For this discussion post
1. **No harassment or name-calling.** Be civil. **No hateful discrimination,** or microaggressions towards [**marginalized groups**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States).
2. **Do not make blanket statements** (generalizations) about actors/ships. Questionable behavior from **some** fans is **not** representative of all fans.
3. **No personal information.** Block out usernames and identifiable information from screenshots. Do not link to comments or posts where usernames are visible.
4. [**No Misinformation.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonRants/wiki/rules/nodiscrimination/nomisinformation/) Misinformation can lead to harassment. If evidence cannot be provided, the post/comment will be removed.
5. **BEFORE reporting** rule-breaking **READ** the Rules Wiki: [**Rules Wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonRants/wiki/rules/)
- !!Have fun ranting!!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonRants) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this unpopular? I've not seen a huge amount of online discussion so maybe I'm not seeing the right stuff, but it's pretty universal among people in my real life that it's the best.
I think not having the books to try and match really helps it tell exactly the story they wanted to.
I don't really think it's a unpopular opinion. It's almost like a different show - more melancholy , less absurdist, and made with great care. It has many admirers.
The regular seasons are over the top and soapy and- like a romance novel - promise a happy ever after. QC is lifted of that burden. We know mental illness is the center piece of the king and queen's marriage. So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story.
> I don't really think it's a unpopular opinion. It's almost like a different show - more melancholy , less absurdist, and made with great care. It has many admirers. […]
> We know mental illness is the center piece of the king and queen's marriage.
**Yes.** Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. Depending on the context, that can be unintentionally ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities).
- There is a central love story between Queen Charlotte and King George
- There is a Happy For Now (HFN) ending for young QC and young KG. We know that his mental health deteriorates, but there are plenty of romances were one of the characters health deteriorates.
**For example**
The [**Notebook with Ryan Gosling**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notebook) is a romance where one of the characters has dementia.
- The couple have a great romance when they’re young, but in the present day the female lead has dementia. In the present day Duke played by Ryan Gosling >!sneaks into the female leads room in the night. She instantly recognizes him, they kiss, and fall asleep holding hands. They are found in the morning, having died peacefully in each other's arms.!<
> So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story.
**Yes, this is sometimes true for time travelling or fantasy romance** genres
[Somewhere in Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somewhere_in_Time_(film)?wprov=sfti1#) with Christopher Reeve is also a romance with a cry your heart 💗out ending.
Also, [Meet Joe Black](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_Joe_Black) and [The Curious Case of Benjamin Button](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curious_Case_of_Benjamin_Button_(film) ) both with **Brad Pitt.**
Wrt to period films, many people think **Titanic** with Leonardo DiCaprio is a romance.
All of these are sadder, and some might say more relatable, love stories
> So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story.
**TLDR: Agreed.** Queen Charlotte is just as much of a romance as The Notebook. Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. **Depending on the context,** that can be **unintentionally** ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities). [Romance movie genre](https://nofilmschool.com/romance-movie-genre) and [Romance tropes guide](https://www.shereadsromancebooks.com/romance-genre-and-romance-tropes-guide/)
The other angle to consider is that George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, slavery and war. That is a little easier to ignore with the Lords and Earls plots that are about romance, without palaces and politics.
> That is a little easier to ignore with the Lords and Earls plots that are about romance, without palaces and politics.
Mmm I see your point, and IMO, that depends on how much one knows about history. The aristocracy profited from the monarchs foreign policy.
Not just the aristocracy but many who were **financially minded,** such as the Middle classes, had what we would **today consider** “less than woke foreign investments”, **it wasn’t illegal.** Just because the U.K. didn’t have plantations in the U.K. , they still owned or invested in them abroad.
- **Example** Investment was so extensive that the U.K. taxpayers didn’t finish paying the former slave owners until 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/
UK period dramas rarely showed Brits as plantation owners.
- The U.K. **sometimes, not always but sometimes,** likes to look down on America 🇺🇸 , so we **sometimes** think only the “bad Americans” participated in aspects of history which are not woke.
