Bridgerton. Anyone who was on the internet during the summer of 2020 has at the very least heard that name. In case you missed it, Bridgerton is a Netflix television drama based on a book series of the same name. It is set in the competitive world of Regency-era London's ton during the season.

ton [le bon ton] | /tʌn/

Britain's high society during the late Regency and the reign of George IV, and later. The word means, in this context, "manners" or "style" and is pronounced as in French ([tɔ̃]). The full phrase is le bon ton meaning etiquette, "good manners" or "good form" – characteristics held as ideal by the British beau monde.

the season | /ˈsiːz(ə)n/

In the Georgian era, the social season was the time of year in London society devoted to events, such as parties, ballroom dances and military parades, where young men and women could mingle under the watchful eyes of their chaperones in search of love.

regency | /ˈriːdʒ(ə)nsi/

relating to or denoting British architecture, clothing, and furniture of the Regency or, more widely, of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Set between 1813 and 1827, the series centres on the Bridgerton family, specifically the children, as they navigate both life and love. Also featured are their gaudy neighbours the Featheringtons*, the owner of a modiste and the anonymous scandal writer known only as Lady Whistledown. There are 8 books, each focusing on a different Bridgerton sibling. The first season of the Netflix series and the first book in Julia Quinn's series both follow Daphne, the oldest girl and fourth Bridgerton child. I haven't yet read the book series so my commentary will focus solely on the Netflix adaptation - more specifically the first season of the series. The streaming television series was created by Chris Van Dusen and produced by Shonda Rhimes. and it premiered on Christmas Day in 2020, with eight episodes. By amassing a viewership of 82 million households, it has become Netflix's most-watched series. As such, less than a month after its premiere, its creators revealed that the series had been renewed not only for a second season but for a third and fourth as well.

*it has been confirmed that the Featheringtons were based off/ inspired by the Kardashians

There are many reasons why the show has been successful, one of which I believe to be tied to the appeal of reimagining period pieces and old classics. Think about it – a new version of Jane Austen's Emma was released in February 2020, and a few months later, the Personal History of David Copperfield premiered. The year before, a remake of the Little Women movie directed by Greta Gerwig had also come out. Emma and Little Women kept its casting racially homogenous, but David Copperfield did something Charles Dickens couldn't have imagined; it gave us a South Asian protagonist and a black woman as his love interest. Anyone who knows me knows how much I love race-blind/ colour-blind casting in film and television. I am very much over the myth that black people didn't exist in the 1800s or that not casting them in certain projects keeps things 'realistic'. It annoys me that people are given this excuse to not be diverse just because they're making a period drama. The fact that BIPOC actors and actresses have to some degree accept that they won't be considered for period dramas [unless they're playing a slave] is preposterous to me. This goes not just for period pieces but also literary classics, fairytales, action movies and whatever white men in media decide to gatekeep next. What I personally want to see is more of is a black Ariel**, another black Cinderella, a BIPOC James Bond and the range that Bridgerton delivered when it came to casting in all future productions.

**Halle Bailey from the musical duo Chloe x Halle is a young black woman who is set to star as Ariel in Disney’s upcoming remake of ‘The Little Mermaid’

Race-blind or colour-blind casting is not without its critics. Some critics should be completely disregarded – like Tim Burton or the Downton Abbey creator who defended the lack of diversity in one of his productions by saying he was 'aiming to produce something believable.' Cry me a river. Don't get me wrong, casting BIPOC for the sake of ticking some diversity box is not only textbook tokenism, it just exposes vulnerable communities to toxic work environments. That being said, I would like to see conscious effort be put into creating pieces that reflect today's society and the creating of opportunities that don't exclude entire races.

Anyone worth their salt as an anti-racist critic has to at least be a little bit sceptical of colour-blind casting. It either works very well or not at all. For example, in a biopic of Nelson Mandela, or a remake of Mulan – both stories where race and culture play an integral role – colour-blind casting would not only be the wrong move, it would be a leap in the wrong direction. Additionally, casting in this way can be reminiscent of the 'I don't see race' rhetoric. - another misguided sentiment used to slap a bandaid on the significance of race in people's experiences. On colour-blind casting, Diep Tran, an arts journalist specialising in diversity and the ethics of representation says, "It negates the very real structural hindrances that block actors of colour from the same opportunities as white actors – like low pay in the theatre industry, a lack of roles that are ethnically specific that actors of colour can play, and unconscious bias on the part of white theatres and casting directors."

Enter the concept of 'colour-conscious casting'. A practice that actively acknowledges and considers race when pursuing casting in a "non-traditional" way, rather than attempting to ignore it. Depending on the project, this can look like anything from searching for actors from specific ethnic backgrounds to using race to inject a core message into a story or tweaking aspects of a production to acknowledge how race impacts the characters' lives. Being that Bridgerton was and is a Shondaland*** production, a very big part of me wants to believe that this is what they were going for when they made a conscious effort to address race. But. We have to talk about THAT scene. You should know the scene I'm talking about but if you don't, fret not my little flower, we'll get into it soon enough.

