beautiful. I don’t see a Tom boy side of her at all. It seems like she should be the epitome of what men of that era desire.
I know this is for the TV series, but my boyfriend admitted that she is all around very attractive.
We were commenting in another reply that maybe growing up with all of those brothers she doesn't act demure or flighty in front of men. Maybe that's what made them see her as more of a friend?
Yes, that could be it. I guess I’m a bit stuck on the show, in which she acts incredibly ladylike (especially in comparison to Eloise). The way she speaks, how gracious she is - she seems like the epitome of demure...aside from the punch of course!
I agree, and the book doesn't do a great job of explaining why she didn't have any suitors.
Was Daphne being manipulative in telling Simon someone had seen them that night they went into the garden?
I think she was being manipulative, but I also think she was being honest (they're not mutually exclusive, nor is manipulative always inherently bad), that if they know of one person who saw them, they don't know how many others may have also seen them.
Interesting! She pretty much forced his hand though. So now the question is which was worse, her saying someone saw them, which we don't know for 100% is true. Or Simon saying he couldn't have kids?
I think in that situation, Simon's lie is worse.
Partly because of their respective reasons for their lies. Daphne both wanted to save herself (which she was honest about, asking Simon to "save" her) and she also (and I think the book presented this as a stronger motivation) wanted to save Simon's life. Simon was dishonest because it was easier to tell her he couldn't have kids rather than that he wouldn't have kids, which might require an explanation he didn't want to give. Even after they were married when Daphne asked about his childhood he walked away from her mid-conversation.
(just to be clear, I'm being very specific to this situation. I'm not making a blanket statement that it's okay to lie if you think you're helping the other person, or even that any lie with the intent to help is always better than a selfish lie - in other words, don't use my words against me in some other situation or scenario 😊)
I agree. Especially considering Simon really did want to be with Daphne so her kind of forcing his hand wasn't entirely against what he wanted. It wasn't like they didn't already love each other.
How do you feel about Simon deciding he was fine with having children so soon after he and Daphne got back together?
I think they did it very well in the show, showing him interacting with children, his face when Daphne was crying at the opera. It made more sense there but still felt kind off quick imo. In the book it makes sense, because he had 2 months (i think) where they didn't see each other to think, the problem is that we weren't included in that process and thats why it feels to fast i think.
Good point, we only got Daphne's perspective during that time.
I guess I kind of wish that the book either showed us hints of him secretly yearning to have kids despite his vow or something - maybe even during the time they were apart and waiting to see if Daphne was pregnant, because that was REALLY quick to completely reverse course on such an important thing. Even Daphne, who'd previously tried to force the issue, wanted him to take a minute to think about it.
Yes! I think that would have made it seem a bit more believable as to how quickly he changed his mind.
I think he realised losing someone he actually loves ignited the thought of his tormentor of a father was no longer relevant and a bit of love conquers the bad :)
I like that. Do you think he might have wanted kids without really realizing it?
Quite possible, just that it was one thought that he just put out of his mind because of his father and was just so firmly decided upon it that he never reflected further upon it perhaps? With Daphne he gains a family which he never really had and during their courtship and friendship he changes his view of family. IMO he never felt worthy of love and just decided to recluse himself and be a lone wolf perhaps.
I like that. I can see why his mind was changed then, when he realized what a loving family could actually be like in watching the Bridgerton's.
What was your favorite Lady Whistledown passage?
This one is mine...
The part about Mrs. Featherington repeating it to the world cracked me up.
I loved that one aswell. I will check for myself which I liked best when i get the book back but I think this one might just be it.
I just love how she starts out in her inaugural passage, “All is fair in love and war.”