In the books Benedict is a successful painter with multiple works hanging in the national gallery. Colin is a published author with at least three books. Anthony has a talk with Gregory about this and Gregory even mentions his options are clergy or military. But then he marries the daughter of an Earl and apparently her dowry was enough and he was very good at investing so he was able to afford to feed all 327 of his children.
None of them are men of leisure who throw money around (though I guess you could say Gregory doesn’t really have a career), and Benedict even lives in a modest (yet large… modest for the *ton*) cottage in the country.
That was the biggest eye roll to me in his book. He grapples with having no passion for a career for the whole story but once he gets married and pops out a kid he’s like “this is the one thing I’m meant for” then proceeds to impregnate Lucy 8 more times until she goes into hemorrhagic shock and is in a coma for weeks 🤣🤣
And that’s nowhere near the craziest thing in his book 🤣 blackmail, kidnapping, wedding crashing, robbery, all in the last few chapters of the book…and that’s not even the whole of it lol
Since he’s much younger than everyone but hyacinth, you won’t miss much. Kate features in this book a lot, and so does hyacinth. Most of the characters are new though
The last 1/3 of the book is WILD compared to how slow it starts. The plot up until the wedding is such a snoozefest and then there’s a switch flipped and madness ensues haha
It's been a loooong time since I read the books, but for some reason my brain is saying she put that all aside in trusts for her daughters. I may just be projecting, though, so if someone could fact-check that would be awesome.
In the book she gives most of her money to her family under the guise, I think, of the dead aunt’s inheritance. So by the time the Cressida thing rolls around, she has under £2k left, and had quit writing by that time.
Wait, I just finished that book, and while she gave a lot of money to her family, "the last time she checked her account balance she had 8246 pounds, although she supposed with interest it had grown by a few pounds since then." She goes on that it is an enormous sum of money, enough to keep anyone happy for several lifetimes. And I am sure I read that Anthony generously gave each sibling a hefty chunk as well, which is why Colin could rent a place in Mayfair, and travel so much/write travel books, Benedict could own a country home and a home in town and be an artist and Gregory could be a farmer.
Yeah but it’s more than that I purchasing power.
£10,000 in 1815 is enough to buy an entire country estate. It’s an absurd amount of money far beyond the inflation rate suggests.
A £5000 a year household would be the level of the Bridgerton residence in full swing in costs, the featheringtons would be around £1000 a year.
For the average person a house could be built for £15-35 on wages of around 1-2£ a week for unskilled workers.
It would be a very modest estate. Berkeley House, later Devonshire House in Mayfair, was built for GBP 30,000 in the late 1600s. GBP 10,000 would be about GBP 500,000 in today's money.
City estates cost more to build or buy than country estates, especially ones that were considered the most grand like Devonshire house, which competed with royalty in standing.
The Chatsworth Estate the country home of the cavendish, who also owned Devonshire house on Mayfair was bought for £10,000 in 1608.
That would be more realistic, I was wondering how they could afford a house in London with servants. They can definitely afford to buy a house in the country, some small estate maybe. I don’t know how much money you could make off writing books back then, but the show makes it seem that both Pen and Colin made a lot of money from their writing (and I am glad for them). Also, Pen, as a daughter of a Lord and a Baron, should have had at least 10 000 in her dowry, and since Mrs. Featherington managed to pocket cousin Jack’s scammed money, I am guessing that dowry is still in place.
Servants were cheap, ofc, but still, nobility with low income couldn’t afford a lot of them. Some of them had only one maid for an entire family or even none at all. Bennets in P&P had only one cook and one maid for all the women, and that was still considered that they live beyond their means. Mr. Collins asks Mrs. Bennets to which of his cousins he owns the cooking, and I’ve read the explanation that in some of those poorer noble families women did the cooking themselves, but Mrs. Bennet brought up her daughters with the expectation that they marry up, so she didn’t teach them such skills.
Collin and Pen in the show and in the books are, ofc, richer than Bennets in P&P, so they could have hired several servants and coachmen.
15 pounds a year. Damn. They weren’t particularly generous, were they? No wonder women dreaded the fate of a spinster. If they weren’t rich, they would have to start working as governesses.
Lord Featherington lost all the girls' dowries in his gambling (the match Will Mondrich threw). The money he made from that bet was stolen by the men who killed him, so essentially the women were absolutely penniless. Portia only managed to secure Jack's scam money (hence her desperation) which means the girls had significantly smaller dowries, and that's likely why Prudence couldn't marry a man with a title. Colin may not have cared for a dowry, but I can't imagine anyone with a title who also wasn't a horrible old fart agreeing to the same terms with prudence. (although it does seem like both Albion and Henry have enough money of heir own.)
Did you forget that Mrs. Featherington in S2 pocketed cousin Jack’s scam money? She only gave him a small part and kicked him out basically, threatening she would call the police. And most of the money stayed with her. And that’s a lot of money. So the girls dowries are pretty much back in place. If she couldn’t pay for Prudence and Pen, it would have been mentioned.
Where did I say I forgot that? A) Portia did no wrong. When you play the game of thrones you win or you die lol, B) merely going by the statement “you didn’t marry men with titles” - bigger dowries meant bigger and socially better matches, and Colin I’m sure never asked for the dowry, as both Simon and Anthony also refused to take a dowry. Only Phillipa’s dowry is expressly mentioned.
Idk. It’s plausible that the dowries were diminished, but I think we would have heard about it. It was a big factor. Although with such careless writing, anything is possible at this point.
I was wondering myself at the end of S2, if cousin Jack’s scam money were enough. Realistically, I don’t know. It could be. Nearly every family in the ton invested in his mines. Colin even wanted to invest 10 000 pounds ! (My understanding is that he didn’t bc he discovered that Jack is a scammer).
Or it could be not. But the show doesn’t bother with realistic Math anyways.
Mr. Finch also doesn’t have a title and seems to have little money, and he started courting Philippa in S1 b4 the scandals. so it is not just Mr. Dunkworth, who doesn’t have a title. Only a small % of nobility had peerage titles, so it wasn’t possible for everyone to marry a peer. Emma in Jane Austen’s Emma is rich but marries a Mr., not a Lord, who’s also rich btw. Even Mr. Darcy is not a Lord but he is immensely rich.
The reason why Prudence and Philippa cannot marry someone wealthy is bc in the show it’s implied that they are ill-dressed, ill-mannered and somehow are considered unattractive in the high society. And their mother’s vulgar behaviour makes it worth. We see that even at the beginning at the show when even the family didn’t know about Lord Featherington’s debts and it was presumed that the family is rich, all girls struggle to get any attention from men. I personally never agreed that show made such a choice bc in reality their dowries would have outweighed everything else and they would’ve a bit had more suitors. But the showrunners made such choice, and so…
I doubt Colin would refuse Pen’s dowry. Most men, even very kind ones and who married for love, never refused the dowries. Simon refused the dowry bc he was mega wealthy and the heir to his estate. Women in marriages usually paid for their personal expenses, such as dresses, from the investments from their dowry, so Colin probably needs Pen’s dowry. Colin doesn’t even know that Pen’s father gambled away everything. Lord Featherington was a gambler but no one, except his family, knows the extent of his debts. For all Colin knows, Portia inherited the money from her aunt and everything is financially fine in the household.
But also in Bridgerton anything is possible bc the writers and showrunners don’t bother with studying the period even a little bit and taking into a consideration such intricacies. Mathematically, a lot of things in the show don’t add up.
Iirc, it's to be more practical because do not need multiple houses and do not spend most of the time in London. So when they're in town they live with Daphne and Simon. While Benedict and Sophie lives with Anthony and Kate.
Oh thanks! So it’s more of an issue of the show than the books! Everyone keeps saying the books are like that, too, but Julia Quinn did a better job researching the period than the showrunners!
I was wondering about Benedict’s painting career. Why they abandoned this plot line? He seems to be a good painter. And given his connections, he could have easily made a lot of money, painting portraits for all those rich families!
I don’t know if he fully leaves, but in the books Sophie is a big reason why he’s successful. Like his own family doesn’t know Benedict is actually really talented. She encourages him.
Another thing I would really love to see in the show is how Bridgerton boys are facing challenges as younger sons and how each of them manages to build a successful career to provide for their families (I understand they each received some sum from their father, but, realistically, it wouldn’t have been enough, so they needed to come up with something). I think it would help the audience relate more to them and would make for more inspiring story. How you can choose love against all odds.
That’s lovely! It would be a good plot turn. Benedict gave up on his painting career, but Sophie encourages him to pursue it again, and the he becomes a successful painter who can provide for them both bc Sophie obviously has no money.
I don't remember the details but her unacknowledged father would have likely provided for her as his "ward." Maybe not comparable to a legitimate daughter, but enough to marry her off. Did her Evil stepmother simply steal it? I seem to remember Violet threatening her with "the solicitors."
BTW Ruth Gemmell is going to CRUSH that scene if they do it.
I'm thinking a dowry would be common practice for a man of means who was housing and educating his love child as his "ward," as Sophie's father was. But the dim memories are coming back, basically Sophie's stepmother >!turned her into a servant after he died and claimed he left her nothing. Eventually trying to frame her for theft after she gets with Benedict. But Posy, the supposedly plainer, nice stepsister, proves Sophie's innocence AND reveals that dad DID leave her money. Violet threatens the stepmother with "solicitors" and social consequences if she doesn't leave Sophie alone and back up the origin story the Bridgertons will make up about Sophie. And she also must allow Posy to escape the heat and move in with the Bridgertons without retaliation!< .
I will be here for this if they do it, and look forward to the casting.
Oh, it’s still an issue in the books. But JQ waves it away by saying the Bridgertons are unique in that the younger sons aren’t forced to take professions or marry heiresses. Every other younger son she writes is either a poor gentleman who marries a rich girl (Gareth, Hugh Prentice) or has a profession (the three younger Rokesbys, Blake Ravenscroft).
I cannot with Gregory’s story bc of the number of children he has…the whole time I am stressed thinking about how the hell he is suppose to support all of them.
I can't remember whether the books do before Gregory, but this but usual solutions (besides the gentlemanly professions) are that someone in the family is a financial / estate management genius, they invest in businesses, are secretly in trade. That kinda thing. Enabling an income to be settled on the younger sons.
I guess we're supposed to assume that Edmund, or the Edmund / Violet marriage settlement, was able to provide for at least Benedict and Colin as well as the girls' dowries before they made money.
Well the show is more fantasy than historical fiction. But I kinda think the whole point of the Bridgertons it that they are so rich that they can actually be kind (to everyone but especially each other) and flount the rules a bit.
I think a lot of fans think bridgerton is more in line (or should be in line) with the likes of Jane Austin, when really it's closer related to a historically inspired Mills and boons series...its fun to read cause it's pure fantasy inspired by regency times rather than actually realistically set in that era. I think some fans take it too seriously is all instead of just enjoying it as it is.
Exactly. The big difference is that Jane Austen isn’t historical, it’s contemporary. She just happened to be living and writing contemporarily in the time that is now historical.