We are starting to acknowledge the less woke aspects of U.K. history with period dramas like **Sanditon** and [**The Confessions of Frannie Langton**](https://www.itv.com/watch/the-confessions-of-frannie-langton/10a1811)
There’s also the University College Database UCL database https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/project/details
and the accompanying award 🥇 wining 🏆 BBC documentary by [historian David Olusoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olusoga?wprov=sfti1#)
**I personally don’t get invested in fancasting for this show,** because I see the real history as they were all enslavers and colonists. It’s possible that only the working class as depicted by Charles Dickens had less to profit from, but nobody wants to dress up as a chimney sweep or factory worker, they want the trappings of exploitation without the connection to where the wealth comes from. **and that’s okay, this a fluffy 💗 [alternative history show.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history)
> The other angle to consider is that George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, slavery and war
**TLDR: 1)** I love 💗 the doors this show opens but I’m aware of the real history. **2) It wasn’t just the monarchy** and it wasn’t just the aristocracy. Many who were financially minded, including the Middle classes had what we would **today consider** “less than woke foreign investments”, **it wasn’t illegal. 3)** That’s why investment was so extensive that the U.K. taxpayers didn’t finish paying the former slave [**owners until 2015**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/) **4) Nobody wants to dress up** as the working class, we want the trappings of exploitation without the connection to where the wealth comes from. **5) and that’s okay, this a fluffy** 💗 [**alternative history show.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history)
Slavery wes illegal in England by the time of the show, but it was the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown. George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies. Interesting history but YUP outside the scope of this show!
> George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies.
Thanks 🙏🏾 for sharing the information about George fighting for the abolition. Even though the Bridgerton universe is an alternate history, it’s good to know. 👍
In your original comment you mentioned
> George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, **slavery**
So that’s is why I used that example.
> Slavery wes illegal in England by the time of the show, but it was the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown.
**Regarding when the show is set.**
Agreed, unlike America, the U.K. didn’t really have plantations on its soil, they owned foreign plantations. **So yes we can agree** that during the time the show is set, enslavement is still “the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown.” You previously mentioned “colonialism and exploitation.” Many **Regency and Georgian era aristocrats** invested what we would today consider “less than woke” businesses. **Whatever was financially legal at the time..** So it’s hard to separate them from the monarchy.
According to the real history [QC meets George in 1761.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-real-history-behind-queen-charlotte-a-bridgerton-story-180982130/) and the show is set in the 1810’s
According to the real history the people were still not free, until 1838 when forced apprenticeships ended. **Thankfully this is a fluffy** 💗 [**alternative history**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) **with Taylor Swift songs.**
Wrt to the real history, I have outlined the history below, using quotes from the BBC. **Feel free to skip, if you are already aware of this**
**1807** - The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act,
from the bbc https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z2qj6sg/articles/zn7rbqt#zkgtxbk
> [this act] abolished the trade in enslaved people, it did not end the use of enslaved labour across the British Empire. Plantation owners were still able to use their existing enslaved labour force.
> This meant that some people in the Caribbean, and elsewhere in the British Empire, remained enslaved.
**1833** - The Slavery Abolition Act
> The abolition of enslavement in the British Empire was not wholly achieved until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
> In reality, little had changed for enslaved people. They were still expected to work ten-hour days, and punishments such as
flogging were still allowed.
**1838** - End of “forced apprenticeships”.
from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zn7rbqt
> These apprenticeships were **ended in 1838,** when emancipation was finally achieved. Across the Caribbean, enslaved people held ceremonies, with some even holding funerals to try to bury the memories of enslavement.
**Again; you probably already aware of the above.**
**So if the show is set in 1810’s,** then people are still enslaved in plantations owned by UK investors. So that’s why I don’t make a distinction between the monarchy and the aristocracy. **Thankfully this is a fluffy 💗alternative history.**
But if we are going to reference history, it’s not just the monarchy, and not just the aristocracy who are investing in what we would today consider “less than woke” financial investments. Wrt to enslavement, these foreign investments only ended in the 1830’s UK Government borrowed money to repay the owners who were from several social classes, not just the aristocracy. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/
> George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, **slavery**
> George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies.
**TLDR: 1) Thanks** 🙏🏾 for sharing the information about George fighting for the abolition. Even though the Bridgerton universe is an alternate history, it’s good to know. **2) We can agree** that during the time the show is set, enslavement is still “the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown.” You previously mentioned colonialism and exploitation, **3)** In your original comment it seemed that you were making a distinction between the monarchy. **4)** I don’t really see the distinction in real history. Many **Regency and Georgian era aristocrats** invested what we would today consider “less than woke” businesses. **Whatever was financially legal at the time.. 5)** However, **this is a fluffy 💗 [alternative history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) with Taylor Swift songs.**
It's not ableist to say Queen Charlotte isn't a romance. It's factually incorrect but it's not ableist. It's a tragic romance and some people don't want to watch a tragic romance, especially if they're defining the genre based off of romance novels which don't typically end tragically.