***Shondaland is the name of Shonda Rhimes’ production company and in case you hadn’t guessed it, Shonda is a black woman

The casting choices made in Bridgerton are said to have been inspired by long-standing rumours that George III's wife, Queen Charlotte was of African ancestry. In his book, Sex and Race, Jamaican-American writer J. A. Rogers said she must have had a"negro strain" because of her and I quote, "broad nostrils and heavy lips." Speeding right past that, the Queen's portraits and comments made by some around her not only confirmed these statements but also added fuel to the rumours that she must be biracial or of mixed race. Since black people have been continually written out of history, it isn't difficult for me to entertain the thought that a mixed girl was rewritten as white for appearance sake. However, I mostly don't care and regardless of whether or not the rumours were true, we get to see a black Queen Charlotte in the charismatic Golda Rosheuvel. The lack of conscious regard or understanding of how ingrained racial bias can be in a culture meant that in the case of Bridgerton, they missed the mark less with regards to casting, but more how race is discussed. In a conversation between Lady Danbury and The Duke of Hastings about how this version of 19th century London got to exist, Danbury states;

"Look at our queen. Look at our king. Look at their marriage. Look at everything it is doing for us, allowing us to become. We were two separate societies divided by colour, until a king fell in love with one of us. Love, Your Grace, conquers all."

The timing of this statement indicates that the intent was not to explain how their world got to be so… progressive, but instead, it was to serve as inspiration for The Duke to follow his heart regarding his relationship with Daphne Bridgerton. Nonetheless, this is far too simplistic an explanation of race. In Chris Van Dusen's London, Queen Charlotte's race was not only never up for debate, but her ascension to the throne also resulted in a more accepting world where black excellence was not only encouraged, it was normalised. I'm not against a world where black people could have been dukes, footmen, queens or respected boxers. What I am against is having two black characters deliver a line so devoid of any understanding of race theory. Any BIPOC will tell you that the existence of one successful ethnic person doesn't suddenly wipe away people's racism. If the England football team's fans showed us anything after the team lost to Italy, it's exactly that. When three young black players missed their penalty shots in the championship match, the abuse directed at them wasn't about their playing ability. It was all racially charged. Never mind the fact that the same people hurling abuse had 24 hours earlier been singing their praises. That racism didn't go away, it just lay dormant and wasn't targeted at the black players until they had ‘let the racists down’. For Queen Charlotte, the wife of a somewhat mad king, it's not presumptuous to suggest that it wouldn't have taken decades for something to happen that turned public opinion against her. In the charade created by the Bridgerton writers, the vitriol against her would have transferred over to all the other people of colour who had become dukes, duchesses, ladies of the court and other members of high society. Restoring British society to the mess we have all accepted it to be.

Lady Danbury’s comments broke the illusion I and many other viewers had thought the show was going for. I had assumed that the world of Bridgerton, was one where someone's race didn't matter or wasn't important to the story. Like in Rodgers and Hammerstein's 1997 Cinderella, a black woman and a white man could make an Asian baby, and no one would bat an eye. I thought they had created an idyllic world where race was irrelevant because it wasn't attached to all the prejudice and biases that come with it in the real world. Think about it, race is only as important as it is right now because of racism and colonisation and centuries of racial inequality. If we lived in a truly equal world, like the one I thought Bridgerton had created, we would not need critical race theory.

I don't think one unnuanced, surface-level conversation between a man and his only mother figure is anywhere near enough to 'explain' how a country that had such a fraught relationship with race had progressed to what we saw on our screens. It doesn't compute. I think I speak not just for myself, but also for other fans of the show when I say – we didn't want or need an explanation for why any of the cast were the race/ colour/ creed that they were. I was just happy to see people that looked like me get opportunities they usually didn't. That was it.

I'll leave you with this fabulous twitter thread by Sarah Shaffi a freelance journalist who also had many thoughts and feelings on this same topic.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Language Lovers: 9 words to sweep you into the world of Bridgerton

Julia Quinn | the Bridgerton Series

Bridgerton (Wikipedia)

Vox | the Debate over Bridgerton and race

Refinery29 | A Double Hot Take On Bridgerton, Race & Romance

the Personal History of David Copperfield (Wikipedia)

the Guardian | 'It's dangerous not to see race': is colour-blind casting all it's cracked up to be?

Charlotte of Mecklenburg (Wikipedia)

the Verge | Black players on England football team bombarded with racist abuse on social media

Oprah Daily | Bridgerton Doesn't Need to Elaborate on Its Inclusion of Black Characters

**image credit to Netflix, Shondaland and the creators of the Bridgerton series