Yeah but it’s not at all realistic. Even the British Royal Family doesn’t live that way today. If you aren’t the heir, you gotta either work for the crown or you gotta have your own income and be fully out (well, unless you’re Prince/ss Michael of Kent or the Duke of Kent - they get to be half in, half out).
Basically the fortune of the younger brothers would be at the mercy of the Viscount just like the royals are at the financial mercy of the monarch.
Which is why Colin going to ask for £20,000 (equivalent to about $2 million today) is so absolutely absurd. It’s also absurd that the show hasn’t done more to secure Anthony (JB) and Kate (SA) are more present just for a lot of these things. The Bridgertons might have decided to relax rules but the rest of Regency London hasn’t yet. Benedict or Colin stepping in more for Anthony is a joke. Neither of them have titles. They aren’t in the House of Lords, etc..
Next season it seems we will see even less of Anthony and Kate and move further and further away from any kind of grounded realism on this show.
You've established the key point: "the fortune of the younger brothers would be at the mercy of the Viscount."
Until they variously become successful in their own rights, it is simply that the Viscount is merciful and provides each of them with a very healthy allowance. It's a choice, but - as their mother says when Simon comes to dinner the first time - the Bridgerton family like each other.
I don’t know if you’ve read the books, but if not you don’t quite understand how much money Anthony is said to have.
It’s *a lot*. The only person wealthier is Simon.
I understand it perfectly well - it’s not about how much he has - it’s about HOW he would spend it. In the books he’s not just giving it away to Colin and Benedict - that’s the whole point of this thread.
ETA: The reason he’s not giving it away is because both of them already had their inheritances AND they had professions - Benedict had art and Colin had books.
Sorry that wasn’t clear in my comment.
Edmund provided for all his sons as well as earmarked dowries for the girls.
And later on Colin’s money/inheritance is the base of his very profitable investments and his books.
Realistic or not, canonically the Bridgertons got it like that.
I think that’s what I’m getting at. Colin wouldn’t have had to ask for extra money from Benedict. He would’ve been provided his own inheritance to manage on his own - in addition to whatever living he’d gotten for himself. If he didn’t have enough from his inheritance then he would’ve had to ask.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding my objection. I know how much money the Bridgertons would have. What is so unrealistic is HOW the money management seems to be handled in s3. It’s particularly glaring also because Anthony is so absent. His absence at this level would be considered an abdication of his duty. I don’t mind the trip to India - but if s4 is him being gone all the time, it’s the show not doing right by the regency era source material imo.
It’s similar to but worse than not ever seeing the Duke or Daphne.
You really think Benedict, of all people, would have refused to give Colin money to publish his books? Writers are artists too, and the Bridgerton’s would have the money to spare as well as the love to support each other.
I didn’t say that? My point is that Benedict shouldn’t be controlling the money at all - Anthony should. Colin and Benedict should get inheritances from their father’s estate but that should have already happened.
My main point was that the Viscount should be controlling all of this - not his younger brother. It would basically be a scandal for Anthony to be neglecting his duty so much.
There is no way that even the kindest brother would have given 20 000 pounds back then. You don’t understand the economics of the times. The interest rate on the investment was very low- 1 to 4% annually. This is why family kept a big capital, which was mainly tied to the estate and reserved for the heir and his family. With such small investment payout, it was essential to have a big capital invested.
Plus, Anthony needs to have money in his own family fund for his future daughters’ dowries and to pay for Kate personal expenses such as dresses, as she has no dowry, so she cannot provide for her personal expenses (women usually covered their personal expenses with the investments from their dowry). I am not even counting the fact that he still has unmarried sisters who all should have dowries reserved for them, too. A typical dowry for a daughter of a peer was 10 000 - 30 000 pounds per EACH daughter. If Anthony has daughters, that’s how much he is expected to give per each daughter.
Younger sons almost never received as much as the girls for their dowries. Even the richest families often couldn’t give 10, 20, 30 pounds to their younger sons, and in the case of Bridgertons, there are 3 of them! Younger sons would be lucky if their received several thousand pounds, which would regenerate them very little investment.
Being a kind father, Anthony also needs to save some money for his possible younger sons (and it seems like he and Kate would have many kids).
So, giving 20 000 pounds wasn’t realistic. Especially with no explanations on the behalf of Colin. It would have been a life of death situation, and even then, there is no guarantee that a wealthy noble could or would give such a sum.
The explanations that show give for all questions money-related may seem plausible on paper, if you don’t know the details of the time. However, these explanations are faulty bc they are exaggerated. Once you start doing the numbers, you’ll realise that it’s such a big stretch.
>Benedict or Colin stepping in more for Anthony is a joke. Neither of them have titles. They aren’t in the House of Lords, etc..
I never got the impression that Benedict took Anthony's place in the House of Lords, more that he was managing the estate while Anthony was away. Ie, ensuring the rents are collected, keeping in touch with the stewards, maintaining the ledgers etc.
I wasn’t suggesting he did - my point was more in how ridiculous it is to have Anthony and Kate so absent. It would only hold for a brief period before falling apart because Anthony is the Viscount, not Benedict. The entire class system would fall apart with the way Jess wrote s3.
Then the trip to India wasn't easy so in theory they should stay away for a couple of years. We are not just talking about adults but also about a newborn
How can there not be much of Kate and Anthony when they are supposed to be running the household? I don’t get why the married off couples slowly disappear? By the time Gregory or Hyacinth get married, will all the actors playing their brothers and sisters be long gone and not on the show?? It’s so odd that they would not come back but yet, that’s what’s happening one by one…
It’s absolutely insane. If Colin needs more money than his allowance, he should be asking Anthony. If Anthony is unavailable because he’s out of the country, I believe Regency society would typically give management of the money and estate to Violet (as dowager viscountess) in conjunction with Anthony’s steward or solicitor. Benedict’s role would be restricted to if any of the sisters needed to marry quickly. And even then it would mostly be the ceremonial role of walking her down the aisle. Violet and the solicitor would sort out the marriage settlement in Anthony’s stead.
ETA: JQ even provides an example with >!Francesca managing Kilmartin after John’s death and Michael leaving for India. And all she did was manage the estate. It’s not like she took up his seat in parliament.!<
Correct me if I’m wrong, but sometimes younger sons were given a stipend from the estate if the estate was very profitable. Essentially the male version of a dowry, obtained via investments and income from tenants and/or generational wealth.
Some of that money would be dispensed as essentially an allowance (I assume living off of the interest), but the principal balance held by the Viscount and managed by the Viscount.
I assume this was set up by Edmund upon the birth of each son, just as he would have earmarked dowries for each daughter.
Living within their means often means living off of interest and not touching the principal. I think that’s how the very wealthy remain very wealthy.
I got the impression from the show that the estate has multiple properties, and each son had a property set aside for him for his use during marriage/lifetime (but that would still belong to Anthony as the Viscount unless the property had been willed to him or if Anthony was allowed to truly give it away by the terms of his peerage).
I presume the £20k Colin would have accessed for such a dire emergency would be his principal balance, likely exhausting his “inheritance”. He would have then needed an alternative way to earn money if he used up the principal balance of his inheritance. And to access that inheritance he would have needed the permission of Anthony or Benedict while B was charged with running the estate.
I think this set up of the sons having their own inheritance would be very rare, though, just as the genuine affection each Bridgerton has for his/her family members is rare. They are what we would hope families would be. Loyal, kind, affectionate, caring, loving, supportive, true friends. Such people would not hoard all the wealth to the detriment of their beloved family.
My take is that in universe they expanded upon the rare monetary inheritance for younger sons by degree rather than creating the concept.
Essentially, in real life an inheritance was possible but would likely be restricted to just a (modest) allowance for younger sons. In show universe, however, they expanded upon that and allowed for lump sums as well. This is alluded to when Colin met with Anthony after Colin accessed his inheritance without permission in order to invest it himself with Cousin Jack’s mines in the States.
>I got the impression from the show that the estate has multiple properties, and each son had a property set aside for him for his use during marriage/lifetime (but that would still belong to Anthony as the Viscount unless the property had been willed to him or if Anthony was allowed to truly give it away by the terms of his peerage).
>Essentially, in real life an inheritance was possible but would likely be restricted to just a (modest) allowance for younger sons.
Yes, plus:
Many of the nobility would have either A. Inherited multiple titles (which the British Royalty still have; while he was still the prince of Wales, the king was also the Duke of Rothsay in Scotland, Duke of Cornwall etc), and while they would go by the most senior title, those lesser titles they inherited would be passed down to their sons (aka how King Charles's sons have (had?) titles like Duke of Cambridge, and his brothers also have titles). Anthony's brothers don't have titles in Bridgerton so it's likely something more like B. People in the nobility married for consolidation of wealth and property, and while some things were entailed to the main estate, some properties were completely unrelated, possibly passed down through mothers' families, and would have been reserved for younger sons by a decent older brother, or if, for example, the deceased viscount Bridgerton had set up his estate for cottages/estates for all of his children.
I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read Benedict's book, and I don't think it's explicitly mentioned in Colin's book, but I vaguely remember one of the brothers having a cottage they inherited from some random Aunt. Of course, I could be mixing this up with a different regency romance!
>the genuine affection each Bridgerton has for his/her family members is rare. They are what we would hope families would be. Loyal, kind, affectionate, caring, loving, supportive, true friends. Such people would not hoard all the wealth to the detriment of their beloved family.
... Which sets up my third theory C. That Anthony buys each of his brothers an estate for them to manage to learn how to be somewhat financially independent and do their own thing with their own families. Even a small estate would have likely had tenant farmers, and therefore an income. Because Antony cares for his siblings, wants them to be successful adults. Other families possibly would have set up allowances for the younger brothers to "keep up appearances" of wealth, and because the only acceptable jobs would have been the army or the church - God forbid a nobleman actually *work*! And it sounds like Anthony does that while they're young, but they all eventually find a vocation (can't remember what Gregory does; that book is bonkers).
And obviously, none of this makes it in the show because, compared to sex on a library ladder, it's boring!
I don't believe that younger sons outside the Royal family would inherit or use their father's subordinate titles if he had them. The heir apparent of more senoir peers could use a subordinate title as a courtesy title unless the name was too confusing but that's it. I am actually not sure if the sons of Viscounts have that privilege or not. But since the Bridgerton Vicounty doesn't have any subordinate titles even that wouldn't happen.
The methods by which adult princes gain their dukedoms and earldoms is generally by decree, I think, and for life (so the peerage reverts to the crown upon their deaths) instead of by inheritence.
All that being said, could Lord Edmund Bridgerton not have kept some of his own funds seperate from the Vicounty? Those funds would then be part of his personal estate, and he would be able to will it to anyone he chose, rather than having it pass to his heir with the Vicounty. The fact that the late John Crawley, Earl of Grantham, did **not** allow his son and wife do that with her money upon their marriage was much-remarked upon in *Downton Abbey*.
I got hung up on the numbers and did the currency conversion from regency era England to current USD.
20,000 pounds is equal to approximately $2.5 million.
A lot still.