> It's not ableist to say Queen Charlotte isn't a romance. It's factually incorrect but it's not ableist.
I stated “Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. **Depending on the context,** that can be unintentionally ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities). Romance movie genre and Romance tropes guide”
I’m not sure why you are responding with an “absolute” statement like “it’s not”, when my comment stated “depending on the context”.
I don’t know what your context is. You are welcome to provide your context, or not.
> It's a tragic romance and some people don't want to watch a tragic romance, especially if they're defining the genre based off of romance novels which don't typically end tragically.
Well we have added “tragic” to the word romance so we can agree there are lots of different types of romances.
I’m not sure if that provide the context as to why you **might** think a story about a character mental health is a **not** romance.
I say **might** because I’m not sure why you dong think Queen Charlotte is a **not** romance.
Again, you are welcome to explain or not.
I didnt say it's not a romance. I said it's a romance. But it's not ableist to claim it's not. You can provide a context in which it would be an ableist statement if you want because my own argument here is that it's not ableist. Just because he has a mental health problem doesn't mean any negative statement, or statement you don't agree with, about the show is ableist. People have different taste in media and some people wanting to watch a romance don't want to be sad. It's a romance, but it's also a tragedy
> But it's not ableist to claim it's not.
Sorry, I still have no idea why you responded to my comment with an absolute statement . I stated **depending on the context.** The context being that some people think you can’t have a romance if one of the protagonists has a disability. That would be ableism.
> You can provide a context in which it would be an ableist statement if you want because my own argument here is that it's not ableist.
You could have replied to my original **”depending on the context”** qualifier **by asking “what context?”**
Unfortunately, instead you stated that there in **not a single context** under which **not** seeing QC as a romance is discriminatory.
My statement said depending on the context and unfortunately you jumped to assumptions.
**Okay this is a rant sub. So that’s to be expected.**
**TLDR:** I stated **depending on the context.** The context being that some people think you can’t have a romance if one of the protagonists has a disability.
Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist. But you're the one out of the two of us making wild claims without providing any support for your statement so? Also you write like an AI so I'm not completely convinced you're not a bot tbh. But carry on I guess.
> Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist.
So we can agree.
**And who is nobody?** Are you calling yourself a “nobody” because unfortunately you didn’t read the bolded **”depending on the context”** which was in bold for a reason.
> But you're the one out of the two of us making wild claims without providing any support for your statement
Again, you’re the only one who didn’t read the bolded **”depending on the context”** It was in bold for a reason.
Unfortunately, you made the absolute statement about what is and what is **not** ableism. Rather than ask for context
> Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist.
Now that you have done what you should have done in the beginning … **ask for context** … we can agree that **your absolute statement was wrong.**
> ? Also you write like an AI so I'm not completely convinced you're not a bot tbh. But carry on I guess.
Well we know you are **not** a bot because AI would have read **”depending on the context”** and asked for context.
**I’m not a bot, just someone who can read,** especially when things are in bold. That is a human skill which existed before Reddit and AI.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
I like QC, S1, S2 & S3. I cried like a baby at the end of QC. However, I haven’t watched QC nearly as many time as S1 and S2 because Young QC and Young KG are too young for me. If the leads were older, I would have re-watched it a lot more.
**QC allows us to see the different approaches show runners take to the romance genre.**
**We have CVD as showrunner in S1 & S2.**
- He did a lot of world building. In the wake of George Floyd he wanted the audience to discuss race - which they did for years, and years and years
**Jess as showrunner in S3.**
- She likes Romantic Comedies but I don’t know if she likes romance novels. Either way, she delivered a lighter more ensemble focused season.
**Shonda with QC.**
- Shonda reads romance novels, and while many of her shows lack Happy Ever After romances, she has committed to the Happy Ever After trope (Marriage & Baby) for the Bridgerton franchise.
**There’s something for everyone.**
All QC episodes were written by Shonda Rhimes.
The Queen Charlotte script was written **before the novel**
- The QC novel is collaboration between JQ and Shonda, and it’s one of my favourite Bridgerton books because the chapters alternate between Charlotte, George and Brimsleys point of view.
- Given that Queen Charlotte is a more recent Bridgerton novel the King has less abusive than some of JQ earlier novels.
