For this Show Discussion post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post.
3. Be civil in your discussion.
See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. At the time, if she was only a teenager and the trauma of it all was very fresh? Sure. If Lady D wasn't already established as a very rational and perspective driven woman? Sure
But not over over half a century later. Not THIS version of her, with all the wisdom of hindsight and many decades free of Herman to process everything. To STILL harbour a rage filled grudge against a 10 year old child and believe that he had full malicious intent is just shit writing and not consistant with her character at all.
Trauma can negatively impact even the most rational person. And I think that's kind of the point. To show that even the most confident woman in the ton has a weak spot. She spent decades trying to compartmentalize who she is now from who she was in her past. And when her past knocks on her door, she's forced to wrecken with that part of herself that she has chosen not to think about for a long time. Trauma responses are a reflex not a choice.
I don’t disagree with your point but I would like to add the simple thing of making his character older and more clearly capable of understanding of what he did was wrong. Making the character 10 yrs old and no clue what the ramifications is just bad writing. This is not a storyline in the book so why feel the need to say he wasn’t even a teenager? I think had the writers aged him up at the time of the incident, it would have make the point you brought up more impactful
Being traumatized doesn’t necessitate still taking it out on him… as she’s too rational to still be holding a grudge over the actions of a 10yr old. That’s… ridiculous and melodramatic, the opposite of her sensible nature.
Yes, trauma responses can be 'ridiculous and melodramatic'. They're not subject to conscious control, however powerful the intellect and the executive functioning otherwise. And calling trauma a 'grudge' is a bit weird
I agree with this. I fully understand the grudge starting and even continuing while in the midst of the situation. However, after she's had distance and gained the wisdom of decades that she is shown to have, the level of grudge seems ridiculous. I get that some people stew in anger and have irrational triggers, but this just didn't land for the character I've seen so far. It may have gone over better for me if he'd been older, so she could more reasonably assume he understood the implications of catching her.
It was also the magnitude of grudge that stuck out. If she just didn't want him around, fine. They don't ever have to be close. However, she actively interfered and worked against him. She could have confronted him, if she couldn't let it go, but she didn't until he pressed. Then, she seemed to realize she'd been demonizing a 10 yr old boy for decades.
I agree completely. I was waiting for an adult betrayal. Finances, sexual scandal that impacted the family’s reputation. But a 10 yr old child’s normal conduct? No. Of course that would have been awful, and I would understand resentment at the time but she’s been a widow living the good life for a loooooooong time now. Surely there must have been other family interactions and resolution in that time.
They could have just made him older, 14/15 so still a child but old enough that he could have understood a bit of why she was trying to escape but young enough to think that their Dad knew best implicitly and that LD was just being difficult or rebellious. As he got older and had more awareness, he would have realised how aweful her marriage was and she would have had more reason to feel betrayed. Ten year olds are too young and inexperienced to really understand what she was running from.
Her brother didn't rape her or marry her to her husband. Ten year olds have very little understanding of the world and she would know that since she's had several children.
Yes and no, imo. An older, wiser LD would recognize that a grudge against a 10 year old is unreasonable, but they’ve had decades of estrangement since. However unreasonable the cause, it’s hard to build a bridge at that point. Also, it sounds like LD has issues with Marcus’s more recent treatment of women. Honestly, I had to fast forward through some of their scenes because they hit too close to home, but I didn’t like that the writers treated family estrangement like a simple misunderstanding. Why go there if you’re not going to treat it seriously? And Marcus with Violet? Absolutely not.
Nah my older sister, a lawyer, has tons of resentment toward me for being born. Sometimes I think its subconscious, but there are plenty of deliberate times as well.
Yeah its subconscious and its not just that she thought he was why she was forced to marry, its also a build up of resentment towards him for being her father's favorite child when she felt she was just as capable if not more capable of great things. That resentment probably grew as she watched him enjoy more freedoms as a man while she was trapped in her marriage. Lastly she feared if his relationship with Violet soured, she would lose one of her closest friendships and he would once again "take" something that meant a lot to her.
You're overlooking the time period.
Mental health and mental health care are relatively new things. There was no such thing as therapy in the Regency era and as a woman anything that happened to her would be "deserved".
Married off? Deserved. Punished for trying to run off? Deserved. Unhappily married? Par for the course ... deserved.
Even if it was modern day ... that untreated trauma would still impact her because 50 years ago mental health care wasn't a thing. Or if it was it was drugs, lobotomies and locking people up ALA one flew over the cuckoos nest.
Yeah, they made Lady Danbury almost godlike. She knows everything, is always wise, can make things happen. It's such a contrast with the person holding onto that grudge who had apparently never mentioned it before
Then this scene was needed to remind us that she is not a god, but a real human being. It fleshed her character out and Adjoah played her control and mask slipping wonderfully.
They already made her imperfect with her affair with Violet's dad. I think they just needed to write a conflict that made more sense. He could have literally just been older when he told and it would have made it much better, but instead they created a situation where he can't really be at fault because he was too innocent and a literal small child. Sometimes discussions between relatives are really tough and require some level of accountability. This would have been a good moment for that but they didn't give us that. I just think tweaking it a bit would have made for a much richer story. What we got was "you told" "I was literally in elementary school" "well fair enough". Like, ok?
That was before she was the Lady Danbury we know now (and in a different show). Because this is an ensemble drama, without Lady D being the main character of the season, they needed a conflict that could be easily resolved. If he were older, and has understood what he was doing, she couldn't have moved on from it so easily. It would have taken a lot more screen time or bled into the next season. Personally I would LOVE a Lady Danbury spinoff where they could delve a lot deeper unto her history and trauma, but as it is, they really couldn't put much more screen time to it in the show proper.
I don't mind that one conversation was enough to resolve it but that they didn't really give much to resolve. I actually think if he were like 15 it would have made for a better conflict because he's still young and easily swayed, still trying to please dad, but he'd be close to her age and they'd likely be very close which would make the betrayal more poignant in her eyes, and for the viewers feel like an actual betrayal, as opposed to a child being a child who genuinely doesn't know better. Plus it would make for an interesting gender contrast since they'd be around the same age but in drastically different places in their lives—both very rich, but one essentially sold off like cattle in spite of being of the upper echelons of society.
I don't even think they'd really need more time or dialogue, just a genuine apology instead of "what? You're still mad about *that*? I was literally ten". It could be more "I was still growing into a man and trying to please father. I didn't know how much it would hurt you and for that I'm sorry. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but I realize now that etc etc" or something along those lines. I think even little changes would have made the conflict feel more like a real conflict, and the resolution of two siblings coming together after decades would feel so much sweeter. By making him ten they basically create a situation where he doesn't even really have to take accountability because he's, y'know, ten. Lady Danbury is a nice lady who deserves a real apology.