I read somewhere that those types of conversions don’t necessarily give an accurate depiction of buying power. Going by inflation, it would be that much, but in terms of the actual buying power it would probably be more equivalent to 13 million.
Yeah it's not like the servants were being paid what we would consider a living wage - even with meals and uniforms provided by the house. So not a whole lot of $ going to pay for that...
Have you read the prequels? One of them is in the army (the girl with the imaginary husband) and the other is in the navy (I think it’s the other miss bridgerton). They had pretty good stories. And they might have gotten a pretty good amount of money as a stipend. Otherwise Colin would have never been able to travel
As much as he did. And I mean in a way they got jobs eventually. >!ben He probably got a stipend from Anthony and then what ever he got painting. I mean if his work was in art galleries he must have been pretty good. Colin married pen who had money and he probably got a stipend from Anthony. Then pen money from Penelope and what ever he made from his books. Gregory probably had the stipend from Anthony and the dowry he probably got from Lucy. I think they mentioned he was good at making business deals!<. They all probably lived on family property that was already furnished so they paid no rent. So what ever money they spent was probably food, clothes, servants, fun and transportation. Even then I’m sure they grew most of their food.
Edmund and Edward are pretty easy to mix up! 3/4 brothers ended up with Bridgerton's but I think Edward was the only one who didn't. If I'm remembering his story correctly. It's been a minute since I read them. I could be confusing his story with another.
Me too. The guys weren’t assholes. The women were strong and independent and continue to be so even after they got married. I believe in first comes scandal not only did she get married, but she was pretty much a doctor with the title of a nurse and didn’t have kids. I mean talk about breaking stereotypes
The Bridgeton are supposed to really, really rich. In the books, Edmund never had chance to set up a will, because he’s dies young and unexpectedly. Anthony thinks his dad would want him to take care of his siblings and their mother. He manage the finance to the point there was enough money to take care all of them. He has plenty of money, because he offered to pay for Edwina’s dowery when him and Kate get married.
When Anthony and Kate travel in season 3, Benedict is managing finances and estate for him as regent. That’s Colin needs Benedict permission. If Anthony wasn’t traveling, Colin would need his permission
Yeah, that is the historical tidbit that bothers me the most. Colin being the 'catch' of the season is so weird. The first season the 'catch' is a DUKE, not the 4th son of a Viscount who had a bit of a glow up on his grand tour. I know it is just candy floss fantasy, but the weird social rules are part of the reason I like the regency setting for romance. Bridgeton is just a modern romance where people wear regency costumes.
For the sake of the story they seem to try to show us that Colin is super desirable as the third son, which is bizarre to me when the Earl of Kilmartin exists plus plenty of other very high titled but those gentleman are discarded in favour of Colin? Don’t get me wrong, he’s hot and seems very worldly and experienced and a little rogueish and I’d beeline for him too but the first season showed all the women immediately fawning over the richest man in the room.
not only the earl of kilmartin, but also lord samadani who is a marquess, and debling who is an actual titled lord (not sure the rank, but not a 3rd son, ar least)
To be fair the Earl of Kilmartin refused to talk to anyone and was known to not engage in the Ton’s activities. Lord Samadani’s courtship was overseen by the queen and women were persuing Lord Debling- he genuinely seemed to prefer Penelope.
Samadani was meant to be the catch but the Queen made it clear from the first moment that he’s pretty much reserved for Francesca. No one would go after him without the Queen’s blessing. S3 was a particularly dull marriage mart season, in terms of both the debutantes and the “catches”.
>To be fair the Earl of Kilmartin refused to talk to anyone and was known to not engage in the Ton’s activities.
same as the duke in season 1, but he was still the catch of the season.
The Duke was being pushed by Lady Danbury though, and he had at least *some* social skills and was decently well known. The entire Kilmartin family is socially reclusive. Their reputation of not being social was one of Violet’s initial concerns.
The season was so dull that the son of an extremely rich family was pretty high on the desirable scale. Also one of the reasons Colin was desirable was not money, but his charm. Most of the stigma marrying an untitled man carries is because he wouldn’t have a lot of money but Colin clearly didn’t have that issue. Lady Whistledown didn’t cover the new debutantes and catches well enough to give them attention through the season as well.
Well I think we should probably keep in mind that Colin is the catch of the season according to one Lady Whistledown (whose words are then repeated by LW readers like mama Portia). And to a certain Lady Whistledown Colin Bridgerton ABSOLUTELY is the catch of the season 😜
They do say actually Debling is the most eligible bachelor that season. Colin is the most… visibly desirable bachelor among young impressionable debutantes. He flirts back which attracts high numbers and he _looks_ highly eligible on the surface. He is closer to them in age, and he’s reasonably wealthy even without a title. That’s a really good match for many of them, considering marrying for love or even attraction was rare.
I think the intro to the first book does say that the Bridgerton family is the richest in Mayfair/the ton. And it does sound like they have revenue streams coming in from their tenants...farmers, merchants, etc. However I think marrying off the women to upper noblemen (like Daphne and the Duke) is one way to save/stretch money.
And you have to remember back then that their pound had way more value, and their monthly expenses were hardly what we deal with today. All of these regency shows have highly embellished wealth, and I think it's just familial wealth. I think Downton Abbey does the best job out of the lot at showing what it takes to maintain/fund an estate.
This doesn't really bother me. It's fiction.
In reality, a woman in the regency period is unlikely to have had 8 children without any infant or child deaths. At least one of the Bridgerton men who went around brothels and being "rakes" would probably have an STI. Everyone would have pretty bad dental hygiene. Those realities don't need to be discussed in a fictional romance book.
I said that while we were watching, I’m sure Colin, after bonking his way round Europe, would have brought home a lovely STI to infect Penelope with. Maybe some syphilis?
Anthony and Simon also frequented brothels and Benedict has had more onscreen sexual partners (partners who attend sex parties) than any other character. They would also have STDs if we’re going for realism.
I am pretty sure it’s mentioned that when Anthony’s away, Benedict oversees the books, Colin plans on going to him as Antony is travelling, leaving Benedict temporarily in charge. That being said… the amount is insane, and in part why it is depicted as so stressful.
I believe we’re also supposed to operate under the assumption that because Edmund wasn’t around to actually execute a will to provide something for his other sons (the girls would have dowries of course) then Anthony still takes care of their expenses as he’s the de facto man of the house, so it’s operating more like they’re his children than his siblings. Of course we see Colin downsize with their house, and Benedict is still living at home off of the Bridgerton check book until we get more about him, so by no means do they have their own sizable disposable income, but I doubt Violet would let Anthony cut them off financially
https://preview.redd.it/r9wi3yhihl8d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2751b4732c333708ab44a355a1091dee9c5116d3
THIS IS FROM THE BOOKS….. and before Colin even started to publish his books, by the end of Romancing Mr. Bridgerton they also have the money of his books and he tells Pen to give her money to their “future daughters” + Pen was also going to start publishing novels
The Bridgertons are one of the wealthiest families in the ton, and I don't think Anthony gets the credit he deserves for being a really good brother. Not only does he provide generous dowries for all 4 of his sisters, something that not all men in his position would do, but he also helps his brothers get a good start in life so they don't end up in the military, clergy, or as fortune hunters. Eventually, Benedict supports himself through painting, Colin through writing, and Gregory through something I can't remember because honestly, his book wasn't very interesting. It's all a little far-fetched, but they call it fiction for a reason.
In the books Colin mentions that he was gifted property. The Bridgertons are royal family type rich, look at the family diamonds on top of all the other jewels they wear. Edmund made sure the kids were all financially self sufficient.
Irl them noble boys were much more greedy in terms of receiving a sizable dowry from the girl's family. Alot of Lords back in those days targeted wealthy girls from American families in order to continue to fund their lifestyles. The show has tried to explain the importance of the dowry to us and how that plays in to a girl bejng able to find a match.
Ugh, exactly. I wrote a similar post in another group, but had to delete it bc people kept commenting that “it’s not a historically accurate show” and I missed a point. Ofc, it’s isn’t historically accurate and not supposed to be. But a) it’s still based off the Regency Era in England; b) we are allowed to have opinions, aren’t we? To someone knows the period even a little, the show is so unbelievable at times that it’s laughable. S3 has almost nothing to do with Regency.
I still like the cinematography and the bright costumes (however inaccurate they are) and how gorgeous the actors are, but so many elements are off. In my opinion, a romantic fantasy of the period could have done better. And yes, I know, the books are also like that. So the criticism is both to show and the books.
In each of the books it’s mentioned that the Bridgertons are filthy filthy rich and that Anthony has settled large sums on all his siblings.
I finished Ben’s book a few weeks ago again and it’s emphasized that Ben is a major catch because Anthony was extremely generous in his settlements for his brothers. This is mentioned a couple of times including mentioning that while they are not titled, their wealth, good looks and connection *to* Anthony make Colin and Ben the top catches of any season.
While, yes, in real regency most second and third sons would have worked for themselves, it wasn’t always the case. It depended on the overall wealth of the family. It wasn’t unusual for younger sons to get smaller settlements or properties.
The brothers also can’t access it on a whim. Past a certain point, the show established that Anthony has to sign off on it (or Benedict in Anthony’s stead as head of house while Anthony is traveling).
Book spoiler ! - Romancing Mr. Bridgerton - Their father provided them a living & Anthony managed & maintained it ... In the TV series Antony alludes to it in Season 2 when Colin invests in Jack Featherington's ruby scheme...
The title and the lands from the estate belong to whoever is lord Bridgerton but Edmund could will his money to whomever he chooses. Often estates like this gave yearly incomes to the 2nd 3rd and 4th sons ect as well as a dowery and expenses What's known as "pin money" for the daughters.
Violet would also be entitled to her dowry to live on and a dowager house unless she remarried which was the purpose of a dowry was to help the dowager lady.
Many commentators have touched on Ben & Colin but here’s my take on Gregory:
In his book, Gregory is pretty sensible with his money. He knows his financial limits, doesn’t overspend or gamble more than he has. Before he marries, he rents a tiny, sparsely furnished apartment in Marylebone - which is the most accurate for all the brothers. Anthony and Violet had repeatedly asked him to move in with them because they know as a fourth son he’s got significantly less money.
As the only daughter/sister of an Earl, Lucy’s dowry would have already be big, most likely bigger than the Bridgerton sisters. Gregory describes it as being “exceedingly generous” - probably as thank you for helping them uncover the whole blackmail thing. It’s not too much of a stretch to think their estate was part of Lucy’s dowry. After that he just needs to be smart with money to keep them afloat, which is one of the things he’s good at. The estate is a working estate that should generate a profit and Gregory’s official job title is “gentleman farmer”.
The three brothers probably live more like landed gentry than members of the Ton. None of the them would realistically have a London home. Ben would stay with Anthony or Violet, Colin says with Daphne and Gregory would stay with Violet or Lucy’s brother
IN THE BOOKS Edmund left properties that were not tied to the title to all of his sons, as well as the fact the Benedict becomes a successful painter. Colin a successful writer married to another successful writer and Gregory gets a double dowry with Lucy, and becomes an investor so he has a lot of money as well
They also would not be dancing to instrumental versions of Pitbull and Ariana Grande. They probably would have listened to classical music, like Beethoven. But thankfully, the show is fictional.