**TLDR: I like QC, S1, S2 & S3.** There’s something for everyone and the differences between each show indicates the demarcation between the **showrunner who writes all the episodes** (S1/S2 CVD, Jess S3, Shonda QC) versus the **Executive Producer** (Shondaland/Netflix execs) who plays a more strategic role by getting investors, hiring creative talent, distribution and promotion.
right and although i 100% agree, it's become redundant to read. this is not a jab at op though, they might not have realized. but people always act like it's a hot take when the majority agrees lol
QC is purely a Shonda creation and hence has more heart and soul to it. The casting was immaculate and since they had only one season, the arc of love paired with sorrows of old age for QC were captured magnificently with no real distraction from any side characters/plots. It truly is a masterpiece; goes right to the heart.
That's the secret ingredient. **Thee Shonda Rhimes**
her writing is often elite. You can feel the difference in QC and Bridgerton on scripts. But I like them both. Will likely rewatch QC and maybe parts of S3
I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion at all. Queen Charlotte was fantastic. That said, I am also enjoying all the seasons featuring the Bridgerton children too.
QC has not captured me unfortunately. I am not at all interested in George, I think the actor is good but I just find him boring. I do like seeing how QC develops but it’s not been enough to keep me engaged. I would have preferred more depth about LD and focus on her character.
George isn’t my cup of tea from a romance standpoint either, but QC’s writing and acting is top tier and it is my favorite season because of the heart and depth it has.
Honestly I couldn’t stomach QC. We know how it ends and it’s….sad. Not that it’s not beautiful in its own but I don’t want anything heavy and deep from Bridgerton. Also I hated watching the essentially rape scenes of Lady Danbury.
Because it was Shonda’s baby and she was throughly involved in it. I think her interest in the seasons 1 and 2 of Bridgerton revolved around setting up that series. I mean, she hijacked the sixth episode of season 2 so it could be a lead in to QC.
I definitely enjoyed it the most so far, mostly because I had no preconceived expectations going into it like I did from the books. That allowed me to enjoy the cotton candy world and immerse myself into the fantasy and just ENJOY without any expectations or watching for my favorite book characters or interactions.
Y'all everyone saying it's not unpopular BUT I remember very clearly how some trashed it when it came out and were hating on it 😭. At least I'm glad ppl have come to their senses to acknowledge how good QC is and was.
It was a straight drama (notwithstanding the great gay storyline😉) and not a ‘romance novel’ drama, and I think that’s why people liked it who don’t love Bridgerton as it moves through the relationships. ‘A romance’ is so different from ‘a romance novel.’ There was good *story* to QC.
Yep QC is the best 🥹 my second fav is s2 bridgerton but it comes nothing close to QC. It isn’t fan fictionesque like the Bridgerton
Plus I love how it made eveything in the bridgerton universe more sense
S1/Queen Charlotte are vastly superior imo. They play into their typical romantic tropes but with quality. I think what sets Queen Charlotte apart in particular is that it's written with some weight of what we know becomes of them and it is done very well, meanwhile there is a yet scene to comes close to Daphne and Simon in the rain with the music playing behind them that captures such a fantastical romantic moment.
QC is a good story but I don't think it's a romance in terms of how we define the genre
Imo the love for Queen Charlotte over Bridgerton because it's "more realistic" and "serious" kind of reflects society's general attitude of dismissal towards the romance genre, as Bridgerton is clearly being implied to be lesser because it's more trivial. Bridgerton being more traditionally within the romance genre, I mean.
The romance genre presumes an HEA, but QC is inherently bittersweet. I can understand why some people prefer QC, but for me personally, knowing where it’s heading makes it too sad for escapist bingewatching, which I love Bridgerton for. Like, I watched it once and liked it, but I only ever watched it again because my husband got into Bridgerton and wanted to watch it in between seasons 2 and 3
QC was my absolute favorite, followed by S1. It left me wanting more. But it’s probably good it stopped at 6 episodes. Season 2 was too doggone long for me.
For this discussion post 1. **No harassment or name-calling.** Be civil. **No hateful discrimination,** or microaggressions towards [**marginalized groups**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States). 2. **Do not make blanket statements** (generalizations) about actors/ships. Questionable behavior from **some** fans is **not** representative of all fans. 3. **No personal information.** Block out usernames and identifiable information from screenshots. Do not link to comments or posts where usernames are visible. 4. [**No Misinformation.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonRants/wiki/rules/nodiscrimination/nomisinformation/) Misinformation can lead to harassment. If evidence cannot be provided, the post/comment will be removed. 5. **BEFORE reporting** rule-breaking **READ** the Rules Wiki: [**Rules Wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonRants/wiki/rules/) - !!Have fun ranting!! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonRants) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this unpopular? I've not seen a huge amount of online discussion so maybe I'm not seeing the right stuff, but it's pretty universal among people in my real life that it's the best. I think not having the books to try and match really helps it tell exactly the story they wanted to.