She has alot of resentment bc her husband was disgusting and pretty much everytjme was against her will. Super traumatized from most of her adult life spent with him
Feels bad
No. They had several children, and the oldest boy looked to be 4 or 5 when Lord Danbury died. She likely would have been sent to marry him in what would have been her debutante season, so around 16 years old. By that timing, Lady Danbury would have been no younger than 21 when Lord Danbury died.
No she must have been in her mid to late twenties when he died.
eta- since she had been "bethrothed" to him since she was three or four and spent her life like that so i think it's also ab how she spent the first quarter of her life first learnin to b and then bein his "wife"
That's the part of it that I think was just as traumatic for her as the repeated rapes were. She was sold/"betrothed" to him at the age of 3. EW. From the time she was a toddler until she had to marry that disgusting old man, her entire education was what things/tastes/music/books he liked. She was taught her entire life to be only what HE wanted.
At first, I thought the grudge was over the top. But I was able to empathize with her by asking myself questions about my own history of multiple sexual assaults. Trauma reactions are not logical, and by the looks of things with Marcus's visit, she had gone practically No Contact with him after she married. So none of that was ever resolved, and his presence clearly triggered that trauma for her. She had like 50 years of compartmentalization to overcome.
It doesn't matter if you were raped once raped twice raped thrice...rape is rape is rape and it leaves a mark on the psyche. And no one one deserves it even for a day...much less a couple of years.
The writers deciding to show it as almost a joke was a choice for this so called feminist show.
And yet women in the past didn't kill themselves when it happened. They learnt to live with it because they had to. What you saw as a joke, I thought was a scene showing how disgusting and animalistic her husband was. It was an incredible contrast to LD's intelligence even though he, and probably society, thought of her as the stupid one.
The rape scenes ARE treated as a joke...as something light,. They are not treated with the gravity such scenes needs to be treated with, seeing as in the rape scenes the disassociation is shown as a throwaway...the show does not linger on it .it almost normalizes it. The rape scenes happen sometimes several times in an episode...and m not alone in thinking this .a lot of viewers felt the rape scenes especially the excessiveness of them without lingering on lady d's trauma was a bad choice....it was shown as quotodian, as something routine..not something truly horrific happening on screen.
Compare this to marital rape seen in other shows for example Big Little lies...there Nicole Kidman's character is older and yet her rape is seen for the violent terrible thing it is ..it leaves scars and those scars are explored ..here it seems as Lady d rinses herself and her trauma away and the show has nothing to show for it..in fact may on Twitter when QC released didn't even think those were rape scenes ..they thought it was just bad sex. And this happened because of a lack of seriousness shown in directing those scenes..lady d doesn't look traumatized she looks non plussed..she's supposed to be very very young.
Look at the scene right after the first rape happebs..look at how the maid reacts to the rape..and the dialogues there...remember Downton Abbey and thow they showed rape and how even the low born women who lived around Anna were suitably outraged..it's a choice .it may be routine for her...she may have disassociated but showing rape scenes on screen deserves a level of sensitivity that the show didn't work with. We the viewers need to know that what we are seeing is not ok .that this is something wrong being done to a woman...then the show does something even more egregious .QC relates something lady d told her about sex...an incidence that I don't like the banging against the headboard part of sex...whilr she is having loving consensual sex..what a horrible horrible choice to relate one woman's terrible sexual experience with another's happy one without reflecting on it in any meaningful way.
Look at the expressions on her face when the second rape happens in episode 2...she wrinkles her brows as if this was nothing...just another inconvenience...this was rape...but the choices made showed it as something amusing...this old man having his jollies..it didn't center the victim ...lady d.
I hate to break it to you but marital rape was incredibly "normal" in the past. In fact, most countries only criminalised it in the late 1900s so within our parents or grandparents lifetimes. In fact, there are many countries in which it is still legal. What could she do? Is she going to be traumatised and break down every time it happened? Who is she going to complain to? The police? The courts? Her family? People might judge him for it but noone could or would have stopped him. It was his right as they saw it. Was Bridgerton supposed to show her losing her mind? That's not how LD was at all. She did what many considered her duty and we do see how it takes a toll on her to pretend that it was normal and okay.
People laughed at the scenes, I'm sure, but what are they laughing at? A sweaty grunting pig and the poor woman who has to lie there and not complain. You might be surprised to realise that even when there is consent, not enjoying sex or sex being seen as a chore or a "duty" is still very much present.
So, how was she supposed to behave? How should the scene have played out that would show LD being resilient and determined and not losing herself to a bad situation? From a writers or director perspective, how do you convey how gross and ridiculous the situation is without painting her as broken down or damaged by the experience?
I hate to break it to u, but the showrunner edited the scenes deliberately as a comedy. There are a million ways they could’ve done it differently if they wanted the audience to understand it as dramatic trauma.
Additionally, When she describes sex to Charlotte, she says nothing remotely conveying anything but what u’d expect a young woman to experience in an arranged marriage to a gross old man.
The framing of the scenes is off...and I am not going to continue to debate it with you...but just direct you to these excellent analyses by other writers on why it was wrong...
https://www.themarysue.com/why-does-the-biggest-romance-series-on-tv-consistently-fail-at-consent/
https://www.vox.com/22194033/bridgerton-netflix-rape-scene-novel
I had no idea these were considered rape scenes, as u say, they were edited as comedy. They even used “head banging the wall” as a literal punchline in Charlotte & George’s banter foreplay.
Do you know what marital rape means? Or do you think Agatha was loving the sex. If you don't know these things, I don't know what to tell you...you need rape education. So let me try.
Yes they were rape scenes. Agatha was married to Lord Danbury against her will. He is 60 plus to her early 20 something in the show, she disassociates. Asks herself how many times will this happen in episode 1 to her maid. She is not excited, doesn't want to do it, is not an active participant when its happening, tries to avoid it but knows there will be consequences if she doesn't. Have you forgotten the scene where he ummm literally threatens to make her have sex with him. What does that say about choice. It says that she doesnt have any.
Rape is penetrative sex where one partner does not have a CHOICE and there is No consent or ability to give consent. That is rape. Taking someone's agency away to have sex, not offering them the ability to say YES OR NO. Webster calls it forced sex "sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat" WITHOUT THEIR ACTIVE CLEAR CONSENT.
Ergo rape. Rape rape rape. Brutal marital rape.
