I is bored

Imagine if the Bridgerton middle names (if they had them) went in reverse alphabetical order.

Anthony H

Benedict G

Colin F

Daphne E

Eloise D

Francesca C

Gregory B

Hyacinth A

I know Edmund and Violet didn't know how many children they'd have in advance.

But it's still a funny thought.

Apart from Benedict and Hyacinth, we don't know where the other Bridgerton siblings got their names.

Benedict was named after Benedick from Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Edmund's favourite story. It's even mentioned in the prequels that if Benedict were born a girl, he would have been called Beatrice.

And Hyacinth was named after Edmund's favourite flower.

So, I wonder where they got their other names from.

Also at what point did Edmund and Violet relises that their children were named alphabetically?

Did they plan it from the beginning or did they just look up and realised one day that they had A, B and decided to continue?

There's a 5 year gap between Benedict and Colin, so they had time to think about it.

I also noticed that every non-Bridgerton female lead has a middle name:

Katherine Grace

Sophia Marie

Penelope Anne

Lucinda Margaret Catherine

Even Simon has his Arthur Henry Fitzranulph.

Yet non of the Bridgertons seem to have middle names.

This has been sitting in my drafts for, I swear to you all, nearly a decade. I actually finally decided to finish it and get it out there.

This was an opinion I posed ages ago. I just remembered it and wanted to expand on it. 

I’ve seen people believe that the golden trio shouldn’t have been sorted into Gryffindor, and that the only reason they were was to make all the main characters be in the same house. Having all of them be in the same house would also make it easier from a witting standpoint as important plot points can be discussed immediately as the three share the same, common room, dining table and classes.

It is believed that Harry should have been in Slytherin due to his determination and destiny for greatness, Ron should have been a Hufflepuff due to his great loyalty and hard work, and Hermione should have been a Ravenclaw due to her intelligence and will to learn. Whereas I can see where all of this is coming from, after thinking about it, it’s Hermione specifically that I really don’t believe should be in Ravenclaw.  

The Hogwarts houses have all fallen into one word description, Ravenclaw’s being intelligent, however, there are many intelligent character through out the series who aren’t Ravenclaws, as well as many who are but aren’t intelligent. So just being smart doesn't make someone a Ravenclaw.

Yes, Ravenclaws are known for wisdom and learning and observation. But they also value creativity, individualism, and open-minded people. Traits that Hermione just doesn't really express. Specifically the open-mindedness.

I once voiced this opinion in a comment section and was met with a response from someone who clearly didn't know what open minded ment. So to make it clear here and now. Being open-minded means being open to all ways of thinking, even if you originally find it hard to believe yourself.

Hermione has shown throughout the books, that she struggles to do that. If she can not apply logic to a problem, it's impossible for her. And it makes sense for her character, she likes order and structure, and she's in a brand new world with completely different rules for what is possible. However, in a world of magic, you have to be prepared for some things just not making sense.

For example, she completely dismisses Trelawney's subject of divination, because it's not a subject that can be improved upon with study, treating Trelawney with a shocking amount of disrespect for Hermione. It's not a subject for solid right or wrong answers. In her defence, divination isn't really something you can teach, only a select few will actually get the ability, and also half the students and even the professors think it's a load of rubbish. And of course, there's gonna be subjects that she doesn't like, and I'm not saying that every Ravenclaw has to like divination. But they would be open to the fact that it is a plausible subject and at least try to learn it.

Another example is with Luna Lovegood. Unlike the films imply, Hermione never calls her loony lovegood, but she was definitely sceptical and dismissive of Luna's ideas. Granted some of the things that Luna believed in were infact outlandish and in some cases not true at all. But the fact that Luna was placed in Ravenclaw definitely says something. Luna is open-minded and looks at all ways of thinking. She's also not just textbook smart, she's emotionally smart. Being able to emphasise with Harry about feeling alone and even recognising Harry under the polyjuice potion just from his body language and facial expressions. Which is the kind of open-mindedness that Ravenclaws have.

Even something Ravenclaws need for simply getting into their common room. If you can't answer the door knocker's riddle, then you literally have to just wait until someone else does to let you in. The only two examples we have of this are "Which came first, the Phoenix or the flame?" And "Where do vanished objects go?". With Hermione, I don't doubt that she could answer these riddles. However, I feel like by the time she had someone else would have figured it out before and just let her in.

