Finished #Bridgerton last night and I loved it. A very 21st century take on Regency romance, gorgeous to look at, and just so much shagging. From a historical drama point of view, it’s really interesting: part alternative history & part historical fantasy.

It’s set in a version of the aristocratic English 1810s which is racially integrated, but it’s not “colourblind” casting - the race of families is consistent. Lady Danbury explains to Hastings that the races were segregated until King George III (white) married Charlotte (black).

This is the alt history bit: it has been suggested that Queen Charlotte was mixed race, but frankly the argument is not very credible (see link). The show takes that as a jumping off point and imagines “what if?” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/12/race-monarchy

In Bridgerton, that marriage solves racism. Here the show departs from alt history for historical fantasy. If it dug into alt history, Qs might be: What about slavery? If that didn’t exist, what funded building all those fancy houses? What trade etc brought all these people here?

But the show (perfectly legitimately) is not about this. It doesn’t do grit. It’s a confection, inviting new audiences to imagine themselves in a fantasy world. That’s great fun, though this is an interesting critique: https://twitter.com/zunguzungu/status/1343233392578420736

Of course, more traditional Regency romances rarely trouble themselves with the implications of their protagonists’ gilded lives either - no reason why Bridgerton should. Arguably, the whole genre is a form of fantasy. Why shouldn’t we all be allowed to play?

Anyway, ICYMI, here’s a @HistoryFilmClub podcast with me and @Hannah_Greig talking to #Bridgerton intimacy coordinator Lizzy Talbot - who did a completely wonderful job. The show really is wildly sexy. No spoilers in the podcast! https://twitter.com/historyfilmclub/status/1343949654120083456