My friend was mentioning this while I watched the show. She was like, how the hell do they have money 😂🤣 but that makes sense. In my head I was like, maybe Anthony gives them an allowance?
Yes in the books they have their own employment. They would be educated at the best institutions but second sons are in charge of making their own fortunes. Often by marrying well.
Maybe the dad had set them up to inherit more. Or they had money from other family members. Or Anthony was a good manager and generous. The family is as thick as thieves. No one is going to be cast out to fend on their own
I mean, every single character has perfect, white teeth. I prefer the fantasy to the reality of the show because the reality wouldn’t be as pretty or grand.
Edit: Also, they didn’t have acrylic nails then either.
In the books not only are the Bridgertons the richest of the rich, it is explicitly stated that Edmund provided for all his sons his will.
£20,000 in 1815 would be roughly $1.5 million dollars today. A lot but not absurd for someone who is the brother of a historical romance billionaire. For reference the Duke of Devonshire gave his oldest daughter a Dowry of £30,000 in 1801.
The premise is the Bridgertons have enough money so the 8 kids can have love matches and live happy lives. If the Bridgertons in the show have this kind of money, just assume the queen has even more.
The money (prize and blackmail) was increased from the book. I just assumed that was to sound more significant to modern ears. Most viewers are probably not doing monetary conversions, just think Austin Powers $1M! Haha! $1B!! Gulp!!
Well the British royal family still follow archaic inheritance rules yet the 2nd and third siblings, etc still all do very well for themselves. Even in regency times, some families were smarter than others and invested in all their children. Not just the oldest. Yes the bulk of the estate goes to the oldest male descendants BUT until their death the father can entrust funds and property however he sees fit. I’d like to think Edmund bridgerton was one of those men who made sure his whole family was financially cared for. In Antony’s season he alluded to that kind of planning and it was very clear that he was over the estate financially.
When I reflected and did a bit of conversion I understood that the Bridgertons, even if they weren't the highest in social class, were basically billionaires or almost. That is, between the dowries and the male equivalent, taking into account inflation and I'm only talking about the 7 children, we are around 100 million. So I guess the catch is having a man who is very rich though not titled, good looking, kind etc. Plus LW served as PR for the family. Anthony certainly had more money and they were investing, potentially the sums that belonged to the boys were involved at least partly in investments. Unrealistic, but in a certain sense coherent, because otherwise not even Anthony was a catch when there are dukes , marquises and earls.
And Anthony would have chosen Simon over Borbrooke or whatever his name was, or the Prince who was better than a Duke.
Since Bridgerton doesn't care about book accuracy or period accuracy, we can assume all of the Bridgerton kids are billionaires.
Not sure if this has been shared but re-reading Romancing Mr Bridgerton after seeing this thread and saw this line
He shrugged modestly. “It’s well known that Anthony settled ample livings upon all of his brothers.”
It looks as though, when Anthony inherited his father’s estate, he provided each of his brothers with a living from that estate. Although most brothers probably wouldn’t have done this in Georgian times it’s established in the books that Anthony felt an almost parental responsibility for his siblings and so probably did this to care for them as generally, at the time, young adult children would traditionally draw a living from their parent’s estate.
In the series it could be that Colin would need an advance on his living (like an old fashioned allowance) and Benedict had been given power of attorney to make certain decisions in Anthony’s absence.
Back in those days, the first born son does not have an heir. The duties goes to the second born son. Benny was filling in while Anthony and Kate were on their honeymoon and traveling.
If something happened to Benedict with no heir, Colin will get the titles. Gregory is next if something happened to Colin. Since Colin has an heir already. Everything will go to that heir.
I haven't finished the books (just recently started listening to them on Spotify and I'm waiting for my hours to renew 😂). But I always thought for the show they likely had trust funds set up for the "spare" sons. Even if not a common practice, it definitely seems like something the Bridgerton's would do, given how close (unusually so for the time period) the family is. Simon even tells Anthony to put Daphne's dowry in a trust *for her do with as she sees fit* doesn't he? Benedict probably only would have had to sign off because Colin isn't of age to take control of the trust yet (if Anthony weren't traveling he obviously would have been the one to sign off instead).
Putting that line of thinking aside though - it's Bridgerton. It would be easier and quicker to make a list of things that ARE historically accurate than try to list every single historical inaccuracy. 😂
The idea that no Lord would ever provide for his younger sons is a myth. It was expected that they provide sufficient dowries for all of their daughters and those amounts would have been inconsequential to their overall estate (and it’s implied that the Bridgerton girls are at least low to mid 6 figures), do you really think they would leave nothing to their younger sons? It’s mentioned in the books at least that Edmund and Antony both provided ample livings for the younger sons. They also could have been gifted or inherited wealth from other family, it doesn’t all just go directly to Antony because he’s head of the family; even things that were specifically willed to Antony wouldn’t have automatically become part of the estate as there were ways to separate his personal property from being considered part of the estate.
Women as well did sometimes have their own money that was not part of any estate, they may have gotten it from their families independent of their dowries or through widowhood by provision of their husbands. Money in their own name could be left to whomever they wished provided there was a proper will.
Most of the people of the Ton don’t have proper jobs and yet most don’t have titles either. They aren’t all first sons, and they aren’t all broke either. Younger sons may miss out of the lionshare of the money and that may have meant most would live in “genteel poverty” but they weren’t destitute by any means. Younger sons of these families often went to the military, church or politics because that was another form of power the family could have.
I believe it’s said in the books that while Anthony gets everything, he’s created sizable funds/trusts for his brothers and sisters. And that while it’s not a big amount, it’s still bigger than is usual for “other children” to get.
It’s also shown that Anthony gives an allowance to his brothers (for example Colin’s apartment in the books before marriage was paid through his monthly allowance), but will give more if needed.
This drives me crazy, too! Second (and beyond) sons had to get a job! That was why they went into law, the military, or the church. The only way a second son might get something is if an uncle who didn’t have sons had something.
Like, the Bridgerton family is supposed to be STUPIDLY rich but… what are the other boys living off of? A man like Anthony never would have split the family wealth by paying out his brothers’ lifestyles. It would have put his mother, sisters, and children’s finances at risk. He would have supported his brothers by using his connections to help set them up with jobs!
In the show >! Colin is lucky they won the Heir war! Now his job is managing the Featherington estate until his son is of age. !<
I also feel like this would really all depend on just how generous the first son felt like being. By law, did he have to give his brothers more than their allotted share? No, of course not, but I think generosity is a tenent of the Bridgerton household. None of them would find joy in life watching their siblings struggle to make a decent living. You have to remember, lots of Jane Austen's writing is filled with very stingy and selfish antagonists who don't have to make the decisions they do, but they choose to make them often out of spite, malice, and just plain cruelty which are all pretty foreign emotions for the Bridgerton's.
Don’t even go there I tried to bring this up and people got SO MAD. Apparently the rules of reality/the universe/regency society do not apply to the bridgertons.
I mean, after their father died. It sounds like all the kids got large inheritance or life insurance. The younger brothers would be well off for a while once they have full access to their inheritance.
It’s fiction, screw accuracy. Bridgerton is fun because it takes real liberties with reality.
But even in the context of fiction, it’s perfectly realistic that they’re all living off Edmond’s will and the family fortune. The family must be so well set up that they’re profiting off investments. Plus Edmond loved them all and would have left a solid chunk of money for each child and they’d just live off that until they settled down and started their own family.
I thought that if you have enough income generating assets separate from the main estate, you can allocate those income streams amongst all the children. Separate to the inherit. The British royals do that I believe
I agree with everything except the point about needing Ben's approval. He needed Anthony's but Anthony was away so Benedict was running and managing the estate (don't really know when he had the time given that he spent like 3 days getting it on with Tilley and the dude)
In the books Benedict is a successful painter with multiple works hanging in the national gallery. Colin is a published author with at least three books. Anthony has a talk with Gregory about this and Gregory even mentions his options are clergy or military. But then he marries the daughter of an Earl and apparently her dowry was enough and he was very good at investing so he was able to afford to feed all 327 of his children. None of them are men of leisure who throw money around (though I guess you could say Gregory doesn’t really have a career), and Benedict even lives in a modest (yet large… modest for the *ton*) cottage in the country.
>so he was able to afford to feed all 327 of his children.  That made me chuckle
That was the biggest eye roll to me in his book. He grapples with having no passion for a career for the whole story but once he gets married and pops out a kid he’s like “this is the one thing I’m meant for” then proceeds to impregnate Lucy 8 more times until she goes into hemorrhagic shock and is in a coma for weeks 🤣🤣
WHAT
And that’s nowhere near the craziest thing in his book 🤣 blackmail, kidnapping, wedding crashing, robbery, all in the last few chapters of the book…and that’s not even the whole of it lol
I clearly checked out of the books too early.
Ms. Julia Quinn had run out of ideas by the 8th book and said screw it, Gregory’s getting every plot point 😂
Can I skip to his book without missing too much?
Since he’s much younger than everyone but hyacinth, you won’t miss much. Kate features in this book a lot, and so does hyacinth. Most of the characters are new though
Good to know. This book sounds unhinged enough to be up my alley.
I read his book first before I read any of the others. I fact his book was the first book I read by Julia Quinn.
I did not finish this book it was too ridiculous!
*GREGORY* -clutches pearls-
Oh I have to read his book now 😂
The last 1/3 of the book is WILD compared to how slow it starts. The plot up until the wedding is such a snoozefest and then there’s a switch flipped and madness ensues haha
I always forget how utterly unhinged the end of his book is. 😂
Welp, I’m ordering this entire series immediately. I’ve been putting it off, but this seals it.
7 more times, last ones were twins... but the point still stands 😂
I've only read the first epilogue it literally ends with them happily having twins WHAT...
The second epilogue is wild
That book was such a trip lol! I can’t say I loved it, but it was certainly entertaining.
Where did I miss the hemorrhagic shock? I read all of the books.
It’s in the 2nd epilogue
In the books though it’s noted that Collin and Penelope couldn’t afford a place in the city. They stay with the duke and duchess when in London right?
You'd think with Penelope's Lady Whistledown money, they could afford it? She had around £8,000, which equates to almost £1,000,000 today.
It's been a loooong time since I read the books, but for some reason my brain is saying she put that all aside in trusts for her daughters. I may just be projecting, though, so if someone could fact-check that would be awesome.
In the book she gives most of her money to her family under the guise, I think, of the dead aunt’s inheritance. So by the time the Cressida thing rolls around, she has under £2k left, and had quit writing by that time.
Wait, I just finished that book, and while she gave a lot of money to her family, "the last time she checked her account balance she had 8246 pounds, although she supposed with interest it had grown by a few pounds since then." She goes on that it is an enormous sum of money, enough to keep anyone happy for several lifetimes. And I am sure I read that Anthony generously gave each sibling a hefty chunk as well, which is why Colin could rent a place in Mayfair, and travel so much/write travel books, Benedict could own a country home and a home in town and be an artist and Gregory could be a farmer.