I don't doubt that Hermione is smart. I thoroughly believe that Harry and Ron would be dead 5× over if it weren't for her. And yes she does hold them dearly, and values them above books and studying. But that isn't being open-minded. I can understand why people believe she should be in Ravenclaw, but when you look back at all of Ravenclaw's values, she really only fits into that one intelligence category.

And yes, Hermione was nearly a hat stall between Gryffindor and Ravenclaw. But not only does the sorting hat take in a person's expressed traits, but it also takes in what traits they value. Even if the person themselves doesn't always express them.

(For example, Wormtail being placed in Griffindor, when it's clear his most expressed trait is cowardice)

And with Hermione, it seems that either she didn't fit in enough with the Ravenclaw traits for the sorting hat in the end or she valued the Gryffindor traits even more.

With the show coming in and making a lot of changes to Francesca's story from the books, it's gotten a lot of book fans upset for multiple reasons. Including myself. However, one of the main talking points that book fans give about being disappointed, for me doesn't really stand.

That being one of Francesca's story's main themes is infertility.

And I just wanted to talk about it.

I also want to go into some reasons why I don't like the changes the show has made. I feel like I'm treading deadly waters, but we'll see where it gets us.

Complete spoilers for Francesca's story

Both show and book

Just to know

A lot of this is opinion based

I can be stupid. I've found that I have a tendency to read situations entirely wrong. I could believe that someone says something or does something with a certain motivation, when really, there was a completely different motivation or no motivation at all. So at any point, I say "I personally read that as" or "I felt". Don't take it as fact, I could be completely wrong.

I know book Francesca and show Francesca are different characters. So any time I'm talking about either the show or book. Know that I'm referring to that specific media's Francesca.

Is it that deep? Probably not. Am I reading too much into a romance book? Probably. But I have the shovel, and I like digging.

Francesca's actual book is about grief, guilt and finding love again. Both she and Michael are devastated by John's death, and it's that shared grief that prevents them from being together, when they reunite. Francesca loved John entirely, and John and Michael were practically raised as brothers. Unfortunately, in the books, we don't get to see these relationships, as John dies in the first few pages. So we get a lot of tell don't show. However, from the little information given about John, it's clear that he had deep connections with both of them.

Francesca's marriage to John and his death take place in the time jump between books 3 and 4. The books place all their focus on the one main couple with little to no development for any of the other characters. Francesca's book is solely about her and Michael. So it doesn't allow any time to show the love she had with John. We're told over and over that she loves John. But to have actually witnessed it could have made the story hit a lot harder for people.

(However, that would have required probably another book, or short novella)

This is actually where I feel the media of a show does better compared to a book. Giving time to show the relationship that John and Francesca develop between the main plot. Their story doesn't have to have its own series because it's not very dramatic; it doesn't have to be, because they aren't dramatic people. It should fit nicely into a side plot.

(Well it does fit nicely into a side plot. Just a shame that it's piled in with a hundred different side plots that it gets partly blamed for taking so much time away from who were meant to be the main couple in series 3. But that is a writer's issue and a topic for a different day)

It allows us to actually see John, what his relationships were like with the rest of the Bridgerton family, and what his personality is like. If anything it should make his sudden death more devastating. As not only are the audience upset that Francesca lost her husband, but they're also upset because they now know John as his own character.

It's above all guilt that prevents Francesca and Michael from getting together. Michael falls in love with Francesca when he first meets her at her and John's wedding. After John's death and Francesca's miscarriage, Michael is absolutely streaming in guilt. Guilt over being in love with his cousin's wife, guilt over taking over John's title, guilt over not being able to comfort Francesca, because he can't stand to hear her talk about John and her baby. He feels like an imposter who's taken over John's life. After he returns from India, he loses it when he finds out he is actually wearing John's old clothes when his haven't arrived at his house yet.

Francesca, when she decides to go back and remarry, is constantly battling feeling like she's betraying John. So when she starts to fall for Michael, it scares her. She backs away the same as Michael did after John's death. When they're both up in Scotland, and start sleeping together, Michael is constantly proposing to her, she keeps not giving him answers, but continues to keep sleeping with him.

Personally, I read this as her looking for an excuse to marry Michael. At least partly. If they keep sleeping together and she gets pregnant, they'll have to get married. She can't marry Michael because she loves him, she doesn't love him, she loves John.