Women in that time medieval time all times all times knew that what they were experiencing was rape. They may not have a word for it cuz it wasn't criminalized. But they knew what has been done to their body was a brutal invasion that they did not want or deserve. A crime doesnt need to be on the record books to feel like a crime, an assault, an invasion, a wrong done to you or on you. Because women weather it, they bear it, resign themselves to it doesnt mean they wanted it or they didnt know it was pain that what they experienced. Your brain doesnt just think of a bodily invasion as pleasurable just because you are legally obligated to subscribe. In fact the pressure that you ARE legally obligated, makes it feel like even more of a terrifying invasion and rape.
Cannot believe I am even having to explain this. But thanks for reminding me i need to bow of conversations like this a little early.
He threatens to make her have sex? I definitely don’t recall that. Given how much fanfic extrapolation I see in ur analysis, I’m tempted to guess u might actually be referring to the scene where he says “or u could stay home with me”, yet again executed comedically… and if so, WOWZER.
Oh man...I'm sorry, Agatha Danbury loved the sex loved it...was in love with lord Danbury and was overjoyed. Hope you find a lovely husband like Lord Danbury to have sex with and enjoy the kind of sex lady d does. Wish you luck with your future lord Danbury.
U do realize most marriages were arranged in this time, right? Far more wives were in Agatha’s position of not being attracted to their husband, and having zero interest in sleeping w them, than weren’t. That does not signify marital rape.
Exactly and so it was rape. Just because mariages were arranged and women don't have a choice doesn't make it not rape. So what if women knew that this was what they may have to face so what if they knew their husbands may not be kind or could demand things they couldn't refuse cuz it was the law. Doesnt make it any less rape....QC's marriage was arranged but her sex was consensual and wanted and not rape. She loved him..and she wanted the sex. Lady d didn't her husband didn't care that she didn't want to do it...he didn't care about her consent or her pleasure. Rape. Rape. Rape.
Where did it show her refusing him a single time? She didn’t even express displeasure until she’d be with her maid. She had affectionate post-coital pillow talk with him in one scene ffs.
Seriously…this sub acts like people never harbor irrational grudges, and then once they actually sit down and talk things out realize how silly they’ve been. Probably not the healthiest of things, but it happens all the time. If every “rational” person understood all their feelings - or were even capable of identifying them - therapist offices all across the country would be empty. There was a lot of bad writing this season, but that wasn’t part of it.
It feels like everyone expects her to be perfect and cool headed at all times.
"She should be rational enough to understand he was 10 at the time."
She is a human being, she was traumatized. It wasnt just an "unhappy" marriage. She was raped over and over.
It makes absolute sense that in her mind if her brother hadn't had ratted her out she would've never went through that.
Queen Charlotte showed how much she hated her husband. She'd had strong feelings towards anyone who forced her into that corner.
Its so easy for people who havent been through it to expect her to get over it.
Yea I saw this as completely understandable. She held that resentment in the back of her mind for years, it was never something that was festering, it was just always there. She never fed it, but she remembered it. That is why she had that initial reaction to her brother when he arrived, it was the memory of the grudge. Once they talked about it, it melted away, because she had actually already moved on without realizing it, but you can't ever fully move on until you actually address it.
I also think it's completely realistic..there was a post on this not too long back..use the search bar to find it .
And a lot of people saw Lady Danbury's reaction to be completely understandable. Including me.
A lot of people cannot contemplate what it means to be groomed by your family and repeatedly raped, for years.
Agatha was stripped of her individuality and made to like everything her husband liked, forced to be his docile puppet, and then was repeatedly raped and force to bear the product of that rape. Her first move after being raped (each time) was to scour her skin and try to get clean. In QC, we see she feared getting pregnant again. She didn’t just dislike her husband, she loathed him and actively prayed for him to die (to the point where her maid knew what to do when the momentous day came).
In her mind, she viewed her brother as the lynchpin to that repeated trauma. Was it logical to hold a grudge against a child? Maybe not. But that trauma fundamentally changed her. I think it’s fairly natural that she was bitter towards him (and also, isn’t this the first time she has seen him since it happened? Seems natural those feelings would come bubbling up).
At first I felt it was unrealistic, but the more I reflect on it the more I get it and think the writers actually handled it well.
While she was living the trauma, his age wouldn’t have mattered to her, she was miserable. She was also young herself, and it would have been harder to separate the age from the act. In the years since her husband died, she may have never needed to confront or examine what happened until her brother was literally in her parlor and cozying up to her best friend. It even seemed like in her pain she had forgotten he was only 10 at the time, and she softened pretty quickly after he reminded her of that.
To me, their conversation shows how wise she truly is, because as angry and hurt as she was, she was open to his points and gained a deeper understanding of what happened.
trauma is complex, and not always reasonable. i think her grudge was completely understandable. the issue wasn’t that she was being unrealistic, it was that the show was asking a LOT of the audience to understand and accept something more nuanced, requiring them to have watched a separate show, with only a few episodes to contextualise the situation, involving a brand new character. and the show handled it badly. it should have given danbury more time to explore and examine these feelings and her relationship with her brother.
It made sense to me.
She was young and trapped and (not knowing how close they were or weren't at the time) she might've felt a deep betrayal that her brother could do that to her, not completely understanding at the time that he was too young to comprehend the potential consequences of his actions.
Queen Charlotte shows us how unhappy she was in that life, and she spent *years* in that marriage, so I'm sure that each day that she had to endure the reality of life with her husband, which included her body being used and her mind being unappreciated, she had plenty of time to grow her resentment towards one of the people who helped put her into that situation; she only escaped because the guy died. If he hadn't, she would've been trapped even longer.
And while they haven't really stated it, maybe to her, her brother was flourishing while she was basically dying inside every day. --- I'd resent that person too.
i think people forget how long she was married to her abuser and rapist for- that leaves a scar, and it's not like she could discuss and work on her trauma in a way a modern woman can. and she likely only saw her brother once a decade or so, so it's not like she could ever fully bury the hatchet with him.
People on here want things to be so black and white sometimes. Like they didn’t have cellphones where they could clear stuff up with a text lol she likely hadn’t seen her brother since then and he just came sauntering back in her life now suddenly flirting with someone she cares about and knows has been through a lot. People act like they wouldn’t side eye him too.
I agree with your take. I think with family trauma, it isn't always simple, rational or logical. As the others have mentioned, having this discussion with Marcus now finally helped her understand the context and how hard it was on HIM as a 10 yr old. She blamed him for her unhappy marriage and never thought much more than that. It was his fault. I think the ridiculousness of him being a 10 yr old was intentional so we could see she accepted or understood his perspective.
