Jumping to Conclusions and the Problems of the Bridgerton Fandom
I have been seeing a LOT of misinterpretation and misinformation in the Bridgerton community lately, but it reached critical mass, at least for me, over the last week with comments from Betsy Beers and Shonda Rhimes, who were promoting the new book, “Inside Bridgerton,” and, in this specific section, discussing the historical consultant they have and the relationship of the show to historical accuracy.
This transitions to Betsy making a joke about what a fanatic Shonda is about accuracy for the Regency period, and making a reference to a time Shonda had a freak out about something that wasn't period accurate. Shonda takes over the story then, talking about her knee jerk reactions and how she was worried about the ramifications of this scene for the character and the audience. That's the bare bones. Let's dig into interpretation and, sorry, this won't be pithy or attention grabbing, because actual nuance and understanding takes more than they give you on the character limit for Instagram, which is why I’ here on my blog.
But first, let’s look at what was said. Go check it out for yourself, but I’ll also be using quotes throughout because, as is my whole point, getting exactly what was said is important, as well as looking at the tone and context.
I’m looking specifically at the section “On getting the historical details right” where they discuss the Regency and period elements of the show.
“Lowes dug into how Inside Bridgerton explains the role historian Hannah Greig had in ensuring that details on the series line up with the real customs and traditions of the day. For the most part, anyway.”
This is the context of the conversation; and I’m quoting from the article here, not the comments in the session. But obviously the play between how much historical accuracy matters to Bridgerton is a discussion. They are a historical show, and a lot of the tension and drama comes from the restrictions of the day, especially for women, as a metaphor for our own, modern dating scene. It provides a great backdrop of comparison for us to ask how far we’ve really come. But it’s also fiction, so it is not beholden to every moment being historically accurate, which we can see in music, costumes, and other areas. Like Shonda’s first example:
“I spent so much time immersing myself in trying to learn everything Regency, I turned into this, like, bonkers person who would look at edits and call people like, ‘Oh! Penelope is walking unassisted with no chaperone! She has no chaperone!’”
That’s the article directly quoting Rhimes. So, the first thing she notes as an anachronism is with Penelope. This leads to Betsy, Shonda’s longtime producing partner, adding in, and the overall topic staying the same but the specific instance of the example changing. The scene in question is Kate's riding astride a horse.
First, Betsy Beers refers to Shonda “Like, the most intense Regency police you have ever met in your life.” The article, by the way, notes this as “deadpan” so that we get the context as a lighthearted joking one, and not Beers accusing her producing partner of something in all seriousness. She goes on to say: “We get this cut; I believe it was one of the Sharmas, riding a horse …”
The first issue I see being laid is that Betsy didn't identify which Sharma she was talking about. Now, I can fully see how this could hit as a micro aggression. People of color often get put in the "one of those" category and don't get named on their own. I get the initial distaste to this remark, and Beers likely should have named Kate, but we are not perfect humans. Moreover, Bridgerton is far from the only show she works on and it's not as though she has the scene playing in front of her. So, while it isn't ideal and people deserve to be as upset as they feel about this comment, I don't think Betsy deserves quite the spit roasting she's getting over it. But that is probably the most legitimate concern I’ve seen because it’s an actual problem with her comments. The rest is a misread.
Or, more honestly, utter horse shit. Because while for some people, namely those who are not running fanpages, I think it’s an honest misread of the quotes because the language is jarring and definitely imperfect. But for some, especially those who are gaining traffic off this issue, I think it’s a deliberate misinterpretation of what was said in order to rile up the fanbase and bring eyes to their posts and pages based on anger and vitriol alone rather than honest content.
I’ll start with the entire quote first, then we’ll break it down:
“Kate!” Rhimes said, remnants of her very real shock still present in her tone. “And she’s just riding … like a plain, old hooker!” The audience screamed, laughing. “In Regency period, they’re all supposed to ride sidesaddle like ladies. And they filmed it with her riding astride the horse. There’s a million reasons why it happened creatively, or, you know, maybe Kate [Simone Ashley] was more comfortable riding that way. But I remember being scandalized. Scandalized! I wouldn’t let it go.”
So, with the interpretation of the journalist writing this, the tone is incredibly light. I’ll get to the joking part of this later, but let’s set that aside for the moment and just take the comments themselves.
As an English teacher, I have to quibble with the use of the comma in the “like a plain, old hooker” line. Plain COMMA old means plain or less than attractive in appearance and old means, well, not young. But “plain old” when used together as a phrasal adjective means unremarkable or ordinary. The tone of the comments are completely different when the casual idiom of “plain old” is added to another word. It heightens the ridiculousness and lessens the offensiveness. In less zany but more direct English, she’s saying Kate was riding like an ordinary sex worker.
Let’s first establish that Shonda’s statement is true, that women in Regency England did not usually ride astride.
“Very few grown ladies rode astride in the city or country; not only was it unladylike and downright scandalous, it could be viewed as a declaration of one’s incompetence at riding side saddle.”
In browsing other sources, there is some discussion of just how common it was, but the consensus is that it was certainly not the default method for young ladies, and it would have been some degree of scandalous. Another quote I found particularly relevant was the one below, where they are discussing this specific incident in Bridgerton Season 2 where Kate is introduced as a woman riding astride. They make note of Anthony’s comments on the matter and historical views at the time.
“Anthony is being overly polite and is hinting at the fact that during this time period, riding astride was scandalous as people thought it would stretch a woman’s vagina. No joke. This is especially unthinkable for an unmarried lady, as if word got out, no one would want to marry someone with a blown-out hoo-ha.”