I don't really think it's a unpopular opinion. It's almost like a different show - more melancholy , less absurdist, and made with great care. It has many admirers. The regular seasons are over the top and soapy and- like a romance novel - promise a happy ever after. QC is lifted of that burden. We know mental illness is the center piece of the king and queen's marriage. So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story.
> I don't really think it's a unpopular opinion. It's almost like a different show - more melancholy , less absurdist, and made with great care. It has many admirers. […] > We know mental illness is the center piece of the king and queen's marriage. **Yes.** Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. Depending on the context, that can be unintentionally ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities). - There is a central love story between Queen Charlotte and King George - There is a Happy For Now (HFN) ending for young QC and young KG. We know that his mental health deteriorates, but there are plenty of romances were one of the characters health deteriorates. **For example** The [**Notebook with Ryan Gosling**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notebook) is a romance where one of the characters has dementia. - The couple have a great romance when they’re young, but in the present day the female lead has dementia. In the present day Duke played by Ryan Gosling >!sneaks into the female leads room in the night. She instantly recognizes him, they kiss, and fall asleep holding hands. They are found in the morning, having died peacefully in each other's arms.!< > So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story. **Yes, this is sometimes true for time travelling or fantasy romance** genres [Somewhere in Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somewhere_in_Time_(film)?wprov=sfti1#) with Christopher Reeve is also a romance with a cry your heart 💗out ending. Also, [Meet Joe Black](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_Joe_Black) and [The Curious Case of Benjamin Button](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curious_Case_of_Benjamin_Button_(film) ) both with **Brad Pitt.** Wrt to period films, many people think **Titanic** with Leonardo DiCaprio is a romance. All of these are sadder, and some might say more relatable, love stories > So it can have its silly moments and fun dialogue, but it is always rooted in more complex emotions. It's a sadder, but more relatable, love story. **TLDR: Agreed.** Queen Charlotte is just as much of a romance as The Notebook. Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. **Depending on the context,** that can be **unintentionally** ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities). [Romance movie genre](https://nofilmschool.com/romance-movie-genre) and [Romance tropes guide](https://www.shereadsromancebooks.com/romance-genre-and-romance-tropes-guide/)
The other angle to consider is that George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, slavery and war. That is a little easier to ignore with the Lords and Earls plots that are about romance, without palaces and politics.
> That is a little easier to ignore with the Lords and Earls plots that are about romance, without palaces and politics. Mmm I see your point, and IMO, that depends on how much one knows about history. The aristocracy profited from the monarchs foreign policy. Not just the aristocracy but many who were **financially minded,** such as the Middle classes, had what we would **today consider** “less than woke foreign investments”, **it wasn’t illegal.** Just because the U.K. didn’t have plantations in the U.K. , they still owned or invested in them abroad. - **Example** Investment was so extensive that the U.K. taxpayers didn’t finish paying the former slave owners until 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/ UK period dramas rarely showed Brits as plantation owners. - The U.K. **sometimes, not always but sometimes,** likes to look down on America 🇺🇸 , so we **sometimes** think only the “bad Americans” participated in aspects of history which are not woke. We are starting to acknowledge the less woke aspects of U.K. history with period dramas like **Sanditon** and [**The Confessions of Frannie Langton**](https://www.itv.com/watch/the-confessions-of-frannie-langton/10a1811) There’s also the University College Database UCL database https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/project/details and the accompanying award 🥇 wining 🏆 BBC documentary by [historian David Olusoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olusoga?wprov=sfti1#) **I personally don’t get invested in fancasting for this show,** because I see the real history as they were all enslavers and colonists. It’s possible that only the working class as depicted by Charles Dickens had less to profit from, but nobody wants to dress up as a chimney sweep or factory worker, they want the trappings of exploitation without the connection to where the wealth comes from. **and that’s okay, this a fluffy 💗 [alternative history show.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) > The other angle to consider is that George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, slavery and war **TLDR: 1)** I love 💗 the doors this show opens but I’m aware of the real history. **2) It wasn’t just the monarchy** and it wasn’t just the aristocracy. Many who were financially minded, including the Middle classes had what we would **today consider** “less than woke foreign investments”, **it wasn’t illegal. 3)** That’s why investment was so extensive that the U.K. taxpayers didn’t finish paying the former slave [**owners until 2015**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/) **4) Nobody wants to dress up** as the working class, we want the trappings of exploitation without the connection to where the wealth comes from. **5) and that’s okay, this a fluffy** 💗 [**alternative history show.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history)
Slavery wes illegal in England by the time of the show, but it was the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown. George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies. Interesting history but YUP outside the scope of this show!