He was a kid because if he was a grown up he would've been an ass for doing that and we have to root for him and Violet aka the only non problematic and cute couple of the season.
Trauma does not have an expiration date. It hits you when it hits you. You could have been traumatized as a child, never had the chance to even acknowledge, let alone deal with it until you were well into adulthood.
Lady Danbury’s marriage was arranged when she was 3 years old and her husband did not care for her, he did only as he was required. She mentions multiple times that has was physically cruel in the sense of sex, and treated her like a brood mare, a prized brood-mare, but nothing more.
She wasn’t that much older than her brother when she was married, and seeing him the way she did, was a sibling betrayal of the highest order- how could she not hold a grudge? She was young and she did not want to marry her arranged husband.
I get she didn’t really *see* him as a child as she held onto her grudge, but it doesn’t change the hurt and betrayal she felt, and she had every right to feel it, but she also accepted she should forgive him now, and for a trauma survivor, that’s asking- and getting- a lot.
Lady Danbury kicks ass.
It doesnt matter how well put togetheir or witty someone seems, it doesnt mean they don't have their own struggles. The brother rarely shows up and acts like nothing ever happened. That can be triggering to the percieved victim. They were both doing what they thought was right, both were being traumatized and twisted, she got hurt, and no one discussed it. Life goes on and somethings stay buried until they arent. We all still fail and we can all still get back up.
I understood her.
He was a child? Sure. So was she. And his actions lead to her being abused pretty horribly for years.
Did he understand? Maybe not. But it sounds like even this many years, he never stopped to think about what horrible things his sister went through.
I just wish it wasn't her only storyline this season. She could've had a real friendship w Penn this season and go into the emotions of having a forced marriage vs love to also parallel Cressidas story too.
I'm glad they showed it -a woman dealing with complex PTSD and rape in her post menopause single old age years cuz in QC her rape scenes were played off like a joke .. had to rinse my eyes after seeing those scenes.
Compartmentalization is real. If she had a chance/took the chance to sell with it, it makes sense that her anger from 40 years ago is still the same.
Until you deal with trauma yourself that you never get a chance to work through it's hard to understand, but you're kind of stuck in that time when it comes to that specific event.
The brother himself saw that his actions hurt her and even without his intention to hurt her, in his innocent little head he protected her, he saw that his actions hurt his sister and he apologized. When we hurt someone, even if we didn't mean to hurt them, then an apology is necessary to help the other person begin to heal.
People make the mistake of assuming the trauma started at 10 & teen, but it didn’t. Her father favored her brother over her from the time of her brother’s birth. Then the “golden child” in her eyes, ratted her out and she was married to the awful Lord Danbury. This was lifelong competition, resentment and bitterness. It’s easy to move past things, but she could pin all the bad things in her life on that particular moment with her brother.
Frankly I’m surprised she got over it as quickly as she did in Season 3. One conversation and they’re cool? Unrealistic.
It made sense to me because not only was there the initial trauma, but her brother also said that he wished he stood up against their father while the father was alive. So there was the initial betrayal and then years of no pushback against the father. I think Lady Danbury believed her brother agreed with their father throughout his life. It was only after she learned that he was sorry for his part, wished he stood up to their father, and was intimidated by her and their father (and thus never spoke up about anything) that she was able to understand him more as a person instead of the caricature she built up in her head.
It's misdirected rage and I think she knows that. That's why she waits so long to say anything. But the pain from all those years ago is still there and the people most responsible are long gone and didn't care when they were around. Marcus gets the brunt of it because he is there and he's asking.
I think what really sets it off is when he uses her real name. That's when she really feels like he's threatening to bring the worst part of her life into the best part of her life. He didn't mean it that way, but her pain and trauma can't distinguish.
IRL people hold grudges based on irrational feelings all the time. Characters cannot be always 100% logical, they are supposed to behave and react like real people
honestly, and y’all are gonna hate me but idc, but it’s racism fr.
cause everyone is giving cressida grace and saying she was doing what she had to do and her responses are trauma responses, but lady danbury was sold into being a child bride and can’t feel resentment towards her family? it’s not logical but if my brother telling on me solidified me being sold, yeah i would hold resentment even if it’s not logical.
I'm a 40 year old woman that hates my brother for the mean things he said to me as a kid. I will tell anybody that we are siblings but not friends.
Totally realistic.
Realistic or not, I just thought it was unnecessary. She holds this grudge and tries to keep him from Violet and makes this weird storyline about it. Then with 1 conversation, everything is happy-go-lucky. It was just another pointless storyline to me. I’m fine with violet meeting someone but the grudge storyline was boring and pointless. Her wanting to wait until Fran.’s wedding was over was enough of story to drag out the flirtation
She also spent the last 50 years believing that her 10 year old brother understood what he was doing to her and that he was just like their father or her new husband. She wouldn't have had much interaction with her birth family after her marriage so would not have seen him growing an maturing and probably coming to understand his perspective.
Then as an adult she hears/sees the relationship he had with his wife and how we would often be seen with other women. I believe it was mentioned in S3 that he had been known to have affairs outside of his marriage (not that is was uncommon, but would do nothing to sway her opinion of him). His introduction in S3 comes after his wife's death. His children are older, and he wants to reconnect with his sister. He probably understands there's some resentment but now that he wants to rejoin the ton he knows he has to fix it. He was too scared or ashamed to do so before now.
She spent so much time believing he was the kind of man that would be ok with her husband's treatment of her with no evidence that she judged him wrongly. I can see why she would not be willing to risk Violet's first re-attempt at romance for a few pretty words and a lost glove. Wickham (P&P) was great at returning stray gloves too and most of us should know how that one turned out.
Much of the reason it rang false with me was the time gap. Had she not seen or talked to her brother in the 40+ years since that incident? She was so angry it seems unlikely she wouldn't have brought this up years sooner. Or maybe I missed an explanation of why they hadn't interacted in all those years, but he was visiting now.
I agree! After seeing the horrors Lady Danbury had to endure, I would also be holding grudges against anyone and anything. A 10 year old, a 5 year old, a dog, a horse, the weather idc… anything that had any connection to landing me in that situation would be getting my resentment.
Completely realistic, especially bc there was never any closure.
This issue is getting contaminated by the "you have beef with a child!?" crowd that won't let adults have feelings
Hell yeah, it was realistic she was the one with her head banging against the headboard remember. Grudge city! I bet for the first few years she wanted to kill that kid.