It's only after they get married, and Francesca believes Michael is dying of an illness, that she finally admits to herself that she does love him. Once it's found that Michael isn't dying, Francesca goes to John's grave and confesses that she loves Michael. She realises that just because she loves Michael now, it doesn't mean she doesn't still love John. She can hold both in the same regard.

That's the real heart of Francesca's book. It's so different compared to the other Bridgerton stories, because the bulk of the conflict is shared and internal, whereas the others have more to do with outside forces and/or conflicting personal issues.

As I said before, the show does well in introducing John and Francesca's relationship. They are portrayed as having this quiet, calm and sweet love. A nice breath of fresh air among the more intense, dramatic love stories that the other siblings so far have had. They bounce off each other well, they've found something that works for them.

Where the show lost a lot of people was Francesca's reaction to meeting John's cousin. Who in the show, is now a woman called Michaela. She acts shocked, struggling to get her words out. This is after she has spent the whole of series 3, confronting Violet about how love doesn't have to be this big shock of lightning and feelings. It pissed a lot of people off for multiple reasons:

You've basically wasted the audience's time watching them. Putting their whole storyline as basically a red herring.

People who liked the quiet and cute love story they were telling now feel annoyed as you've invalidated everything John and Francesca's relationship stood for. They basically said "Ha, you thought this was love. You're wrong."

It's pissed off Colin and Penelope fans, the main bulk of the audience watching. Once again, wasting the audience's time, taking away time from the main couple for a sub-plot that had all this time of build-up only to have a disappointing conclusion.

It pissed off book fans, because you've essentially dampened one of the main themes of Francesca's book before her series has even begun.

One thing about Francesca is that she loves both John and Michael equally. She doesn't hold one in higher regard, she doesn't love one more than the other. She loves them differently and at different times. But one never outranks the other.

Having Francesca be split between the two, confusing her feelings, can cause John's eventual death not to impact her as hard. Of course, her series can still have themes of grief and guilt. She can still mourn John and feel guilty for loving his cousin. But it won't have the same impact if Francesca is already partly in love with Michaela.

Francesca, in the books, takes years to mourn John. The only reason she decides to re-enter society and remarry is that she wants children, and she even feels guilty about that. The reason it hits so hard for her is because she doesn't expect to ever find love again, and is completely prepared to marry for convenience. So when she does fall in love again, it knocks her sideways.

You know what would have solved all that? Sticking to the book and having Michaela fall in love first. It would set up nicely for series 4. Have her keep her distance from Francesca. Francesca, mistaking this distance as dislike and wanting to make good on all of John's family, asks John how to make amends with her. Have them grow closer over the course of series 4 part 1, as friends, and if John's death happens in series 4 part 2 as it looks like it will, have her disappear and not return until Francesca's series. (That's just me throwing out ideas. I am not a writer)

They had the potential to make a good, original story for this basically new character, but the direction they takeing doesn't seem to be hitting for a lot of people. Both book and non-book fans.

Also, I'm confused about how they are going handle Francesca and Michaela. As it has been established in the Bridgerton Show Universe that homosexual relationships are not acceptable in society. So are they just going to stay secret forever? Are laws and social views just going to change overnight? Who knows. I'm also confused as to what they do about Michaela's background. Michael is characterised as "The Merry Rake" and also has a background in the military. Which obviously in the 1810s, women couldn't do. Whether they give her a completely new one or just rehash Michael's somehow.

Francesca's struggle with infertility, is an issue she faces in her overall story. However, it's not one she faces in her book. Yes, it does take her two years to conceive with John and she loses her baby. But everyone around her, and possibly herself, put that down to shock and grief from John's sudden death. She also makes a comment about her possibly being barren, but personally, I read that as being more of a throwaway comment as she was trying to push back at Michael.

Francesca's infertility struggles don't actually become a full-fledged issue for her, until her second epilogue. By that time, she and Michael have been married for several years, and she has watched all of her siblings have multiple children. Even Gregory and Hyacinth have children at this point. But she and Michael have never conceived. And it does really affect her. So much so that she is constantly counting the days over her cycles, feeling disappoint everytime her period starts. It gets so bad that Violet is hesitant to tell Francesca that her siblings are expecting again. They do end up with children in the end, however, this all happens in the epilogue book.

I understand why people want to bring up Francesca's struggles with infertility as a reason why they are upset with the direction the show is taking. It's a struggle a lot of women go through and they feel attached to Francesca and her story. Being a mother is a big motivator for Francesca, it's the reason she goes back to remarry and kicks off the start of her story.