Everything that Shonda says is because she was worried people would think what was accurate to the time. And that's what she's saying, that in the time, they would have seen Kate as a loose woman, a fallen woman, a sex worker, and called her many worse things than that. Riding astride was not done in public in the Regency Era. And because the show is taking place at the time, that has to come into consideration at some point. So when Shonda says Kate was riding “like a plain old hooker,” well, she is by the standards of the day. Obviously now we know that isn’t the case, but it would be foolish of the Bridgerton team not to take into consideration at all the historical facts of the day, even if they decide to do something different than what is historically accurate. Shonda explains that next when she says:
“There’s a million reasons why it happened creatively, or, you know, maybe Kate [Simone Ashley] was more comfortable riding that way.”
Obviously they decided to keep her riding astride, a good choice by my account for her character and the story, even if it’s anachronistic, but considering the ramifications of that is wise. Shonda noted, again, wisely, that because this is innacurate, is making a statement, so they had to be clear on what statement they were making.
This reminds me extremely closely of the discussion around the sex scene in episode 7. In the Bridgerton Podcast, the director of the episode Cheryl Dunye, talked about how she was keenly aware that while in the first season, the white lead female waited for marriage while in season two, the woman of color lead did not. So they were aware of that and centered the narrative on her pleasure, making sure she was not used or cast in a light they weren't intending. This is a lot like what Shonda is saying. Because you are introducing the female lead, and one who is a woman of color, being careful and understanding any unintentional ways she could be harmed by the narrative is due diligence. Shonda was acting as part of the viewing audience, one who had watched Bridgerton and knew the strict rules of the Ton. Shonda was responding to a fear that Kate behaving so out of the bounds of propriety would cause the audience to make assumptions about her character, particularly in relation to sex.
And she wasn't wrong about those assumptions being made by some. I have had many conversations with people who believe, due to this scene and others, that Kate wasn't a virgin. That doesn't seem to be what they were going for, so her hesitation on this has at least some merit. And let's be clear: no one is saying Kate is ANYTHING just because she rides astride. Shonda reacts as a stand in for the viewers, and she did not want it to come across that they were trying to portray her as "wanton" or sexually experienced because that wasn't the intention.
It’s also important to note that this is a joke. Shonda gets a huge laugh after that because obviously we, in the modern day, know riding astride or showing your body has nothing to do with sexuality, let alone sex work. But obviously it’s not okay to make a joke if what she’s saying is something crappy, so let's look at these in the context of a joke. So in comedy theory there's the concept of punching up (at the person with more power) as opposed to punching down (at the person with less). While I would never advocate for that language use, like "hooker," the point is that in Shonda’s joke, the butt of the joke was not Kate, nor even was it sex workers. The joke was look how ridiculous it is that people of the time would think she's "wanton" for riding astride. She saying, isn't that nuts? And the serious commentary was that they didn't want Kate to be seen that way, so it was something to discuss. I definitely won't be arguing that there is nothing wrong with the language, but the laughter comes from the absurdity of the time, freaking out over a woman living her life and labeling her because of it. Sounds eerily familiar.
But Shonda is not saying Kate is anything; from a visual medium standpoint, she's expressing shock and concern that this behavior by Kate could be misconstrued. Since they would have thought ill of her at the time for that behavior, it is possible the audience would follow that interpretation.
The actual problem with this is the use of the word "hooker" and the idea of sex work as something inherently negative. That's a whole other topic I honestly wish I could discuss here, but first we have to stop the bleeding from the gaping chest wound that is too often the center of his fandom, then we can deal with the other injuries.
Frankly, I don't know how this anti-Kate narrative started, but it makes me nervous. It makes me nervous because it doesn't feel like something that came authentically from the community Kate was meant for. It feels like seeds planted by the internalized misogyny and the all too common racism that inhabits online forums. Instead of being proud of and happy that two Indian women took center stage as the ideal of love and desirability in the world's most popular romance show, things have turned to spite and hatred.
That isn't to say everything with Kate, Edwina, and race on Bridgerton is perfect because it absolutely isn't, nor is it a plea to be complacent. We need to keep striving for more and better representation. But it's not free reign to attack anyone and everyone over problems that don't exist. When we waste our time and energy as a fandom yelling at Shonda, who said nothing wrong about Kate, when the creators in the Fandom have to spend time dissecting and defending something that should be obvious to anyone that actually read the comments and put in some brain power toward figuring out what she meant, we lose sight of the other things. We lose sight of the nuance and the many ways we can work to make the show better. We drown in a sea of empty vitriolic comments and never get around to the real issues. So instead of getting to make Bridgerton and media more inclusive and better, we waste our time yelling at or defending a creator over saying something that is obviously not stating what some people say it is.
Moreover, this is not to say it’s invalid to be hurt by the comments. I’ll give an analogy. If I say: “Wow, mint chocolate chip ice cream totally sucks.” Anyone is welcome to be angry about that. However, if they respond with “I’m angry because you said I can’t like mint chocolate chip ice cream,” well, that isn’t actually what was said. So while the emotion is valid because people are allowed to feel how they want, that does not mean the person is responsible for a misinterpretation of their comments. Obviously these issues are much bigger than ice cream flavors, but I hope the analogy serves.
The truth is, I am extremely exhausted by this at the moment. Maybe it's because we just had elections in the US and my anxiety over my country's overall lack of critical thinking skills is wearing thin, but this is not just a problem in the world of Bridgerton. And it has to change. Jumping to conclusions, running with the worst possible scenario without even thinking through what's being said, attacking people for no reason...it's actually dangerous. It's important at every level, because these are people's lives, but it's more. I know this sounds dramatic, but it's the soul of who we are as human beings. So please, think critically about what you share, what you say, and what you believe.