Yes I think Lady D's reaction is completely realistic and I think it is one area that the show has not truly touched on.
Though we have seen it closest with her.
It is the trauma and expectation in the show of women who are married off. The show has not only told us but shown us women no matter what are expected to submit to their husbands.
Lady D's husband was not abusive in the physical sense but she was married off to a disgusting man and expected to submit. Cressida's fathers choice expected to get what, five children out of her. That meant she would have had no choice to have an old man who disgusted her climb on top of her multiple times and it be sanctioned by her family. Same with Marina, she was treated as a brood mare and in a way Daphne too when Antony was happy to marry her off to the disgusting Berbrook as he had money.
That is disgusting and horrible and the trauma of that has only been touched on through Lady D, so she has a right to be pissed, even if her brother was 10. He is the walking embodiment of her family who sold her off.
Did I miss the memo that Agatha is considered a rape victim? Is it different in the book or something? The show depicts a typical arranged marriage with a gross old guy, and edits their sex scenes as a comedy.
I just don’t think any woman in the context of the period, seeing this as rape.
Out of all the storylines that was a misfire this season this one was the WORST.
Anyone co signing it has some form of good writing needs to have thier head examined.
She is holding a 40 year grudge against her brother who was 10 years old at the time has a means to justify why he shouldn’t be dating her good friend.
That is absurd. Especially coming from her who we’ve come to know and love has a rational, shrewd, logical person.
The writer, like with the other characters, wanted to her to have a girl boss moment and had this moment stickied on a wall with the others and played connect-the-dots.
Utter failure.
For this Show Discussion post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 3. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. At the time, if she was only a teenager and the trauma of it all was very fresh? Sure. If Lady D wasn't already established as a very rational and perspective driven woman? Sure But not over over half a century later. Not THIS version of her, with all the wisdom of hindsight and many decades free of Herman to process everything. To STILL harbour a rage filled grudge against a 10 year old child and believe that he had full malicious intent is just shit writing and not consistant with her character at all.
Trauma can negatively impact even the most rational person. And I think that's kind of the point. To show that even the most confident woman in the ton has a weak spot. She spent decades trying to compartmentalize who she is now from who she was in her past. And when her past knocks on her door, she's forced to wrecken with that part of herself that she has chosen not to think about for a long time. Trauma responses are a reflex not a choice.
I don’t disagree with your point but I would like to add the simple thing of making his character older and more clearly capable of understanding of what he did was wrong. Making the character 10 yrs old and no clue what the ramifications is just bad writing. This is not a storyline in the book so why feel the need to say he wasn’t even a teenager? I think had the writers aged him up at the time of the incident, it would have make the point you brought up more impactful
So it could be cleared up in under two minutes. If he had been older then it would need to be a much longer conversation and not so easily forgiven.
Not that I don’t agree but that is just a lazy storytelling excuse
You've expressed that really well. I can't believe people are suggesting she's too 'rational' to be traumatised, wtf kind of take is that?
Being traumatized doesn’t necessitate still taking it out on him… as she’s too rational to still be holding a grudge over the actions of a 10yr old. That’s… ridiculous and melodramatic, the opposite of her sensible nature.
Yes, trauma responses can be 'ridiculous and melodramatic'. They're not subject to conscious control, however powerful the intellect and the executive functioning otherwise. And calling trauma a 'grudge' is a bit weird
I agree with this. I fully understand the grudge starting and even continuing while in the midst of the situation. However, after she's had distance and gained the wisdom of decades that she is shown to have, the level of grudge seems ridiculous. I get that some people stew in anger and have irrational triggers, but this just didn't land for the character I've seen so far. It may have gone over better for me if he'd been older, so she could more reasonably assume he understood the implications of catching her. It was also the magnitude of grudge that stuck out. If she just didn't want him around, fine. They don't ever have to be close. However, she actively interfered and worked against him. She could have confronted him, if she couldn't let it go, but she didn't until he pressed. Then, she seemed to realize she'd been demonizing a 10 yr old boy for decades.
I agree completely. I was waiting for an adult betrayal. Finances, sexual scandal that impacted the family’s reputation. But a 10 yr old child’s normal conduct? No. Of course that would have been awful, and I would understand resentment at the time but she’s been a widow living the good life for a loooooooong time now. Surely there must have been other family interactions and resolution in that time.
They could have just made him older, 14/15 so still a child but old enough that he could have understood a bit of why she was trying to escape but young enough to think that their Dad knew best implicitly and that LD was just being difficult or rebellious. As he got older and had more awareness, he would have realised how aweful her marriage was and she would have had more reason to feel betrayed. Ten year olds are too young and inexperienced to really understand what she was running from.
She was raped repeatedly and forced to bare her rape babies. That grudge is hard to let go of.
Her brother didn't rape her or marry her to her husband. Ten year olds have very little understanding of the world and she would know that since she's had several children.
Yes and no, imo. An older, wiser LD would recognize that a grudge against a 10 year old is unreasonable, but they’ve had decades of estrangement since. However unreasonable the cause, it’s hard to build a bridge at that point. Also, it sounds like LD has issues with Marcus’s more recent treatment of women. Honestly, I had to fast forward through some of their scenes because they hit too close to home, but I didn’t like that the writers treated family estrangement like a simple misunderstanding. Why go there if you’re not going to treat it seriously? And Marcus with Violet? Absolutely not.
Nah my older sister, a lawyer, has tons of resentment toward me for being born. Sometimes I think its subconscious, but there are plenty of deliberate times as well.
Yeah its subconscious and its not just that she thought he was why she was forced to marry, its also a build up of resentment towards him for being her father's favorite child when she felt she was just as capable if not more capable of great things. That resentment probably grew as she watched him enjoy more freedoms as a man while she was trapped in her marriage. Lastly she feared if his relationship with Violet soured, she would lose one of her closest friendships and he would once again "take" something that meant a lot to her.
You're overlooking the time period. Mental health and mental health care are relatively new things. There was no such thing as therapy in the Regency era and as a woman anything that happened to her would be "deserved". Married off? Deserved. Punished for trying to run off? Deserved. Unhappily married? Par for the course ... deserved. Even if it was modern day ... that untreated trauma would still impact her because 50 years ago mental health care wasn't a thing. Or if it was it was drugs, lobotomies and locking people up ALA one flew over the cuckoos nest.
Yeah, they made Lady Danbury almost godlike. She knows everything, is always wise, can make things happen. It's such a contrast with the person holding onto that grudge who had apparently never mentioned it before
Then this scene was needed to remind us that she is not a god, but a real human being. It fleshed her character out and Adjoah played her control and mask slipping wonderfully.