And the fact that she is denied that through nothing but nature, watching all her siblings basically get as many children as they want, watching all her nieces and nephews reach all these milestones, knowing she will never have that. And then finally the reveal at the end when she finally does have a healthy child. It's a story that's unfortunately familiar to a lot of people, sometimes without a happy ending. And the feeling that the issue may not be addressed is disappointing, as it feels like the show runners don't see it as important.

However, when it comes to Francesca's main book, which is what the show is based on, the infertility story isn't really a main issue. The show, as of now, hasn't followed any of the second epilogues, as they take place far into the future.

I keep seeing these takes going around about the show, of people saying:

Why can't Benedict marry Sophie anyway at this point in the story?

If Benedict can marry Sophie, why can't Eloise marry Theo?

Anthony married below his station, why can't Benedict?

And it's clear that these people aren't familiar with 1800s class division.

Class division was very strict and rigorous. Obviously, people could move up and down. But moving too quickly in either direction would have caused scrutiny. And that's just with the upper and middle classes.

Spoilers from this point on

For both books and show

Just to know

I am not a historian, my knowledge could be faulty. If it is. I'm sorry

I know the books and show are not ment to be historically accurate. In the show, they have people of colour in power in regency time. However, just because you got rid of racism doesn't mean you got rid of misogyny or classism or whatever laws and rules were in place regarding working-class living conditions. Because it's never stated what laws and rules are in place, I'm assuming it's the same as the real 1810s.

First off, Sophie is the bastard daughter of an earl and a maid. (I know there's theories in the show that's she's Earls sister daughter, but I'm not using that for this. In the books her mother's a maid) He passes her off as his ward. A child he has legal guardianship over, and who he does leave a dowry to in his will.

However, for the sake of pushing this point, we'll just say that for all intents and purposes, she's a maid. A regular working-class maid. She's not, but for this she is.

Theo (who is a show-only character) is a printer boy, a regular working-class man.

The main reason, technically, that neither Benedict nor Eloise could marry working-class people is the scandal it would cause. It's not illegal to marry outside your class. But for the aristocracy, which is what Benedict and Eloise are, it can cause complete social and even financial ruin.

Benedict kind of could get away with it better than Eloise. Mainly because the woman takes on the man's status. Sophie would be marrying up. The worst Benedict would get, would be complete social ostracism and the complete ruin of his family.

(Which isn't good at all really, but I'll get how it could be worse later)

Not only would it ruin the reputation of his unmarried sisters. It would affect his brothers, his mother and even his married sisters, if they all choose not to (at least publicly) cast him off. Which I highly doubt any of them will do. He would be completely cut off from London society.

The reason I say Benedict could get away with it better is that, he has something to fall back on. Benedict owns My Cottage. That is his house he bought himself, no one can really take that away from him, apart from maybe the tax man. It's situated in Wiltshire, far enough away from London. Despite the pressure to disown him, I doubt that Anthony would cut off Benedict completely. Most likely helping financially. But if he did, then at least Benedict could earn money himself.

If he continues painting he could get into a gallery under a pseudonym. Probably not the National Gallery like in the books. But potentially something more local. If not, then he'll have to go into a different profession. Such as potentially the military, clergy, or depending on his education, a lawyer.

Whilst being out of London society, he does still have options. He might not like it, but he'll have them. And whilst his children would struggle to enter London society, should they wish to, and would technically be their prerogative. Because of the way things went, I highly doubt their parents would encourage them to do so. If money does run low, selling My Cottage is also an option and it would probably go for a reasonable price.

Assuming things come up roses, Benedict can still paint as a profession and no one in Wiltshire ever finds out about Sophie's background. Benedict and Sophie would almost have almost the same life they do at the end of the book. They would be cut off from London, and depending on what the rest of the Bridgertons decide to do, possibly the whole of Benedict's family. Not the best ending, but again, marrying below your class comes with major consequences.

And despite Benedict in the show, is quite outspoken about not liking social norms. He still gets the consequences of breaking them. He thinks they're dumb sure, but still knows they're there. He's not going to put his family's reputation on the line just for love. I get it's a romance show. But there's a lot in the way of them being together. And yes Violet in the books says she wants her children to marry for love, no matter the status. But she also knows that all her children have very privileged lives, and wants them to know what they will lose in marrying lower than socially acceptable.

