While most “Bridgerton” entries are merely period pieces, not historical epics, this spinoff is more interested in true history—and fans are still warming up to that idea.
Liam Daniel/Netflix
England’s monarchy took center stage this past weekend, in two very, very different ways. Charles and his wife Camilla were crowned king and queen at Saturday’s coronation ceremony, over in England. Meanwhile, the rest of us non-monarchs were stuck at home watching Netflix—namely, Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story. Royals are all the rage!
While the past seasons of Bridgerton have been almost entirely fictional, the show has always had a slight historical aspect. No, the always romantically entangled Bridgerton family was never real. But the “Ton” certainly was the real high society during the late Regency era. There was never a Lady Whistledown, the Ton’s version of Gossip Girl, though much of the manners and parties we see in Bridgerton could’ve taken place back in early-1800s England.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the King and Queen of England do exist in the show and are, in fact, based on a real king and queen. Queen Charlotte follows the real monarch (played in her younger years by India Amarteifio and older age by Golda Rosheuvel), as she marries King George III (Corey Mylchreest), a figure you may recognize from a pretty important part of American history: the Revolutionary War.
Yes, that King George III is the same fellow we see played by Jonathan Groff in Hamilton. Though he’s dashing and lovely in this new show, the real king was perhaps not as empathetic or charming to American folks as he is in this romanticized version of England. But, hey—a little anachronistic love story set to an orchestral version of “Halo” by Beyoncé didn’t kill anyone, did it?
Folks on social media have some mixed feelings about the historical fact vs. fiction of Queen Charlotte, however, which has elected to put King George on a pedestal. While some fans of the show are hugely in favor of this king—after all, he’s not the real king; he’s a fictionalized character—others can’t get over the royal’s loaded history.
Unrelated to the King George/Queen Charlotte storyline, some viewers of the show are a little peeved about slight historical inaccuracies. But SZA, Alicia Keys, and Whitney Houston didn’t exist in the 19th century either, and yet, the orchestra present at the many parties at the palace plays a handful of their tunes.
To be fair, the series does begin with a disclaimer that hints at these factual changes: “This is the story of Queen Charlotte from Bridgerton. It is not a history lesson. It is fiction inspired by fact. All liberties taken by this author are quite intentional.”
Though the show may not be a history lesson, there are some facts worth taking away from Queen Charlotte. No one has been able to confirm whether or not Queen Charlotte was biracial, but we do know that she was a descendant of the Black branch of the Portuguese royal house, from Margarita de Castro y Sousa. She and George also did have 15 children, like we see in the show. (Whether Charlotte really called them “whores and virgins,” as she does in the first episode, may not be fact. Probably not. But we can hope.)
There are some other accuracies—King George did suffer from mental illness, and Charlotte really forced her children to compete to have the first grandchild—but that’s not really the point of Bridgerton. Audiences of the beloved romance show shouldn’t need to worry about the true story when the most important story is the romance.
It’s certainly nice to see a period piece set in a real time frame with a handful of true elements to ground the story. But in the very first episode of Bridgerton, fans should’ve noted that the show would lean heavily on the anachronisms and historical playfulness, with the needle drop of Ariana Grande’s “thank u, next.” The inaccuracies, paired with the most exciting period elements, have always been the appeal of the show.