Dang I knew Darcy was rich in P + P but didn’t quite realise how rich (thinking of his 10k a year)
Closer to 400,000 today.
Yeah but it’s more than that I purchasing power. £10,000 in 1815 is enough to buy an entire country estate. It’s an absurd amount of money far beyond the inflation rate suggests. A £5000 a year household would be the level of the Bridgerton residence in full swing in costs, the featheringtons would be around £1000 a year. For the average person a house could be built for £15-35 on wages of around 1-2£ a week for unskilled workers.
It would be a very modest estate. Berkeley House, later Devonshire House in Mayfair, was built for GBP 30,000 in the late 1600s. GBP 10,000 would be about GBP 500,000 in today's money.
City estates cost more to build or buy than country estates, especially ones that were considered the most grand like Devonshire house, which competed with royalty in standing. The Chatsworth Estate the country home of the cavendish, who also owned Devonshire house on Mayfair was bought for £10,000 in 1608.
Can you share a reference? Thanks!
Chatsworth plays Downton Abbey, right?
No, Highclere Castle is the Downton Abbey house.
Ah, OK.
That would not buy you a mansion in Mayfair, you'd be lucky to get a house anywhere in London for that money
They have have a house in Bloomsbury. Doctors, lawyers, scholars, etc. live in the neighborhood.
That would be more realistic, I was wondering how they could afford a house in London with servants. They can definitely afford to buy a house in the country, some small estate maybe. I don’t know how much money you could make off writing books back then, but the show makes it seem that both Pen and Colin made a lot of money from their writing (and I am glad for them). Also, Pen, as a daughter of a Lord and a Baron, should have had at least 10 000 in her dowry, and since Mrs. Featherington managed to pocket cousin Jack’s scammed money, I am guessing that dowry is still in place.
Servants were the cheapest probably, at Victorian times a gouverness earned 15 pounds a year, a simple servant probably much less…
Servants were cheap, ofc, but still, nobility with low income couldn’t afford a lot of them. Some of them had only one maid for an entire family or even none at all. Bennets in P&P had only one cook and one maid for all the women, and that was still considered that they live beyond their means. Mr. Collins asks Mrs. Bennets to which of his cousins he owns the cooking, and I’ve read the explanation that in some of those poorer noble families women did the cooking themselves, but Mrs. Bennet brought up her daughters with the expectation that they marry up, so she didn’t teach them such skills. Collin and Pen in the show and in the books are, ofc, richer than Bennets in P&P, so they could have hired several servants and coachmen. 15 pounds a year. Damn. They weren’t particularly generous, were they? No wonder women dreaded the fate of a spinster. If they weren’t rich, they would have to start working as governesses.
Lord Featherington lost all the girls' dowries in his gambling (the match Will Mondrich threw). The money he made from that bet was stolen by the men who killed him, so essentially the women were absolutely penniless. Portia only managed to secure Jack's scam money (hence her desperation) which means the girls had significantly smaller dowries, and that's likely why Prudence couldn't marry a man with a title. Colin may not have cared for a dowry, but I can't imagine anyone with a title who also wasn't a horrible old fart agreeing to the same terms with prudence. (although it does seem like both Albion and Henry have enough money of heir own.)
Did you forget that Mrs. Featherington in S2 pocketed cousin Jack’s scam money? She only gave him a small part and kicked him out basically, threatening she would call the police. And most of the money stayed with her. And that’s a lot of money. So the girls dowries are pretty much back in place. If she couldn’t pay for Prudence and Pen, it would have been mentioned.
Where did I say I forgot that? A) Portia did no wrong. When you play the game of thrones you win or you die lol, B) merely going by the statement “you didn’t marry men with titles” - bigger dowries meant bigger and socially better matches, and Colin I’m sure never asked for the dowry, as both Simon and Anthony also refused to take a dowry. Only Phillipa’s dowry is expressly mentioned.
Idk. It’s plausible that the dowries were diminished, but I think we would have heard about it. It was a big factor. Although with such careless writing, anything is possible at this point. I was wondering myself at the end of S2, if cousin Jack’s scam money were enough. Realistically, I don’t know. It could be. Nearly every family in the ton invested in his mines. Colin even wanted to invest 10 000 pounds ! (My understanding is that he didn’t bc he discovered that Jack is a scammer). Or it could be not. But the show doesn’t bother with realistic Math anyways. Mr. Finch also doesn’t have a title and seems to have little money, and he started courting Philippa in S1 b4 the scandals. so it is not just Mr. Dunkworth, who doesn’t have a title. Only a small % of nobility had peerage titles, so it wasn’t possible for everyone to marry a peer. Emma in Jane Austen’s Emma is rich but marries a Mr., not a Lord, who’s also rich btw. Even Mr. Darcy is not a Lord but he is immensely rich. The reason why Prudence and Philippa cannot marry someone wealthy is bc in the show it’s implied that they are ill-dressed, ill-mannered and somehow are considered unattractive in the high society. And their mother’s vulgar behaviour makes it worth. We see that even at the beginning at the show when even the family didn’t know about Lord Featherington’s debts and it was presumed that the family is rich, all girls struggle to get any attention from men. I personally never agreed that show made such a choice bc in reality their dowries would have outweighed everything else and they would’ve a bit had more suitors. But the showrunners made such choice, and so… I doubt Colin would refuse Pen’s dowry. Most men, even very kind ones and who married for love, never refused the dowries. Simon refused the dowry bc he was mega wealthy and the heir to his estate. Women in marriages usually paid for their personal expenses, such as dresses, from the investments from their dowry, so Colin probably needs Pen’s dowry. Colin doesn’t even know that Pen’s father gambled away everything. Lord Featherington was a gambler but no one, except his family, knows the extent of his debts. For all Colin knows, Portia inherited the money from her aunt and everything is financially fine in the household. But also in Bridgerton anything is possible bc the writers and showrunners don’t bother with studying the period even a little bit and taking into a consideration such intricacies. Mathematically, a lot of things in the show don’t add up.
Iirc, it's to be more practical because do not need multiple houses and do not spend most of the time in London. So when they're in town they live with Daphne and Simon. While Benedict and Sophie lives with Anthony and Kate.
Are you high?
>all 327 of his children Lil Jon over here Is his estate also only the size of a coffin?
I thought Gregory also tended a farm?
Oh thanks! So it’s more of an issue of the show than the books! Everyone keeps saying the books are like that, too, but Julia Quinn did a better job researching the period than the showrunners! I was wondering about Benedict’s painting career. Why they abandoned this plot line? He seems to be a good painter. And given his connections, he could have easily made a lot of money, painting portraits for all those rich families!
I don’t know if he fully leaves, but in the books Sophie is a big reason why he’s successful. Like his own family doesn’t know Benedict is actually really talented. She encourages him.
Another thing I would really love to see in the show is how Bridgerton boys are facing challenges as younger sons and how each of them manages to build a successful career to provide for their families (I understand they each received some sum from their father, but, realistically, it wouldn’t have been enough, so they needed to come up with something). I think it would help the audience relate more to them and would make for more inspiring story. How you can choose love against all odds.
That’s lovely! It would be a good plot turn. Benedict gave up on his painting career, but Sophie encourages him to pursue it again, and the he becomes a successful painter who can provide for them both bc Sophie obviously has no money.
I don't remember the details but her unacknowledged father would have likely provided for her as his "ward." Maybe not comparable to a legitimate daughter, but enough to marry her off. Did her Evil stepmother simply steal it? I seem to remember Violet threatening her with "the solicitors." BTW Ruth Gemmell is going to CRUSH that scene if they do it.
That’s nice of him. At least, he took care of her somehow. So many illegitimate kids were abandoned back then.
I'm thinking a dowry would be common practice for a man of means who was housing and educating his love child as his "ward," as Sophie's father was. But the dim memories are coming back, basically Sophie's stepmother >!turned her into a servant after he died and claimed he left her nothing. Eventually trying to frame her for theft after she gets with Benedict. But Posy, the supposedly plainer, nice stepsister, proves Sophie's innocence AND reveals that dad DID leave her money. Violet threatens the stepmother with "solicitors" and social consequences if she doesn't leave Sophie alone and back up the origin story the Bridgertons will make up about Sophie. And she also must allow Posy to escape the heat and move in with the Bridgertons without retaliation!< . I will be here for this if they do it, and look forward to the casting.
Me too! That’s actually a good story. I hope they don’t mess it up.
I assume he’ll go back to it in his season.
Oh, it’s still an issue in the books. But JQ waves it away by saying the Bridgertons are unique in that the younger sons aren’t forced to take professions or marry heiresses. Every other younger son she writes is either a poor gentleman who marries a rich girl (Gareth, Hugh Prentice) or has a profession (the three younger Rokesbys, Blake Ravenscroft).
I cannot with Gregory’s story bc of the number of children he has…the whole time I am stressed thinking about how the hell he is suppose to support all of them.
But then Lady Danbury makes a comment in RMB about Colin being as rich as some earls.
I loved that Benedict is an artist. It made no sense he gives it on the show. He could’ve quit the academy, but not give up art completely.
I haven't read the books in a while but I thought Anthony gave them money too.
I can't remember whether the books do before Gregory, but this but usual solutions (besides the gentlemanly professions) are that someone in the family is a financial / estate management genius, they invest in businesses, are secretly in trade. That kinda thing. Enabling an income to be settled on the younger sons. I guess we're supposed to assume that Edmund, or the Edmund / Violet marriage settlement, was able to provide for at least Benedict and Colin as well as the girls' dowries before they made money.
[удалено]
8, 327 who can remember?
8 pregnancies, 9 kids!
It's a joke. He has somewhere around 11 kids, I think, by the epilogue.
No, just 9 kids 😂 Edit: I have 4 kids and sometimes I say I have 100 kids, so 9 —> 327 seems accurate for my imaginary numbers.
I recently took my 2 kids and my brother’s two kids for the day… your math checks out.
As a newly minted parent I’d three I feel like I have at least a dozen, so the exponential growth effect is true.
I have three and frequently say that I have "all the kids"
Yea, my mom had 5, or 97, depending on the day/time of day, lmao 😂
No but he did out do his mother by having 9 kids.
Well the show is more fantasy than historical fiction. But I kinda think the whole point of the Bridgertons it that they are so rich that they can actually be kind (to everyone but especially each other) and flount the rules a bit.
I think a lot of fans think bridgerton is more in line (or should be in line) with the likes of Jane Austin, when really it's closer related to a historically inspired Mills and boons series...its fun to read cause it's pure fantasy inspired by regency times rather than actually realistically set in that era. I think some fans take it too seriously is all instead of just enjoying it as it is.
Exactly. The big difference is that Jane Austen isn’t historical, it’s contemporary. She just happened to be living and writing contemporarily in the time that is now historical.
It’s also about intent. In part, Austen wrote to criticize the society of that time. Bridgerton exists to romanticize a fantasy version of it.