It's different for Eloise as, surprise surprise, she's a woman. And once again, because the woman takes on the man's status. Her marrying Theo would bring down her status majorly. She would be brought down from the aristocracy, through the landed gentry, through the middle class down to the working class. The conditions some working-class people lived in during the Georgian era, were abysmal. And it wouldn't get better for centuries. Depending on how poor a family were, you could find multiple families in one room, unsanitary living conditions, no health and safety in the workplace and no workers' rights.

Eloise is used to having servants, lady's maids, clean clothes and linen, hearty cooked food, and access to clean water. Yes, regular full-on bathing was not common during that time, but people still washed themselves daily. I don't think she would handle such a drastic change well.

She would also have to start working. Technically she could work in the same printing house as Theo. Women could work in printing houses as typesetters, or handling accounts. However, as I said previously, working conditions could be dangerous. Mainly from asbestos, toxic fumes from chemicals and ink and even just from sheer exhaustion from long hours.

If not, her opinions were limited. She would either have to go into services to another household, or she could take in laundry from other working-class people. All of which involve domestic labour, and are physically demanding.

Show Eloise is constantly going on about women not having enough options or freedom in society. Which is fair enough. However, the working class had even less. Yes, women like Eloise couldn't vote, go to university, and had limited education. But it was basically the same for working-class men.

Working-class men, like Theo, wouldn't get the vote till 1867, and they would receive only the basic education as children before being sent to work, if any education at all. Because Theo works in a printing house, he actually probably would have a higher level of reading than most of the working class. But that's where the peak of his education would end.

Eloise's education, whilst also limited compared to her brothers, would far outstrip Theo's. Yes, she is taught mostly domestic tasks like looking after a household, how to be a good hostess and a lot of domestic arts. But she also would have been taught languages, and even some geography. Not to mention that Eloise has access to a large library, and could, if she wished, educate herself outside of her tutors. Yes, such things were discouraged, but at least she had that option open to her. Certainly not the ideal education, but definitely better than most of the working class can boast.

Eloise would also potentially lose out on enormous financial freedom. Because of the Bridgerton's immense wealth, Eloise's dowry would definitely be quite larger. If Anthony releases it on her marriage, which I believe he would, even if he doesn't approve of her marriage choices. If he does, Eloise and Theo could in theory live solely off Eloise's dowry. They would certainly have to downsize to make it last, but it could be possible. However should the dowry eventually run out, or if Eloise were part of any other family and Anthony were literally anyone else, and refused to give Eloise her dowry. They would be in trouble.

The working class could own their own homes, but it was a lot less common than renting. If they couldn't afford servants, guess who all the domestic labour falls to. Should they have any children, guess who the responsibility of their upbringing and education falls to? She wouldn't have nurses, nannys and tutors to fall on to. Basic things like food and clothing would have to stretch far, if they are renting, missing out on payment could land Theo and Eloise in debtor's prison. Which some would argue, is worse than just living on the streets.

Not to mention on top of all that, she would face the same social outcasting that would affect Benedict. Alongside the ruin of her family, again if they decide to (at least publicly) disown her.

This is what I find so confusing about people wanting Eloise to be with Theo. It wouldn't give Eloise the best scenario in life. It would definitely take her out of the societal setting she hates so much, but it just replaces it with a life that she has been completely sheltered from and isn't prepared for. A life of physical labour, poverty and restriction. Even more restrictions than the life she has now.

And yes even in the books, Eloise does marry down. She marries into the landed gentry. But Sir Philip is titled, he owns land, he has people who work that land. He offers a much more stable life than the one Theo can offer her. Eloise in the show is so outspoken about the constraints of society, but also lives comfortably in them without knowing. In the show, she has also felt the scrutiny of scandal when she is called out in Whistledown. Whether she could handle completely committing to that, I highly doubt.

(Show Eloise actually really gets on my nerves but that's a topic for a different time)

Last point I wanted make was about Anthony and Kate. Yes, Anthony did marry below his class. But it is very different to Benedict marrying Sophie.

For starters, Kate is not of the working class. Yes her father in the show is a merchant, but merchants were considered more of the middle class. They didn't inherit wealth like the landed gentry, they earned it themselves through trade or profession. Still quite shabby in the eyes of the aristocracy, considering what happened to Mary. But Mary was under the eye of the queen in the show.

Kate in the books is actually of a higher rank. Her father was the second son of a Barron, so whilst she was considered quite low in rank, and her family were struggling with money, she was still part of the aristocracy.