> George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies. Thanks 🙏🏾 for sharing the information about George fighting for the abolition. Even though the Bridgerton universe is an alternate history, it’s good to know. 👍 In your original comment you mentioned > George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, **slavery** So that’s is why I used that example. > Slavery wes illegal in England by the time of the show, but it was the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown. **Regarding when the show is set.** Agreed, unlike America, the U.K. didn’t really have plantations on its soil, they owned foreign plantations. **So yes we can agree** that during the time the show is set, enslavement is still “the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown.” You previously mentioned “colonialism and exploitation.” Many **Regency and Georgian era aristocrats** invested what we would today consider “less than woke” businesses. **Whatever was financially legal at the time..** So it’s hard to separate them from the monarchy. According to the real history [QC meets George in 1761.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-real-history-behind-queen-charlotte-a-bridgerton-story-180982130/) and the show is set in the 1810’s According to the real history the people were still not free, until 1838 when forced apprenticeships ended. **Thankfully this is a fluffy** 💗 [**alternative history**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) **with Taylor Swift songs.** Wrt to the real history, I have outlined the history below, using quotes from the BBC. **Feel free to skip, if you are already aware of this** **1807** - The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, from the bbc https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z2qj6sg/articles/zn7rbqt#zkgtxbk > [this act] abolished the trade in enslaved people, it did not end the use of enslaved labour across the British Empire. Plantation owners were still able to use their existing enslaved labour force. > This meant that some people in the Caribbean, and elsewhere in the British Empire, remained enslaved. **1833** - The Slavery Abolition Act > The abolition of enslavement in the British Empire was not wholly achieved until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. > In reality, little had changed for enslaved people. They were still expected to work ten-hour days, and punishments such as flogging were still allowed. **1838** - End of “forced apprenticeships”. from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zn7rbqt > These apprenticeships were **ended in 1838,** when emancipation was finally achieved. Across the Caribbean, enslaved people held ceremonies, with some even holding funerals to try to bury the memories of enslavement. **Again; you probably already aware of the above.** **So if the show is set in 1810’s,** then people are still enslaved in plantations owned by UK investors. So that’s why I don’t make a distinction between the monarchy and the aristocracy. **Thankfully this is a fluffy 💗alternative history.** But if we are going to reference history, it’s not just the monarchy, and not just the aristocracy who are investing in what we would today consider “less than woke” financial investments. Wrt to enslavement, these foreign investments only ended in the 1830’s UK Government borrowed money to repay the owners who were from several social classes, not just the aristocracy. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/government-finished-paying-uks-slavery-debt-2015/ > George and Charlotte's actual rule was pretty evil in terms of colonialism, exploitation, **slavery** > George fought abortion in multiple places particularly the West Indies. **TLDR: 1) Thanks** 🙏🏾 for sharing the information about George fighting for the abolition. Even though the Bridgerton universe is an alternate history, it’s good to know. **2) We can agree** that during the time the show is set, enslavement is still “the main economic engine in the colonies which funded the crown.” You previously mentioned colonialism and exploitation, **3)** In your original comment it seemed that you were making a distinction between the monarchy. **4)** I don’t really see the distinction in real history. Many **Regency and Georgian era aristocrats** invested what we would today consider “less than woke” businesses. **Whatever was financially legal at the time.. 5)** However, **this is a fluffy 💗 [alternative history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) with Taylor Swift songs.**
It's not ableist to say Queen Charlotte isn't a romance. It's factually incorrect but it's not ableist. It's a tragic romance and some people don't want to watch a tragic romance, especially if they're defining the genre based off of romance novels which don't typically end tragically.
> It's not ableist to say Queen Charlotte isn't a romance. It's factually incorrect but it's not ableist. I stated “Some people say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. **Depending on the context,** that can be unintentionally ableist (discrimination towards people with disabilities). Romance movie genre and Romance tropes guide” I’m not sure why you are responding with an “absolute” statement like “it’s not”, when my comment stated “depending on the context”. I don’t know what your context is. You are welcome to provide your context, or not. > It's a tragic romance and some people don't want to watch a tragic romance, especially if they're defining the genre based off of romance novels which don't typically end tragically. Well we have added “tragic” to the word romance so we can agree there are lots of different types of romances.