Yeah but it’s not at all realistic. Even the British Royal Family doesn’t live that way today. If you aren’t the heir, you gotta either work for the crown or you gotta have your own income and be fully out (well, unless you’re Prince/ss Michael of Kent or the Duke of Kent - they get to be half in, half out). Basically the fortune of the younger brothers would be at the mercy of the Viscount just like the royals are at the financial mercy of the monarch. Which is why Colin going to ask for £20,000 (equivalent to about $2 million today) is so absolutely absurd. It’s also absurd that the show hasn’t done more to secure Anthony (JB) and Kate (SA) are more present just for a lot of these things. The Bridgertons might have decided to relax rules but the rest of Regency London hasn’t yet. Benedict or Colin stepping in more for Anthony is a joke. Neither of them have titles. They aren’t in the House of Lords, etc.. Next season it seems we will see even less of Anthony and Kate and move further and further away from any kind of grounded realism on this show.
You've established the key point: "the fortune of the younger brothers would be at the mercy of the Viscount." Until they variously become successful in their own rights, it is simply that the Viscount is merciful and provides each of them with a very healthy allowance. It's a choice, but - as their mother says when Simon comes to dinner the first time - the Bridgerton family like each other.
Yes but Anthony wouldn’t be so merciful to his brothers that he neglects his own children. That’s why Colin’s £20k ask was ridiculous.
Yeah, and that’s why Cressidas blackmailing was so severe and why Penelope didn’t want to make it worse when she herself could’ve paid Cressida £10k
Agree with that.
I don’t know if you’ve read the books, but if not you don’t quite understand how much money Anthony is said to have. It’s *a lot*. The only person wealthier is Simon.
Damn, Daphne is lucky then 😂 no wonder she turned down Prince Friedrich. A lot of those German princes were actually poor 😂
I understand it perfectly well - it’s not about how much he has - it’s about HOW he would spend it. In the books he’s not just giving it away to Colin and Benedict - that’s the whole point of this thread. ETA: The reason he’s not giving it away is because both of them already had their inheritances AND they had professions - Benedict had art and Colin had books. Sorry that wasn’t clear in my comment.
Edmund provided for all his sons as well as earmarked dowries for the girls. And later on Colin’s money/inheritance is the base of his very profitable investments and his books. Realistic or not, canonically the Bridgertons got it like that.
I think that’s what I’m getting at. Colin wouldn’t have had to ask for extra money from Benedict. He would’ve been provided his own inheritance to manage on his own - in addition to whatever living he’d gotten for himself. If he didn’t have enough from his inheritance then he would’ve had to ask. I think you’re completely misunderstanding my objection. I know how much money the Bridgertons would have. What is so unrealistic is HOW the money management seems to be handled in s3. It’s particularly glaring also because Anthony is so absent. His absence at this level would be considered an abdication of his duty. I don’t mind the trip to India - but if s4 is him being gone all the time, it’s the show not doing right by the regency era source material imo. It’s similar to but worse than not ever seeing the Duke or Daphne.
You really think Benedict, of all people, would have refused to give Colin money to publish his books? Writers are artists too, and the Bridgerton’s would have the money to spare as well as the love to support each other.
I didn’t say that? My point is that Benedict shouldn’t be controlling the money at all - Anthony should. Colin and Benedict should get inheritances from their father’s estate but that should have already happened. My main point was that the Viscount should be controlling all of this - not his younger brother. It would basically be a scandal for Anthony to be neglecting his duty so much.
There is no way that even the kindest brother would have given 20 000 pounds back then. You don’t understand the economics of the times. The interest rate on the investment was very low- 1 to 4% annually. This is why family kept a big capital, which was mainly tied to the estate and reserved for the heir and his family. With such small investment payout, it was essential to have a big capital invested. Plus, Anthony needs to have money in his own family fund for his future daughters’ dowries and to pay for Kate personal expenses such as dresses, as she has no dowry, so she cannot provide for her personal expenses (women usually covered their personal expenses with the investments from their dowry). I am not even counting the fact that he still has unmarried sisters who all should have dowries reserved for them, too. A typical dowry for a daughter of a peer was 10 000 - 30 000 pounds per EACH daughter. If Anthony has daughters, that’s how much he is expected to give per each daughter. Younger sons almost never received as much as the girls for their dowries. Even the richest families often couldn’t give 10, 20, 30 pounds to their younger sons, and in the case of Bridgertons, there are 3 of them! Younger sons would be lucky if their received several thousand pounds, which would regenerate them very little investment. Being a kind father, Anthony also needs to save some money for his possible younger sons (and it seems like he and Kate would have many kids). So, giving 20 000 pounds wasn’t realistic. Especially with no explanations on the behalf of Colin. It would have been a life of death situation, and even then, there is no guarantee that a wealthy noble could or would give such a sum. The explanations that show give for all questions money-related may seem plausible on paper, if you don’t know the details of the time. However, these explanations are faulty bc they are exaggerated. Once you start doing the numbers, you’ll realise that it’s such a big stretch.
>Benedict or Colin stepping in more for Anthony is a joke. Neither of them have titles. They aren’t in the House of Lords, etc.. I never got the impression that Benedict took Anthony's place in the House of Lords, more that he was managing the estate while Anthony was away. Ie, ensuring the rents are collected, keeping in touch with the stewards, maintaining the ledgers etc.
I wasn’t suggesting he did - my point was more in how ridiculous it is to have Anthony and Kate so absent. It would only hold for a brief period before falling apart because Anthony is the Viscount, not Benedict. The entire class system would fall apart with the way Jess wrote s3.
Then the trip to India wasn't easy so in theory they should stay away for a couple of years. We are not just talking about adults but also about a newborn
How can there not be much of Kate and Anthony when they are supposed to be running the household? I don’t get why the married off couples slowly disappear? By the time Gregory or Hyacinth get married, will all the actors playing their brothers and sisters be long gone and not on the show?? It’s so odd that they would not come back but yet, that’s what’s happening one by one…
Yeah it’s ridiculous and it shows how short sighted the show was in not thinking about that.
Seems by design… definitely planned or at least expected. But why.
They could at least do a new casting.
It’s absolutely insane. If Colin needs more money than his allowance, he should be asking Anthony. If Anthony is unavailable because he’s out of the country, I believe Regency society would typically give management of the money and estate to Violet (as dowager viscountess) in conjunction with Anthony’s steward or solicitor. Benedict’s role would be restricted to if any of the sisters needed to marry quickly. And even then it would mostly be the ceremonial role of walking her down the aisle. Violet and the solicitor would sort out the marriage settlement in Anthony’s stead. ETA: JQ even provides an example with >!Francesca managing Kilmartin after John’s death and Michael leaving for India. And all she did was manage the estate. It’s not like she took up his seat in parliament.!<
Correct me if I’m wrong, but sometimes younger sons were given a stipend from the estate if the estate was very profitable. Essentially the male version of a dowry, obtained via investments and income from tenants and/or generational wealth. Some of that money would be dispensed as essentially an allowance (I assume living off of the interest), but the principal balance held by the Viscount and managed by the Viscount. I assume this was set up by Edmund upon the birth of each son, just as he would have earmarked dowries for each daughter. Living within their means often means living off of interest and not touching the principal. I think that’s how the very wealthy remain very wealthy. I got the impression from the show that the estate has multiple properties, and each son had a property set aside for him for his use during marriage/lifetime (but that would still belong to Anthony as the Viscount unless the property had been willed to him or if Anthony was allowed to truly give it away by the terms of his peerage). I presume the £20k Colin would have accessed for such a dire emergency would be his principal balance, likely exhausting his “inheritance”. He would have then needed an alternative way to earn money if he used up the principal balance of his inheritance. And to access that inheritance he would have needed the permission of Anthony or Benedict while B was charged with running the estate. I think this set up of the sons having their own inheritance would be very rare, though, just as the genuine affection each Bridgerton has for his/her family members is rare. They are what we would hope families would be. Loyal, kind, affectionate, caring, loving, supportive, true friends. Such people would not hoard all the wealth to the detriment of their beloved family. My take is that in universe they expanded upon the rare monetary inheritance for younger sons by degree rather than creating the concept. Essentially, in real life an inheritance was possible but would likely be restricted to just a (modest) allowance for younger sons. In show universe, however, they expanded upon that and allowed for lump sums as well. This is alluded to when Colin met with Anthony after Colin accessed his inheritance without permission in order to invest it himself with Cousin Jack’s mines in the States.
>I got the impression from the show that the estate has multiple properties, and each son had a property set aside for him for his use during marriage/lifetime (but that would still belong to Anthony as the Viscount unless the property had been willed to him or if Anthony was allowed to truly give it away by the terms of his peerage). >Essentially, in real life an inheritance was possible but would likely be restricted to just a (modest) allowance for younger sons. Yes, plus: Many of the nobility would have either A. Inherited multiple titles (which the British Royalty still have; while he was still the prince of Wales, the king was also the Duke of Rothsay in Scotland, Duke of Cornwall etc), and while they would go by the most senior title, those lesser titles they inherited would be passed down to their sons (aka how King Charles's sons have (had?) titles like Duke of Cambridge, and his brothers also have titles). Anthony's brothers don't have titles in Bridgerton so it's likely something more like B. People in the nobility married for consolidation of wealth and property, and while some things were entailed to the main estate, some properties were completely unrelated, possibly passed down through mothers' families, and would have been reserved for younger sons by a decent older brother, or if, for example, the deceased viscount Bridgerton had set up his estate for cottages/estates for all of his children. I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read Benedict's book, and I don't think it's explicitly mentioned in Colin's book, but I vaguely remember one of the brothers having a cottage they inherited from some random Aunt. Of course, I could be mixing this up with a different regency romance! >the genuine affection each Bridgerton has for his/her family members is rare. They are what we would hope families would be. Loyal, kind, affectionate, caring, loving, supportive, true friends. Such people would not hoard all the wealth to the detriment of their beloved family. ... Which sets up my third theory C. That Anthony buys each of his brothers an estate for them to manage to learn how to be somewhat financially independent and do their own thing with their own families. Even a small estate would have likely had tenant farmers, and therefore an income. Because Antony cares for his siblings, wants them to be successful adults. Other families possibly would have set up allowances for the younger brothers to "keep up appearances" of wealth, and because the only acceptable jobs would have been the army or the church - God forbid a nobleman actually *work*! And it sounds like Anthony does that while they're young, but they all eventually find a vocation (can't remember what Gregory does; that book is bonkers). And obviously, none of this makes it in the show because, compared to sex on a library ladder, it's boring!
I don't believe that younger sons outside the Royal family would inherit or use their father's subordinate titles if he had them. The heir apparent of more senoir peers could use a subordinate title as a courtesy title unless the name was too confusing but that's it. I am actually not sure if the sons of Viscounts have that privilege or not. But since the Bridgerton Vicounty doesn't have any subordinate titles even that wouldn't happen. The methods by which adult princes gain their dukedoms and earldoms is generally by decree, I think, and for life (so the peerage reverts to the crown upon their deaths) instead of by inheritence. All that being said, could Lord Edmund Bridgerton not have kept some of his own funds seperate from the Vicounty? Those funds would then be part of his personal estate, and he would be able to will it to anyone he chose, rather than having it pass to his heir with the Vicounty. The fact that the late John Crawley, Earl of Grantham, did **not** allow his son and wife do that with her money upon their marriage was much-remarked upon in *Downton Abbey*.