Second, Kate is legitimate. Her parents were married, but her mother died. Doesn't matter that she has a stepmother. (In fact, the majority of the people would probably have step-mothers, considering death rates.) If Kate and Edwina were boys, Kate would have been entitled to the majority of her father's assets, depending on how he split his will.

Sophie as illegitimate, is technically entitled to nothing. Regularly, illegitimate children of noble men and servants would be sent to live with their mother's families. Which actually Sophie is at the start of the book. If she stayed with her mother's family, she would have ended up where she actually is in the book, a servant. She would have had none of the education she does have and would be a regular working-class maid.

It's implied that Sophie's mother died either in childbirth or when Sophie was a baby. She's then left at Penwood Park by her grandmother, who it's implied is also dying, and is taken in by the Earl. Only because the Earl takes Sophie in as a ward, she was raised as a lady.

In the show, the earl shows Sophie a lot more emotional interest in Sophie than he does in the books. But in neither book nor show does he ever acknowledge her as his daughter. Her being illegitimate overshadows her being the daughter of an earl. So the only way the earl finds he can make Sophie respectable is to pass her off as a ward. The fact that he leaves Sophie a dowry does imply he intended for Sophie to enter society, and that no one would ever find out her background. Because even he knew that she wouldn't be accepted.

Even the Bridgertons have to make up a story to make her legitimate, and basically have to blackmail Ariminta into complying.

If Sophie were legitimate, then she would be higher in rank than Benedict, as the daughter of an Earl and Countess. Depending on how the earl wrote his will, and if Sophie had no brothers, the title and house would still pass to a cousin of the earl as it does in the books. But her dowry would probably be larger. (We never actually know how much the earl had left her in the books.) And could have potentially included some land as well.

So no, just because Anthony marries below his class,(in the show), doesn't mean he and Benedict are in the same situation.

I've been MIA from tumblr for years and am makeing a spontaneous return and rambling about Bridgerton.

I've done a 180° from HP to Bridgerton.

For some reason.

I've read the books and seen the majority of the show. That's my only credentials for my takes. Just wanted to go through some points of inconsistency I noticed.

*Spoilers from here on out*

*For both Book and Show*

Spinsters

The show seems to have pushed the ages that a lady is considered a spinsters. In the books both Penelope and Eloise do reach spinster-hood. Both being 28 when they eventually marry. Kate (in the book) considers herself as an "almost spinsters" at 20 nearly 21. Posy in the second Offer from a Gentleman epilogue, is considered a spinsters at 25.

Debute ages are 17 and 18

20 to 23 we're getting a bit shakey

24 onwards is spinsters

It seems

In the show, when Colin calls out Penelope on being alone without a chaperone, she replies saying "Spinsters do not need chaperones". In the books sure, she's 28. In the show however she's 19. I get that she feels like she'll end up a spinsters, but girl had like a good 3 years left. And even so just because you considered yourself a spinsters doesn't mean that you throw all safety of a chaperone out the window.

I get it's part of the story, and it's like the smallest point ever. But I just found it odd that 19 year old Penelope is calling herself a spinsters when she wasn't.

Violet's Forgotten Sisters

In the third book, An Offer from a Gentleman, Hyacinth asks Sophie to help her watch over her younger cousins, the Wentworths. Violet explains that they are the children of her youngest sister. However in the Violet in bloom novella, Violet is an only child. She's also an only child in the show.

So what happened to that younger sister?

Violet explicitly says youngEST sister. Implying that she has multiple. She could have been referring to Edmund's sisters, as he had two. But we know, from the prequel series, that they both marry Rokesbys. So she must be referring to sisters from her side of the family.

Because the Wentworths only appear in that specific scene, and are never mentioned again. It's not really important. Again it was just something I noticed. Also, AOFAG came out in 2001. Violet in Bloom came out in 2013. So it's obvious that Julia Quinn forgot that she gave Violet siblings in the first place.

Colin and Penelope

Colin and Penelope's main trope is friends to lovers. They've known each other for years and that grows into a relationship. What surprised me was the amount of time Colin believes they've known each other. In the third book, Colin says that's he's known Penelope since he was in short pants. Implying they've know each other since they were young children. However in the fourth book, Romancing Mr Bridgerton, the prologue states that Penelope and Colin meet two days before Penelope's 16th birthday. Canonically, Colin is 5 years older than Penelope, makeing him 20/21

That was in 1812. The third book takes place in 1817. So they've known each other 5 years. Sure that's a good, long, decent time to have a friendship. But it's not the forever that Colin was referring to in AOFAG.