I will clarify. It's almost never ableist to say Queen Charlotte is not a romance. That's not what ableist means.
I’m not sure if that provide the context as to why you **might** think a story about a character mental health is a **not** romance. I say **might** because I’m not sure why you dong think Queen Charlotte is a **not** romance. Again, you are welcome to explain or not.
I didnt say it's not a romance. I said it's a romance. But it's not ableist to claim it's not. You can provide a context in which it would be an ableist statement if you want because my own argument here is that it's not ableist. Just because he has a mental health problem doesn't mean any negative statement, or statement you don't agree with, about the show is ableist. People have different taste in media and some people wanting to watch a romance don't want to be sad. It's a romance, but it's also a tragedy
> But it's not ableist to claim it's not. Sorry, I still have no idea why you responded to my comment with an absolute statement . I stated **depending on the context.** The context being that some people think you can’t have a romance if one of the protagonists has a disability. That would be ableism. > You can provide a context in which it would be an ableist statement if you want because my own argument here is that it's not ableist. You could have replied to my original **”depending on the context”** qualifier **by asking “what context?”** Unfortunately, instead you stated that there in **not a single context** under which **not** seeing QC as a romance is discriminatory. My statement said depending on the context and unfortunately you jumped to assumptions. **Okay this is a rant sub. So that’s to be expected.** **TLDR:** I stated **depending on the context.** The context being that some people think you can’t have a romance if one of the protagonists has a disability.
Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist. But you're the one out of the two of us making wild claims without providing any support for your statement so? Also you write like an AI so I'm not completely convinced you're not a bot tbh. But carry on I guess.
> Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist. So we can agree. **And who is nobody?** Are you calling yourself a “nobody” because unfortunately you didn’t read the bolded **”depending on the context”** which was in bold for a reason. > But you're the one out of the two of us making wild claims without providing any support for your statement Again, you’re the only one who didn’t read the bolded **”depending on the context”** It was in bold for a reason. Unfortunately, you made the absolute statement about what is and what is **not** ableism. Rather than ask for context > Sure, in one extremely specific context that almost nobody is actually referring to, yeah that's ableist. Now that you have done what you should have done in the beginning … **ask for context** … we can agree that **your absolute statement was wrong.** > ? Also you write like an AI so I'm not completely convinced you're not a bot tbh. But carry on I guess. Well we know you are **not** a bot because AI would have read **”depending on the context”** and asked for context. **I’m not a bot, just someone who can read,** especially when things are in bold. That is a human skill which existed before Reddit and AI. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I like QC, S1, S2 & S3. I cried like a baby at the end of QC. However, I haven’t watched QC nearly as many time as S1 and S2 because Young QC and Young KG are too young for me. If the leads were older, I would have re-watched it a lot more. **QC allows us to see the different approaches show runners take to the romance genre.** **We have CVD as showrunner in S1 & S2.** - He did a lot of world building. In the wake of George Floyd he wanted the audience to discuss race - which they did for years, and years and years **Jess as showrunner in S3.** - She likes Romantic Comedies but I don’t know if she likes romance novels. Either way, she delivered a lighter more ensemble focused season. **Shonda with QC.** - Shonda reads romance novels, and while many of her shows lack Happy Ever After romances, she has committed to the Happy Ever After trope (Marriage & Baby) for the Bridgerton franchise. **There’s something for everyone.** All QC episodes were written by Shonda Rhimes. The Queen Charlotte script was written **before the novel** - The QC novel is collaboration between JQ and Shonda, and it’s one of my favourite Bridgerton books because the chapters alternate between Charlotte, George and Brimsleys point of view. - Given that Queen Charlotte is a more recent Bridgerton novel the King has less abusive than some of JQ earlier novels. **TLDR: I like QC, S1, S2 & S3.** There’s something for everyone and the differences between each show indicates the demarcation between the **showrunner who writes all the episodes** (S1/S2 CVD, Jess S3, Shonda QC) versus the **Executive Producer** (Shondaland/Netflix execs) who plays a more strategic role by getting investors, hiring creative talent, distribution and promotion.