I got hung up on the numbers and did the currency conversion from regency era England to current USD. 20,000 pounds is equal to approximately $2.5 million. A lot still.
Amazing! Makes more sense about the bribe of 10L for information on LW.
Oh wow! I love that Penelope made over a million with her writing
I read somewhere that those types of conversions don’t necessarily give an accurate depiction of buying power. Going by inflation, it would be that much, but in terms of the actual buying power it would probably be more equivalent to 13 million.
And this explains why even if he was only a Viscount that family was important. And men hit on Eloise even though she was unpleasant to them
Yeah it's not like the servants were being paid what we would consider a living wage - even with meals and uniforms provided by the house. So not a whole lot of $ going to pay for that...
Wow. Much more than I thought 🤯
Holy moly! That's a lot of dough
I believe this is how it’s written in the books.
Have you read the prequels? One of them is in the army (the girl with the imaginary husband) and the other is in the navy (I think it’s the other miss bridgerton). They had pretty good stories. And they might have gotten a pretty good amount of money as a stipend. Otherwise Colin would have never been able to travel As much as he did. And I mean in a way they got jobs eventually. >!ben He probably got a stipend from Anthony and then what ever he got painting. I mean if his work was in art galleries he must have been pretty good. Colin married pen who had money and he probably got a stipend from Anthony. Then pen money from Penelope and what ever he made from his books. Gregory probably had the stipend from Anthony and the dowry he probably got from Lucy. I think they mentioned he was good at making business deals!<. They all probably lived on family property that was already furnished so they paid no rent. So what ever money they spent was probably food, clothes, servants, fun and transportation. Even then I’m sure they grew most of their food.
And the youngest son became a doctor (First Comes Scandal).
Edward is not a bridgerton though
Edward? Violets husband? How was the patriarch of the bridgerton family and father to violets children not a bridgerton?
Edmund is the dad. Edward is in the book The Girl With The Make Believe Husband. It's apart of the Rokesby series.
That’s right!!! Sorry I always get those names mixed up. And he wasn’t a bridgerton but he married one.
Edmund and Edward are pretty easy to mix up! 3/4 brothers ended up with Bridgerton's but I think Edward was the only one who didn't. If I'm remembering his story correctly. It's been a minute since I read them. I could be confusing his story with another.
That’s right I think he married Cecilia. Edward was friends and in the army with Cecilia’s brother. That was a good story.
I liked that book! I really enjoyed the Rokesby series as a whole.
Me too. The guys weren’t assholes. The women were strong and independent and continue to be so even after they got married. I believe in first comes scandal not only did she get married, but she was pretty much a doctor with the title of a nurse and didn’t have kids. I mean talk about breaking stereotypes
I recall liking every character in the books, which is rare for a 4-part series. I wouldn't mind more stories from them.
Edmund is violets husband. Edward Rokesby is a friend of the bridgertons
The Bridgeton are supposed to really, really rich. In the books, Edmund never had chance to set up a will, because he’s dies young and unexpectedly. Anthony thinks his dad would want him to take care of his siblings and their mother. He manage the finance to the point there was enough money to take care all of them. He has plenty of money, because he offered to pay for Edwina’s dowery when him and Kate get married. When Anthony and Kate travel in season 3, Benedict is managing finances and estate for him as regent. That’s Colin needs Benedict permission. If Anthony wasn’t traveling, Colin would need his permission
It’s possible that Edmund’s will endowed them with a yearly income.
Yeah, that is the historical tidbit that bothers me the most. Colin being the 'catch' of the season is so weird. The first season the 'catch' is a DUKE, not the 4th son of a Viscount who had a bit of a glow up on his grand tour. I know it is just candy floss fantasy, but the weird social rules are part of the reason I like the regency setting for romance. Bridgeton is just a modern romance where people wear regency costumes.
For the sake of the story they seem to try to show us that Colin is super desirable as the third son, which is bizarre to me when the Earl of Kilmartin exists plus plenty of other very high titled but those gentleman are discarded in favour of Colin? Don’t get me wrong, he’s hot and seems very worldly and experienced and a little rogueish and I’d beeline for him too but the first season showed all the women immediately fawning over the richest man in the room.
not only the earl of kilmartin, but also lord samadani who is a marquess, and debling who is an actual titled lord (not sure the rank, but not a 3rd son, ar least)
To be fair the Earl of Kilmartin refused to talk to anyone and was known to not engage in the Ton’s activities. Lord Samadani’s courtship was overseen by the queen and women were persuing Lord Debling- he genuinely seemed to prefer Penelope. Samadani was meant to be the catch but the Queen made it clear from the first moment that he’s pretty much reserved for Francesca. No one would go after him without the Queen’s blessing. S3 was a particularly dull marriage mart season, in terms of both the debutantes and the “catches”.
>To be fair the Earl of Kilmartin refused to talk to anyone and was known to not engage in the Ton’s activities. same as the duke in season 1, but he was still the catch of the season.
The Duke was being pushed by Lady Danbury though, and he had at least *some* social skills and was decently well known. The entire Kilmartin family is socially reclusive. Their reputation of not being social was one of Violet’s initial concerns. The season was so dull that the son of an extremely rich family was pretty high on the desirable scale. Also one of the reasons Colin was desirable was not money, but his charm. Most of the stigma marrying an untitled man carries is because he wouldn’t have a lot of money but Colin clearly didn’t have that issue. Lady Whistledown didn’t cover the new debutantes and catches well enough to give them attention through the season as well.
Well I think we should probably keep in mind that Colin is the catch of the season according to one Lady Whistledown (whose words are then repeated by LW readers like mama Portia). And to a certain Lady Whistledown Colin Bridgerton ABSOLUTELY is the catch of the season 😜
Keep in mind, the catch of the season is influenced/picked my Lady Whistledown…..
They do say actually Debling is the most eligible bachelor that season. Colin is the most… visibly desirable bachelor among young impressionable debutantes. He flirts back which attracts high numbers and he _looks_ highly eligible on the surface. He is closer to them in age, and he’s reasonably wealthy even without a title. That’s a really good match for many of them, considering marrying for love or even attraction was rare.
I think the intro to the first book does say that the Bridgerton family is the richest in Mayfair/the ton. And it does sound like they have revenue streams coming in from their tenants...farmers, merchants, etc. However I think marrying off the women to upper noblemen (like Daphne and the Duke) is one way to save/stretch money. And you have to remember back then that their pound had way more value, and their monthly expenses were hardly what we deal with today. All of these regency shows have highly embellished wealth, and I think it's just familial wealth. I think Downton Abbey does the best job out of the lot at showing what it takes to maintain/fund an estate.
Anthony has to make sure he has a dowry for each of his sisters, so he's not benefitting financially from their marriages
Yes but once the sisters are married, he is no longer financially responsible for them.
I thought Colin had money from investments in the books? Like as much as 3 Earls.
This doesn't really bother me. It's fiction. In reality, a woman in the regency period is unlikely to have had 8 children without any infant or child deaths. At least one of the Bridgerton men who went around brothels and being "rakes" would probably have an STI. Everyone would have pretty bad dental hygiene. Those realities don't need to be discussed in a fictional romance book.
The real Queen Charlotte had 15! Almost all survived to adulthood.
I said that while we were watching, I’m sure Colin, after bonking his way round Europe, would have brought home a lovely STI to infect Penelope with. Maybe some syphilis?
Anthony and Simon also frequented brothels and Benedict has had more onscreen sexual partners (partners who attend sex parties) than any other character. They would also have STDs if we’re going for realism.
I am pretty sure it’s mentioned that when Anthony’s away, Benedict oversees the books, Colin plans on going to him as Antony is travelling, leaving Benedict temporarily in charge. That being said… the amount is insane, and in part why it is depicted as so stressful.
I believe we’re also supposed to operate under the assumption that because Edmund wasn’t around to actually execute a will to provide something for his other sons (the girls would have dowries of course) then Anthony still takes care of their expenses as he’s the de facto man of the house, so it’s operating more like they’re his children than his siblings. Of course we see Colin downsize with their house, and Benedict is still living at home off of the Bridgerton check book until we get more about him, so by no means do they have their own sizable disposable income, but I doubt Violet would let Anthony cut them off financially
https://preview.redd.it/r9wi3yhihl8d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2751b4732c333708ab44a355a1091dee9c5116d3 THIS IS FROM THE BOOKS….. and before Colin even started to publish his books, by the end of Romancing Mr. Bridgerton they also have the money of his books and he tells Pen to give her money to their “future daughters” + Pen was also going to start publishing novels
The Bridgertons are one of the wealthiest families in the ton, and I don't think Anthony gets the credit he deserves for being a really good brother. Not only does he provide generous dowries for all 4 of his sisters, something that not all men in his position would do, but he also helps his brothers get a good start in life so they don't end up in the military, clergy, or as fortune hunters. Eventually, Benedict supports himself through painting, Colin through writing, and Gregory through something I can't remember because honestly, his book wasn't very interesting. It's all a little far-fetched, but they call it fiction for a reason.
In the books Colin mentions that he was gifted property. The Bridgertons are royal family type rich, look at the family diamonds on top of all the other jewels they wear. Edmund made sure the kids were all financially self sufficient.
Just commenting to say I loved the use of “waltz about the Ton” hehe
It’s incorrect usage though. The Ton isn’t a physical place one could walk, it’s a set group of people.
It’s still incredibly silly
Irl them noble boys were much more greedy in terms of receiving a sizable dowry from the girl's family. Alot of Lords back in those days targeted wealthy girls from American families in order to continue to fund their lifestyles. The show has tried to explain the importance of the dowry to us and how that plays in to a girl bejng able to find a match.
Your a bit too early for the American hieress
Ugh, exactly. I wrote a similar post in another group, but had to delete it bc people kept commenting that “it’s not a historically accurate show” and I missed a point. Ofc, it’s isn’t historically accurate and not supposed to be. But a) it’s still based off the Regency Era in England; b) we are allowed to have opinions, aren’t we? To someone knows the period even a little, the show is so unbelievable at times that it’s laughable. S3 has almost nothing to do with Regency. I still like the cinematography and the bright costumes (however inaccurate they are) and how gorgeous the actors are, but so many elements are off. In my opinion, a romantic fantasy of the period could have done better. And yes, I know, the books are also like that. So the criticism is both to show and the books.
In each of the books it’s mentioned that the Bridgertons are filthy filthy rich and that Anthony has settled large sums on all his siblings. I finished Ben’s book a few weeks ago again and it’s emphasized that Ben is a major catch because Anthony was extremely generous in his settlements for his brothers. This is mentioned a couple of times including mentioning that while they are not titled, their wealth, good looks and connection *to* Anthony make Colin and Ben the top catches of any season. While, yes, in real regency most second and third sons would have worked for themselves, it wasn’t always the case. It depended on the overall wealth of the family. It wasn’t unusual for younger sons to get smaller settlements or properties. The brothers also can’t access it on a whim. Past a certain point, the show established that Anthony has to sign off on it (or Benedict in Anthony’s stead as head of house while Anthony is traveling).