He could have simply been speaking hyperbolic, he was frustrated at the time, and trying to make a point. But to imply being friends since childhood when neither of them were children is a bit of a stretch. RMB also came out only a year after AOFAG. So, forgetfulness on behalf of the author could still be applied, but it's a bit less justified.

How old is everyone?

Both the books and show start in 1813. However, where the books start in Daphne's third season, the show starts at her debut season. Average age to debute is 18, 17 if they debut early (like Edwina and Penelope). Assuming Daphne debuted at 18 like that majority of girls, in the books she would be 20 in her third season, in 1813. However, in the show, she's 18, as it's her debut. Unless the show age to debut is 20. Which can't be right as we see Penelope debute at the same time as Daphne, and she is at that time 17.

In fact all the Featherington girls debute at the same time in the show which is odd.

We know the ages gaps between all of siblings. Book wise in 1813, Anthony is 8 years older than Daphne, making him 28. Benedict is two year younger than Anthony, making him 26. Colin is 5 years younger than Benedict, making him 21. Colin is 18 months older than Daphne, who we know is 20. Eloise is 4 years younger than Daphne, making her 16. Francesca is exactly 1 year younger that Eloise, making her 15. Gregory is 3 years than Francesca makeking him 12, and finally Hyacinth is 2 years younger than Gregory, making her 10.

So if show Daphne is 18 in 1813. Does that make all the Bridgertons younger than there book counterparts? Yes and no. Because in the books Daphne and Eloise have a few years between them. During the second book, The Viscount who Loved Me, it's 1814. Eloise does appear in that book, helping her mother with greeting guests for her house party. But she hadn't officially debuted yet. So, book Eloise should debute in 1815. Francesca being a year younger that Eloise, should debute in 1816. Whereas, in the show, Eloise debutes in series 2, which is still 1814. So are Daphne and Eloise in the show only a year apart in age? They keep Francesca debuting a year after Eloise the same. However it's now 1815, instead of 1816. It's also stated in series 3 that Colin is 22. Series 3 takes place in 1815. But the fact is he's already 21 in 1814 in the books, so he should be 23. Or mabey he just had a late year birthday, could probably be that. So they made the three older brothers and Daphne younger, and all the other younger siblings a bit older.

I understand it makes sense for a TV show, to have each sister debute at the start of every series. And I get starting the series at Daphne's debute instead of the middle of her third. But it does skew with everyone's ages a little bit. Or maybe I'm over thinking it and it doesn't really matter.

When did Edmund become Viscount?

This is a purely book thing and it involves the Rokesby series.

In the prologue in TVWLM, it states that Anthony was born when Edmund and Violet were 20 and 18, and that they were viscount and viscountess. It also states that Anthony spent his entire childhood at Aubry Hall.

However in the book, First comes Scandal. Which is about Edmund's younger sister, Edmund's farther is still alive and well. Edmund and Violet make an appearance with their 3 eldest boys. At this point Anthony is 8, Benedict is 6 and Colin is a baby. So, the old Viscount lives long enough to see Colin. If that's the case, when does Edmund take over?

A big part of Anthony was his love of Aubry Hall, it's where he grew up, it's where he had his best memories. But if he doesn't move in until he's at leats 9 it does put a damper on there. Ofcourse, it doesn't mean that Anthony can't have visited very frequently, also haveing his grandparents alive is a nice memory to have of the place. But it's just strange.

But once again, TVWLM came out in 2000, and FCS came out in 2020. So obviously forgetfulness.

Just because

I know that the TV show and books are separate from each other. I just wanted to poin out some things I noticed

I'm not bashing forgetfulness. I know the books where released years apart. Authors don't always keep track of every detail. I read all the books back to back, so a lot of stuff from previous books was still fresh to me.

It doesn't really matter, these are minor things, that don't really affect the stories going forward. This is all just observation fron my end.

The biased for Hermione in the writers for the films ruined both her and Ron's character.

Don't get me wrong, I love and adore the films and film Hermione and Ron.

But I sometimes find film Hermione annoyingly perfectly to the point where she's isn't even likeable.

Basically they took most of Ron's shining moments and gave them to Hermione.

One very minor relatable flaw of Hermione is that she can't really think straight under pressure or at least forget about the used of magic.

