ooooh, so i somewhat agree and disagree on this! i think you're very right in calling out bridgerton for what it is, which is a silly fluffy fantasy of self-indulgence, which has very little actual thoughtful commentary on race per se; and also that a historically accurate version of bridgerton would not be rosy in the slightest bit and would puncture the fluffy fantasy presented. however, i think this is also very much the result of bridgerton itself not taking its own alternate history premise seriously: that charlotte being black and marrying into the royal family prompts the ennobling of a coterie of already wealthy non-white people in order to legitimise the marriage, and that this process eventually leads to the end of racism at least amongst the aristocratic ranks of society.
specifically pertaining to the sharmas: i think people refine too much on the colonialism angle of this and fail to actually consider the historical record on how colonialism played out in india between the 1600s - 1700s. the views which people ascribe to the english are more attributable to the portuguese at this specific time period. in 1761 (the year charlotte marries george) the english have had longer standing presidencies in bombay and madras, and the presidency established in calcutta is just 4 years old following the battle of plassey in 1757. i can't speak much to the history of madras, but the bombay presidency very much did have some level of racial mingling between rich merchants trading to the company and the EIC within society in the "fort" area of bombay. most of the colonial "occupation" at the time consisted heavily of a) trade and treaties for trade and b) playing off warring local rulers against each other to protect their investments. the relationship was very much one of mutual backscratching and exploitation of lower castes and classes in india, for economic gain.
is it so implausible or impossible to believe that a venal and wealthy indian upper class and caste would jump at the chance to ascend in further wealth and status in society by assimilating into the english aristocracy and buying up land in england as well as at home? they certainly did so when they had the chance in the victorian and edwardian era (wadias, jehangirs & tatas are the ones that come to immediate mind; as also the various kings & other upper caste folks who sent their sons abroad to england to be educated). is it so implausible that the indian upper castes and classes would sign up to colonialism and its plunder, if it gave them a chance to get ahead and further their own wealth? god knows they did and god knows they're the reason india even fell prey to british rule in the first place. is it so implausible to believe that kate's father - a sharma, a brahmin by caste - might participate in that plunder? that mary's family might have participated in that plunder? in that regard, there is very little to choose between a viscount anthony bridgerton, a lady sheffield, and even a clerk in the EIC (which is presumably what kate's father is), except for the degrees of wealth.
i guess, my question is: why do we find it difficult to believe that the elite of a nation might have chosen to plunder and exploit (and racialise!!!) their fellow countrymen and sell them out to a foreign invading power for a quick buck, then choose to assimilate for status?
in other words, i don't actually find a contradiction between bridgerton and historical accuracy as far as its indian cast, colonialism, race and assimilationist dynamics go. its pretty par for the course; and as a piece of historical fiction, i think it admirably does the job of saying something as much about the present as it does about this hypothetical past, bc lbr, what i am describing above is really just the state of india post "independence". its just that instead of needing to revolt in order to achieve equality for me but not for thee, the wealthy upper castes of india get to buy in and cash in fully nearly 200 years earlier; they get to have and eat their cake too. a lot of the indians who have the largest platforms and are most visibly vocal about insisting on the colonialism piece sans caste are largely blinded by this fact because of their own positionality - inevitably their own caste and class lmao.
anyway, i agree that it would not make good fodder for romcom material, because who really wants to hear a dark comedy story about two souls finding love and joining fortunes and investment portfolios so they can continue making mint off the plunder of a continent? no one wants to know the story behind the wealth; whether that wealth is held by a white person, or a non-white person.
where bridgerton's premise begins to falter for me is in two places: a) the sheer primacy and power the british monarchy holds in the year 1761 and the total absence of parliament (or parliament's willingness to follow the queen mother's guidance, in this case - is this a whig parliament? a tory parliament? were the jacobites crushed so thoroughly that we only have a reformer's parliament?); and b) the question of slavery and the black members of the aristocracy when the slave trade was abolished only in 1807 and slavery only in 1833, and therefore, there already was a very strong and ugly ideology of racialisation underpinning the trade (and the ownership of slaves: which most of the aristocracy owned, whether as workers on plantations, or else as pages or servants), though i suppose it doesn't take much for the wealthy to rationalise people of their own shared class being fundamentally different to those of a different class, especially when their social betters have taken the lead in insisting on this.
as a side note: i do find it interesting that so much of the conversation revolves around the question of colonialism or the absence of napoleon/the french and so little of it revolves around the question of slavery and the slave trade. the latter is a genuine lacunae historically in this series, especially given that its taking place at the zenith of the abolitionist movement in england - and one, presumably, at least a significant chunk of the aristocracy would have opinions on.
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
tangentwithtanner
izzy806
kianamaiart