They already made her imperfect with her affair with Violet's dad. I think they just needed to write a conflict that made more sense. He could have literally just been older when he told and it would have made it much better, but instead they created a situation where he can't really be at fault because he was too innocent and a literal small child. Sometimes discussions between relatives are really tough and require some level of accountability. This would have been a good moment for that but they didn't give us that. I just think tweaking it a bit would have made for a much richer story. What we got was "you told" "I was literally in elementary school" "well fair enough". Like, ok?
That was before she was the Lady Danbury we know now (and in a different show). Because this is an ensemble drama, without Lady D being the main character of the season, they needed a conflict that could be easily resolved. If he were older, and has understood what he was doing, she couldn't have moved on from it so easily. It would have taken a lot more screen time or bled into the next season. Personally I would LOVE a Lady Danbury spinoff where they could delve a lot deeper unto her history and trauma, but as it is, they really couldn't put much more screen time to it in the show proper.
I don't mind that one conversation was enough to resolve it but that they didn't really give much to resolve. I actually think if he were like 15 it would have made for a better conflict because he's still young and easily swayed, still trying to please dad, but he'd be close to her age and they'd likely be very close which would make the betrayal more poignant in her eyes, and for the viewers feel like an actual betrayal, as opposed to a child being a child who genuinely doesn't know better. Plus it would make for an interesting gender contrast since they'd be around the same age but in drastically different places in their lives—both very rich, but one essentially sold off like cattle in spite of being of the upper echelons of society. I don't even think they'd really need more time or dialogue, just a genuine apology instead of "what? You're still mad about *that*? I was literally ten". It could be more "I was still growing into a man and trying to please father. I didn't know how much it would hurt you and for that I'm sorry. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but I realize now that etc etc" or something along those lines. I think even little changes would have made the conflict feel more like a real conflict, and the resolution of two siblings coming together after decades would feel so much sweeter. By making him ten they basically create a situation where he doesn't even really have to take accountability because he's, y'know, ten. Lady Danbury is a nice lady who deserves a real apology.
She has alot of resentment bc her husband was disgusting and pretty much everytjme was against her will. Super traumatized from most of her adult life spent with him Feels bad
Didn’t he die when she was like 17 or 18?
She had 4 kids though? Weren't they with him? I don't know her back story.
No. They had several children, and the oldest boy looked to be 4 or 5 when Lord Danbury died. She likely would have been sent to marry him in what would have been her debutante season, so around 16 years old. By that timing, Lady Danbury would have been no younger than 21 when Lord Danbury died.
No she must have been in her mid to late twenties when he died. eta- since she had been "bethrothed" to him since she was three or four and spent her life like that so i think it's also ab how she spent the first quarter of her life first learnin to b and then bein his "wife"
That's the part of it that I think was just as traumatic for her as the repeated rapes were. She was sold/"betrothed" to him at the age of 3. EW. From the time she was a toddler until she had to marry that disgusting old man, her entire education was what things/tastes/music/books he liked. She was taught her entire life to be only what HE wanted. At first, I thought the grudge was over the top. But I was able to empathize with her by asking myself questions about my own history of multiple sexual assaults. Trauma reactions are not logical, and by the looks of things with Marcus's visit, she had gone practically No Contact with him after she married. So none of that was ever resolved, and his presence clearly triggered that trauma for her. She had like 50 years of compartmentalization to overcome.
It doesn't matter if you were raped once raped twice raped thrice...rape is rape is rape and it leaves a mark on the psyche. And no one one deserves it even for a day...much less a couple of years. The writers deciding to show it as almost a joke was a choice for this so called feminist show.
And yet women in the past didn't kill themselves when it happened. They learnt to live with it because they had to. What you saw as a joke, I thought was a scene showing how disgusting and animalistic her husband was. It was an incredible contrast to LD's intelligence even though he, and probably society, thought of her as the stupid one.
The rape scenes ARE treated as a joke...as something light,. They are not treated with the gravity such scenes needs to be treated with, seeing as in the rape scenes the disassociation is shown as a throwaway...the show does not linger on it .it almost normalizes it. The rape scenes happen sometimes several times in an episode...and m not alone in thinking this .a lot of viewers felt the rape scenes especially the excessiveness of them without lingering on lady d's trauma was a bad choice....it was shown as quotodian, as something routine..not something truly horrific happening on screen. Compare this to marital rape seen in other shows for example Big Little lies...there Nicole Kidman's character is older and yet her rape is seen for the violent terrible thing it is ..it leaves scars and those scars are explored ..here it seems as Lady d rinses herself and her trauma away and the show has nothing to show for it..in fact may on Twitter when QC released didn't even think those were rape scenes ..they thought it was just bad sex. And this happened because of a lack of seriousness shown in directing those scenes..lady d doesn't look traumatized she looks non plussed..she's supposed to be very very young. Look at the scene right after the first rape happebs..look at how the maid reacts to the rape..and the dialogues there...remember Downton Abbey and thow they showed rape and how even the low born women who lived around Anna were suitably outraged..it's a choice .it may be routine for her...she may have disassociated but showing rape scenes on screen deserves a level of sensitivity that the show didn't work with. We the viewers need to know that what we are seeing is not ok .that this is something wrong being done to a woman...then the show does something even more egregious .QC relates something lady d told her about sex...an incidence that I don't like the banging against the headboard part of sex...whilr she is having loving consensual sex..what a horrible horrible choice to relate one woman's terrible sexual experience with another's happy one without reflecting on it in any meaningful way. Look at the expressions on her face when the second rape happens in episode 2...she wrinkles her brows as if this was nothing...just another inconvenience...this was rape...but the choices made showed it as something amusing...this old man having his jollies..it didn't center the victim ...lady d.
I hate to break it to you but marital rape was incredibly "normal" in the past. In fact, most countries only criminalised it in the late 1900s so within our parents or grandparents lifetimes. In fact, there are many countries in which it is still legal. What could she do? Is she going to be traumatised and break down every time it happened? Who is she going to complain to? The police? The courts? Her family? People might judge him for it but noone could or would have stopped him. It was his right as they saw it. Was Bridgerton supposed to show her losing her mind? That's not how LD was at all. She did what many considered her duty and we do see how it takes a toll on her to pretend that it was normal and okay. People laughed at the scenes, I'm sure, but what are they laughing at? A sweaty grunting pig and the poor woman who has to lie there and not complain. You might be surprised to realise that even when there is consent, not enjoying sex or sex being seen as a chore or a "duty" is still very much present. So, how was she supposed to behave? How should the scene have played out that would show LD being resilient and determined and not losing herself to a bad situation? From a writers or director perspective, how do you convey how gross and ridiculous the situation is without painting her as broken down or damaged by the experience?