Like the scene with the devil's snare. Ron is used as the comic relief where Hermione saves the day.

Where in the book, she knows how to take down the devil's snare but stresses that there is no wood to make a fire, and Ron literally has to remind Hermione that she is a witch.

"'So light a fire!' Harry choked

'Yes - of course - but there's no wood!' Hermione cried, wringing her hands.

'HAVE YOU GONE MAD?' Ron bellowed. 'ARE YOU A WICH OR NOT?"

- The philosopher's stone. Page 298

This is probably due to the fact that the room that Hermione was ment to shine in was cut from the film. Harry had the flying keys, Ron had the giant wizards chessts and Hermione was ment to have a potions riddle which was cut from the film.

Like I don't mind that stuff was cut from film, it's understandable not to have a 5 hour long films and I still enjoy them.

I meant you could argue that this could be due to the fact that this is her first year knowing she is a witch and when you're being strangled by a giant plant at school then you would probably forget about magic.

With Ron it's his explanation of the wizarding world. Mainly that he barely gets any of it.

Ron is basically there to explain the wizarding world to Harry, which by default he would have to explain Hermione as they both grew up in muggle world.

Understandable that Hermione would explain the more academic side as that is what she is interested in. Where Ron's knowledge would be more just general life.

For example when Draco called Hermione a muddblood. In the film Hermione already knew what a muddblood was and explained it to Harry.

Where in the books she had no clue what Malfoy was on about.

"He didn' !' He (Hagrid)growled at Hermione.

'He did,' she said 'But I don't know what it means. I could tell it was really rude of course..."

-The chamber of secrets. Page 121

I know it's a small detail and I'm probably just nitpicking. But when it comes to fleshing out a character, it can have a real affect on how they are seen.

Again, love the films and the characters and find them very enjoyable. But it definitely did them dirty at times. Just my opinion.

Anything thing I missed?

Or am I just being picky?

Draco Malfoy x Hermione Granger.

Honestly I don't understand this ship. Imma be very honest here. I've gotten only up to both book and film 5. But I still know the whole story, and I have yet to see a point where these two characters share any type of chemistry or just a scene where they are not being hostile towards each other. (The scenes at malfoy manner don't count due to the circumstances, and even there they don't really do anything).

Look I'm not here to ship shame anyone. Ship whomever you want. (Well unless you ship snamione or just minors with any adult character in general, like seriously who started that?) But I really just can't wrap my head around Dramione. Draco was a right down div to Hermione.

He called her a muddblood, which is considered a very serious slur in the wizarding world, cursed her, and literally wished that the basalisk would kill her. And people say that "he only does it to keep face and to please his parents", I understand the whole boys teseing girls they like. But being down right racist? I don't think so. And even if Draco genuinely like Hermione, she would never ever like Draco back. Especially if he treated her like that. She finds out that Draco likes her, don't matter he is already out of her romantic options before he was even in. Another thing. I would view Draco as quit a shallow person when it comes to relationships, and Hermione was never really described as the most attractive girl at Hogwarts. Now this isn't saying she is ugly not at all. But I just don't see Draco having a crush on her even if she was both pureblood and a slytherin.

I'm a cannon shipper, so I'm a Romione shipper. Does this make me biased? Probably but idk really. I feel like Ron and Hermione bounce of each other well, Ron challenges Hermione's logic at times and Hermione has to sometimes stir Ron in the right direction to prevent him from doing something stupid. And I know that Ron can be mean to Hermione such as with Crookshanks, the yule ball and SPEW. But they've managed to overcome those problems with maybe a bit more understanding of each other.

Back to the Dramione thing. Do I think that Emma Watson having a crush on Tom Felton influence it? Yeah probably. This kind of leads me on to having those actors playing those characters may have influenced the story in the films. Now don't get me wrong I think they were both perfect for their roles. But both looks and writing definitely messed with how people see them in the film. That's just another topic I'll talk about another time.

But yeah. Don't understand Dramione. Again, not ship shaming, you ship who you wanna ship(unless you're a snape x hermione shipper, then what happened to you?) With this ship, I'm sorry, it's personally a no from me.

Anyways, what's you're opinion of Dramione?

Do you ship it?

Why if you do/don't?

Did I miss anything?

People don't ship Romione cause Ron was a div to her at times.

But ship Dramione causes Draco only, literally wish her dead, cause he liked her and wanted to keep face.

???????