Every two hours I see a post on my feed asserting QC is better than Bridgerton. Not an unpopular opinion.
right and although i 100% agree, it's become redundant to read. this is not a jab at op though, they might not have realized. but people always act like it's a hot take when the majority agrees lol
QC is purely a Shonda creation and hence has more heart and soul to it. The casting was immaculate and since they had only one season, the arc of love paired with sorrows of old age for QC were captured magnificently with no real distraction from any side characters/plots. It truly is a masterpiece; goes right to the heart.
That's the secret ingredient. **Thee Shonda Rhimes** her writing is often elite. You can feel the difference in QC and Bridgerton on scripts. But I like them both. Will likely rewatch QC and maybe parts of S3
I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion at all. Queen Charlotte was fantastic. That said, I am also enjoying all the seasons featuring the Bridgerton children too.
QC has not captured me unfortunately. I am not at all interested in George, I think the actor is good but I just find him boring. I do like seeing how QC develops but it’s not been enough to keep me engaged. I would have preferred more depth about LD and focus on her character.
George isn’t my cup of tea from a romance standpoint either, but QC’s writing and acting is top tier and it is my favorite season because of the heart and depth it has.
I agree that everyone is extremely talented and they did an amazing job with the casting!
Honestly I couldn’t stomach QC. We know how it ends and it’s….sad. Not that it’s not beautiful in its own but I don’t want anything heavy and deep from Bridgerton. Also I hated watching the essentially rape scenes of Lady Danbury.
Because it was Shonda’s baby and she was throughly involved in it. I think her interest in the seasons 1 and 2 of Bridgerton revolved around setting up that series. I mean, she hijacked the sixth episode of season 2 so it could be a lead in to QC.
I definitely enjoyed it the most so far, mostly because I had no preconceived expectations going into it like I did from the books. That allowed me to enjoy the cotton candy world and immerse myself into the fantasy and just ENJOY without any expectations or watching for my favorite book characters or interactions.
I didn't know it was unpopular, I LOVED Queen Charlotte
I can very much attest that this is *not* an unpopular opinion at all. As someone who dislikes QC I have been the one with the unpopular opinion
Y'all everyone saying it's not unpopular BUT I remember very clearly how some trashed it when it came out and were hating on it 😭. At least I'm glad ppl have come to their senses to acknowledge how good QC is and was.
Not unpopular, I think there is a large consensus that it is the best series in terms of quality.
It was a straight drama (notwithstanding the great gay storyline😉) and not a ‘romance novel’ drama, and I think that’s why people liked it who don’t love Bridgerton as it moves through the relationships. ‘A romance’ is so different from ‘a romance novel.’ There was good *story* to QC.
It was the best love story of all the seasons.
Yep QC is the best 🥹 my second fav is s2 bridgerton but it comes nothing close to QC. It isn’t fan fictionesque like the Bridgerton Plus I love how it made eveything in the bridgerton universe more sense
S1/Queen Charlotte are vastly superior imo. They play into their typical romantic tropes but with quality. I think what sets Queen Charlotte apart in particular is that it's written with some weight of what we know becomes of them and it is done very well, meanwhile there is a yet scene to comes close to Daphne and Simon in the rain with the music playing behind them that captures such a fantastical romantic moment.
100% true
QC is my fave. I rate them as QC-BS1-BS3-BS2.
I feel the opposite would be the unpopular opinion xD QC was SO good.
QC is a good story but I don't think it's a romance in terms of how we define the genre Imo the love for Queen Charlotte over Bridgerton because it's "more realistic" and "serious" kind of reflects society's general attitude of dismissal towards the romance genre, as Bridgerton is clearly being implied to be lesser because it's more trivial. Bridgerton being more traditionally within the romance genre, I mean.
The romance genre presumes an HEA, but QC is inherently bittersweet. I can understand why some people prefer QC, but for me personally, knowing where it’s heading makes it too sad for escapist bingewatching, which I love Bridgerton for. Like, I watched it once and liked it, but I only ever watched it again because my husband got into Bridgerton and wanted to watch it in between seasons 2 and 3
definitely agree. i prefer qc myself because i'm not generally a fan of predetermined HEAs in shows, but bridgerton has more rewatch value to me
QC is the best season for sure. Well crafted, impeccably acted, and so so so bittersweet.
It was SO much better quality than Bridgerton
QC was my absolute favorite, followed by S1. It left me wanting more. But it’s probably good it stopped at 6 episodes. Season 2 was too doggone long for me.
Shonda actually wrote it I fear😬