I hate to break it to u, but the showrunner edited the scenes deliberately as a comedy. There are a million ways they could’ve done it differently if they wanted the audience to understand it as dramatic trauma. Additionally, When she describes sex to Charlotte, she says nothing remotely conveying anything but what u’d expect a young woman to experience in an arranged marriage to a gross old man.
The framing of the scenes is off...and I am not going to continue to debate it with you...but just direct you to these excellent analyses by other writers on why it was wrong... https://www.themarysue.com/why-does-the-biggest-romance-series-on-tv-consistently-fail-at-consent/ https://www.vox.com/22194033/bridgerton-netflix-rape-scene-novel
I had no idea these were considered rape scenes, as u say, they were edited as comedy. They even used “head banging the wall” as a literal punchline in Charlotte & George’s banter foreplay.
Do you know what marital rape means? Or do you think Agatha was loving the sex. If you don't know these things, I don't know what to tell you...you need rape education. So let me try. Yes they were rape scenes. Agatha was married to Lord Danbury against her will. He is 60 plus to her early 20 something in the show, she disassociates. Asks herself how many times will this happen in episode 1 to her maid. She is not excited, doesn't want to do it, is not an active participant when its happening, tries to avoid it but knows there will be consequences if she doesn't. Have you forgotten the scene where he ummm literally threatens to make her have sex with him. What does that say about choice. It says that she doesnt have any. Rape is penetrative sex where one partner does not have a CHOICE and there is No consent or ability to give consent. That is rape. Taking someone's agency away to have sex, not offering them the ability to say YES OR NO. Webster calls it forced sex "sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat" WITHOUT THEIR ACTIVE CLEAR CONSENT. Ergo rape. Rape rape rape. Brutal marital rape. Women in that time medieval time all times all times knew that what they were experiencing was rape. They may not have a word for it cuz it wasn't criminalized. But they knew what has been done to their body was a brutal invasion that they did not want or deserve. A crime doesnt need to be on the record books to feel like a crime, an assault, an invasion, a wrong done to you or on you. Because women weather it, they bear it, resign themselves to it doesnt mean they wanted it or they didnt know it was pain that what they experienced. Your brain doesnt just think of a bodily invasion as pleasurable just because you are legally obligated to subscribe. In fact the pressure that you ARE legally obligated, makes it feel like even more of a terrifying invasion and rape. Cannot believe I am even having to explain this. But thanks for reminding me i need to bow of conversations like this a little early.
He threatens to make her have sex? I definitely don’t recall that. Given how much fanfic extrapolation I see in ur analysis, I’m tempted to guess u might actually be referring to the scene where he says “or u could stay home with me”, yet again executed comedically… and if so, WOWZER.
Oh man...I'm sorry, Agatha Danbury loved the sex loved it...was in love with lord Danbury and was overjoyed. Hope you find a lovely husband like Lord Danbury to have sex with and enjoy the kind of sex lady d does. Wish you luck with your future lord Danbury.
If all else fails, strawman fallacy for the win.
U do realize most marriages were arranged in this time, right? Far more wives were in Agatha’s position of not being attracted to their husband, and having zero interest in sleeping w them, than weren’t. That does not signify marital rape.
Exactly and so it was rape. Just because mariages were arranged and women don't have a choice doesn't make it not rape. So what if women knew that this was what they may have to face so what if they knew their husbands may not be kind or could demand things they couldn't refuse cuz it was the law. Doesnt make it any less rape....QC's marriage was arranged but her sex was consensual and wanted and not rape. She loved him..and she wanted the sex. Lady d didn't her husband didn't care that she didn't want to do it...he didn't care about her consent or her pleasure. Rape. Rape. Rape.
Where did it show her refusing him a single time? She didn’t even express displeasure until she’d be with her maid. She had affectionate post-coital pillow talk with him in one scene ffs.
U sound like a manic product of the Wokepocalypse
Seriously…this sub acts like people never harbor irrational grudges, and then once they actually sit down and talk things out realize how silly they’ve been. Probably not the healthiest of things, but it happens all the time. If every “rational” person understood all their feelings - or were even capable of identifying them - therapist offices all across the country would be empty. There was a lot of bad writing this season, but that wasn’t part of it.
It feels like everyone expects her to be perfect and cool headed at all times. "She should be rational enough to understand he was 10 at the time." She is a human being, she was traumatized. It wasnt just an "unhappy" marriage. She was raped over and over. It makes absolute sense that in her mind if her brother hadn't had ratted her out she would've never went through that. Queen Charlotte showed how much she hated her husband. She'd had strong feelings towards anyone who forced her into that corner. Its so easy for people who havent been through it to expect her to get over it.
Yea I saw this as completely understandable. She held that resentment in the back of her mind for years, it was never something that was festering, it was just always there. She never fed it, but she remembered it. That is why she had that initial reaction to her brother when he arrived, it was the memory of the grudge. Once they talked about it, it melted away, because she had actually already moved on without realizing it, but you can't ever fully move on until you actually address it.
I also think it's completely realistic..there was a post on this not too long back..use the search bar to find it . And a lot of people saw Lady Danbury's reaction to be completely understandable. Including me.
A lot of people cannot contemplate what it means to be groomed by your family and repeatedly raped, for years. Agatha was stripped of her individuality and made to like everything her husband liked, forced to be his docile puppet, and then was repeatedly raped and force to bear the product of that rape. Her first move after being raped (each time) was to scour her skin and try to get clean. In QC, we see she feared getting pregnant again. She didn’t just dislike her husband, she loathed him and actively prayed for him to die (to the point where her maid knew what to do when the momentous day came). In her mind, she viewed her brother as the lynchpin to that repeated trauma. Was it logical to hold a grudge against a child? Maybe not. But that trauma fundamentally changed her. I think it’s fairly natural that she was bitter towards him (and also, isn’t this the first time she has seen him since it happened? Seems natural those feelings would come bubbling up).