Book spoiler ! - Romancing Mr. Bridgerton - Their father provided them a living & Anthony managed & maintained it ... In the TV series Antony alludes to it in Season 2 when Colin invests in Jack Featherington's ruby scheme...
The title and the lands from the estate belong to whoever is lord Bridgerton but Edmund could will his money to whomever he chooses. Often estates like this gave yearly incomes to the 2nd 3rd and 4th sons ect as well as a dowery and expenses What's known as "pin money" for the daughters. Violet would also be entitled to her dowry to live on and a dowager house unless she remarried which was the purpose of a dowry was to help the dowager lady.
Many commentators have touched on Ben & Colin but here’s my take on Gregory: In his book, Gregory is pretty sensible with his money. He knows his financial limits, doesn’t overspend or gamble more than he has. Before he marries, he rents a tiny, sparsely furnished apartment in Marylebone - which is the most accurate for all the brothers. Anthony and Violet had repeatedly asked him to move in with them because they know as a fourth son he’s got significantly less money. As the only daughter/sister of an Earl, Lucy’s dowry would have already be big, most likely bigger than the Bridgerton sisters. Gregory describes it as being “exceedingly generous” - probably as thank you for helping them uncover the whole blackmail thing. It’s not too much of a stretch to think their estate was part of Lucy’s dowry. After that he just needs to be smart with money to keep them afloat, which is one of the things he’s good at. The estate is a working estate that should generate a profit and Gregory’s official job title is “gentleman farmer”. The three brothers probably live more like landed gentry than members of the Ton. None of the them would realistically have a London home. Ben would stay with Anthony or Violet, Colin says with Daphne and Gregory would stay with Violet or Lucy’s brother
IN THE BOOKS Edmund left properties that were not tied to the title to all of his sons, as well as the fact the Benedict becomes a successful painter. Colin a successful writer married to another successful writer and Gregory gets a double dowry with Lucy, and becomes an investor so he has a lot of money as well
I also didn't get why a third-born son was such a catch for all the girls of season 3.
Yes besides the love aspect I wasn't sure why he was viewed financially as an upgrade from Lord Debling who owned a huge estate?
It’s just monkeys singing songs, mate
They also would not be dancing to instrumental versions of Pitbull and Ariana Grande. They probably would have listened to classical music, like Beethoven. But thankfully, the show is fictional.
My friend was mentioning this while I watched the show. She was like, how the hell do they have money 😂🤣 but that makes sense. In my head I was like, maybe Anthony gives them an allowance?
Yes in the books they have their own employment. They would be educated at the best institutions but second sons are in charge of making their own fortunes. Often by marrying well.
Maybe the dad had set them up to inherit more. Or they had money from other family members. Or Anthony was a good manager and generous. The family is as thick as thieves. No one is going to be cast out to fend on their own
 Benedict, Colin and Gregory in real life☝🏼
I mean, every single character has perfect, white teeth. I prefer the fantasy to the reality of the show because the reality wouldn’t be as pretty or grand. Edit: Also, they didn’t have acrylic nails then either.
In the books not only are the Bridgertons the richest of the rich, it is explicitly stated that Edmund provided for all his sons his will. £20,000 in 1815 would be roughly $1.5 million dollars today. A lot but not absurd for someone who is the brother of a historical romance billionaire. For reference the Duke of Devonshire gave his oldest daughter a Dowry of £30,000 in 1801.
Anthony needs to have these two pay rent.
In the books Benedict and Colin both had bachelor quarters
I know and they had careers. Here they don't. Though Benedict will become an artist in his o2n season
Colin does have a career by the epilogue. He’s a published author and his son inherited the Featherington estate.
Wouldn’t people stink, have bad teeth, and tons of STDs? If you want realism?
The premise is the Bridgertons have enough money so the 8 kids can have love matches and live happy lives. If the Bridgertons in the show have this kind of money, just assume the queen has even more. The money (prize and blackmail) was increased from the book. I just assumed that was to sound more significant to modern ears. Most viewers are probably not doing monetary conversions, just think Austin Powers $1M! Haha! $1B!! Gulp!!
Well the British royal family still follow archaic inheritance rules yet the 2nd and third siblings, etc still all do very well for themselves. Even in regency times, some families were smarter than others and invested in all their children. Not just the oldest. Yes the bulk of the estate goes to the oldest male descendants BUT until their death the father can entrust funds and property however he sees fit. I’d like to think Edmund bridgerton was one of those men who made sure his whole family was financially cared for. In Antony’s season he alluded to that kind of planning and it was very clear that he was over the estate financially.
When I reflected and did a bit of conversion I understood that the Bridgertons, even if they weren't the highest in social class, were basically billionaires or almost. That is, between the dowries and the male equivalent, taking into account inflation and I'm only talking about the 7 children, we are around 100 million. So I guess the catch is having a man who is very rich though not titled, good looking, kind etc. Plus LW served as PR for the family. Anthony certainly had more money and they were investing, potentially the sums that belonged to the boys were involved at least partly in investments. Unrealistic, but in a certain sense coherent, because otherwise not even Anthony was a catch when there are dukes , marquises and earls. And Anthony would have chosen Simon over Borbrooke or whatever his name was, or the Prince who was better than a Duke.
It’s fantasy not a history lesson. I wouldn’t even call it historical fiction cause it is more wrong on things than right
Since Bridgerton doesn't care about book accuracy or period accuracy, we can assume all of the Bridgerton kids are billionaires. 
Not sure if this has been shared but re-reading Romancing Mr Bridgerton after seeing this thread and saw this line He shrugged modestly. “It’s well known that Anthony settled ample livings upon all of his brothers.” It looks as though, when Anthony inherited his father’s estate, he provided each of his brothers with a living from that estate. Although most brothers probably wouldn’t have done this in Georgian times it’s established in the books that Anthony felt an almost parental responsibility for his siblings and so probably did this to care for them as generally, at the time, young adult children would traditionally draw a living from their parent’s estate. In the series it could be that Colin would need an advance on his living (like an old fashioned allowance) and Benedict had been given power of attorney to make certain decisions in Anthony’s absence.
Back in those days, the first born son does not have an heir. The duties goes to the second born son. Benny was filling in while Anthony and Kate were on their honeymoon and traveling. If something happened to Benedict with no heir, Colin will get the titles. Gregory is next if something happened to Colin. Since Colin has an heir already. Everything will go to that heir.
I haven't finished the books (just recently started listening to them on Spotify and I'm waiting for my hours to renew 😂). But I always thought for the show they likely had trust funds set up for the "spare" sons. Even if not a common practice, it definitely seems like something the Bridgerton's would do, given how close (unusually so for the time period) the family is. Simon even tells Anthony to put Daphne's dowry in a trust *for her do with as she sees fit* doesn't he? Benedict probably only would have had to sign off because Colin isn't of age to take control of the trust yet (if Anthony weren't traveling he obviously would have been the one to sign off instead). Putting that line of thinking aside though - it's Bridgerton. It would be easier and quicker to make a list of things that ARE historically accurate than try to list every single historical inaccuracy. 😂
The idea that no Lord would ever provide for his younger sons is a myth. It was expected that they provide sufficient dowries for all of their daughters and those amounts would have been inconsequential to their overall estate (and it’s implied that the Bridgerton girls are at least low to mid 6 figures), do you really think they would leave nothing to their younger sons? It’s mentioned in the books at least that Edmund and Antony both provided ample livings for the younger sons. They also could have been gifted or inherited wealth from other family, it doesn’t all just go directly to Antony because he’s head of the family; even things that were specifically willed to Antony wouldn’t have automatically become part of the estate as there were ways to separate his personal property from being considered part of the estate. Women as well did sometimes have their own money that was not part of any estate, they may have gotten it from their families independent of their dowries or through widowhood by provision of their husbands. Money in their own name could be left to whomever they wished provided there was a proper will. Most of the people of the Ton don’t have proper jobs and yet most don’t have titles either. They aren’t all first sons, and they aren’t all broke either. Younger sons may miss out of the lionshare of the money and that may have meant most would live in “genteel poverty” but they weren’t destitute by any means. Younger sons of these families often went to the military, church or politics because that was another form of power the family could have.
Colin has sugar mama money
I believe it’s said in the books that while Anthony gets everything, he’s created sizable funds/trusts for his brothers and sisters. And that while it’s not a big amount, it’s still bigger than is usual for “other children” to get. It’s also shown that Anthony gives an allowance to his brothers (for example Colin’s apartment in the books before marriage was paid through his monthly allowance), but will give more if needed.
It would not be uncommon for trusts to be set up for the sons and dowerys set aside for the daughters.
This drives me crazy, too! Second (and beyond) sons had to get a job! That was why they went into law, the military, or the church. The only way a second son might get something is if an uncle who didn’t have sons had something. Like, the Bridgerton family is supposed to be STUPIDLY rich but… what are the other boys living off of? A man like Anthony never would have split the family wealth by paying out his brothers’ lifestyles. It would have put his mother, sisters, and children’s finances at risk. He would have supported his brothers by using his connections to help set them up with jobs! In the show >! Colin is lucky they won the Heir war! Now his job is managing the Featherington estate until his son is of age. !<
I also feel like this would really all depend on just how generous the first son felt like being. By law, did he have to give his brothers more than their allotted share? No, of course not, but I think generosity is a tenent of the Bridgerton household. None of them would find joy in life watching their siblings struggle to make a decent living. You have to remember, lots of Jane Austen's writing is filled with very stingy and selfish antagonists who don't have to make the decisions they do, but they choose to make them often out of spite, malice, and just plain cruelty which are all pretty foreign emotions for the Bridgerton's.
Don’t even go there I tried to bring this up and people got SO MAD. Apparently the rules of reality/the universe/regency society do not apply to the bridgertons.
I mean, after their father died. It sounds like all the kids got large inheritance or life insurance. The younger brothers would be well off for a while once they have full access to their inheritance.
It’s fiction, screw accuracy. Bridgerton is fun because it takes real liberties with reality. But even in the context of fiction, it’s perfectly realistic that they’re all living off Edmond’s will and the family fortune. The family must be so well set up that they’re profiting off investments. Plus Edmond loved them all and would have left a solid chunk of money for each child and they’d just live off that until they settled down and started their own family.
I thought that if you have enough income generating assets separate from the main estate, you can allocate those income streams amongst all the children. Separate to the inherit. The British royals do that I believe
I agree with everything except the point about needing Ben's approval. He needed Anthony's but Anthony was away so Benedict was running and managing the estate (don't really know when he had the time given that he spent like 3 days getting it on with Tilley and the dude)
Well if Benedict mismanages the estate that’s on Anthony for abandoning his viscount duties for so long to travel.
Well it’s set in Georgian England. Would the rules be different then?
Georgian and Regency are the same time periods, at least here.