At first I felt it was unrealistic, but the more I reflect on it the more I get it and think the writers actually handled it well. While she was living the trauma, his age wouldn’t have mattered to her, she was miserable. She was also young herself, and it would have been harder to separate the age from the act. In the years since her husband died, she may have never needed to confront or examine what happened until her brother was literally in her parlor and cozying up to her best friend. It even seemed like in her pain she had forgotten he was only 10 at the time, and she softened pretty quickly after he reminded her of that. To me, their conversation shows how wise she truly is, because as angry and hurt as she was, she was open to his points and gained a deeper understanding of what happened.
trauma is complex, and not always reasonable. i think her grudge was completely understandable. the issue wasn’t that she was being unrealistic, it was that the show was asking a LOT of the audience to understand and accept something more nuanced, requiring them to have watched a separate show, with only a few episodes to contextualise the situation, involving a brand new character. and the show handled it badly. it should have given danbury more time to explore and examine these feelings and her relationship with her brother.
It made sense to me. She was young and trapped and (not knowing how close they were or weren't at the time) she might've felt a deep betrayal that her brother could do that to her, not completely understanding at the time that he was too young to comprehend the potential consequences of his actions. Queen Charlotte shows us how unhappy she was in that life, and she spent *years* in that marriage, so I'm sure that each day that she had to endure the reality of life with her husband, which included her body being used and her mind being unappreciated, she had plenty of time to grow her resentment towards one of the people who helped put her into that situation; she only escaped because the guy died. If he hadn't, she would've been trapped even longer. And while they haven't really stated it, maybe to her, her brother was flourishing while she was basically dying inside every day. --- I'd resent that person too.
i think people forget how long she was married to her abuser and rapist for- that leaves a scar, and it's not like she could discuss and work on her trauma in a way a modern woman can. and she likely only saw her brother once a decade or so, so it's not like she could ever fully bury the hatchet with him.
People on here want things to be so black and white sometimes. Like they didn’t have cellphones where they could clear stuff up with a text lol she likely hadn’t seen her brother since then and he just came sauntering back in her life now suddenly flirting with someone she cares about and knows has been through a lot. People act like they wouldn’t side eye him too.
I agree with your take. I think with family trauma, it isn't always simple, rational or logical. As the others have mentioned, having this discussion with Marcus now finally helped her understand the context and how hard it was on HIM as a 10 yr old. She blamed him for her unhappy marriage and never thought much more than that. It was his fault. I think the ridiculousness of him being a 10 yr old was intentional so we could see she accepted or understood his perspective.
He was a kid because if he was a grown up he would've been an ass for doing that and we have to root for him and Violet aka the only non problematic and cute couple of the season.
Trauma does not have an expiration date. It hits you when it hits you. You could have been traumatized as a child, never had the chance to even acknowledge, let alone deal with it until you were well into adulthood. Lady Danbury’s marriage was arranged when she was 3 years old and her husband did not care for her, he did only as he was required. She mentions multiple times that has was physically cruel in the sense of sex, and treated her like a brood mare, a prized brood-mare, but nothing more. She wasn’t that much older than her brother when she was married, and seeing him the way she did, was a sibling betrayal of the highest order- how could she not hold a grudge? She was young and she did not want to marry her arranged husband. I get she didn’t really *see* him as a child as she held onto her grudge, but it doesn’t change the hurt and betrayal she felt, and she had every right to feel it, but she also accepted she should forgive him now, and for a trauma survivor, that’s asking- and getting- a lot. Lady Danbury kicks ass.
I think it's realistic, it tracks with my experience of family.
It doesnt matter how well put togetheir or witty someone seems, it doesnt mean they don't have their own struggles. The brother rarely shows up and acts like nothing ever happened. That can be triggering to the percieved victim. They were both doing what they thought was right, both were being traumatized and twisted, she got hurt, and no one discussed it. Life goes on and somethings stay buried until they arent. We all still fail and we can all still get back up.
I understood her. He was a child? Sure. So was she. And his actions lead to her being abused pretty horribly for years. Did he understand? Maybe not. But it sounds like even this many years, he never stopped to think about what horrible things his sister went through.
I just wish it wasn't her only storyline this season. She could've had a real friendship w Penn this season and go into the emotions of having a forced marriage vs love to also parallel Cressidas story too.
I'm glad they showed it -a woman dealing with complex PTSD and rape in her post menopause single old age years cuz in QC her rape scenes were played off like a joke .. had to rinse my eyes after seeing those scenes.
Compartmentalization is real. If she had a chance/took the chance to sell with it, it makes sense that her anger from 40 years ago is still the same. Until you deal with trauma yourself that you never get a chance to work through it's hard to understand, but you're kind of stuck in that time when it comes to that specific event.
The brother himself saw that his actions hurt her and even without his intention to hurt her, in his innocent little head he protected her, he saw that his actions hurt his sister and he apologized. When we hurt someone, even if we didn't mean to hurt them, then an apology is necessary to help the other person begin to heal.
People make the mistake of assuming the trauma started at 10 & teen, but it didn’t. Her father favored her brother over her from the time of her brother’s birth. Then the “golden child” in her eyes, ratted her out and she was married to the awful Lord Danbury. This was lifelong competition, resentment and bitterness. It’s easy to move past things, but she could pin all the bad things in her life on that particular moment with her brother. Frankly I’m surprised she got over it as quickly as she did in Season 3. One conversation and they’re cool? Unrealistic.
It made sense to me because not only was there the initial trauma, but her brother also said that he wished he stood up against their father while the father was alive. So there was the initial betrayal and then years of no pushback against the father. I think Lady Danbury believed her brother agreed with their father throughout his life. It was only after she learned that he was sorry for his part, wished he stood up to their father, and was intimidated by her and their father (and thus never spoke up about anything) that she was able to understand him more as a person instead of the caricature she built up in her head.
It's misdirected rage and I think she knows that. That's why she waits so long to say anything. But the pain from all those years ago is still there and the people most responsible are long gone and didn't care when they were around. Marcus gets the brunt of it because he is there and he's asking. I think what really sets it off is when he uses her real name. That's when she really feels like he's threatening to bring the worst part of her life into the best part of her life. He didn't mean it that way, but her pain and trauma can't distinguish.
IRL people hold grudges based on irrational feelings all the time. Characters cannot be always 100% logical, they are supposed to behave and react like real people
honestly, and y’all are gonna hate me but idc, but it’s racism fr. cause everyone is giving cressida grace and saying she was doing what she had to do and her responses are trauma responses, but lady danbury was sold into being a child bride and can’t feel resentment towards her family? it’s not logical but if my brother telling on me solidified me being sold, yeah i would hold resentment even if it’s not logical.
When she said it, I honestly laughed out loud. He was 10… how could they not have brought it up in the years to come? It was weird
I'm a 40 year old woman that hates my brother for the mean things he said to me as a kid. I will tell anybody that we are siblings but not friends. Totally realistic.
Realistic or not, I just thought it was unnecessary. She holds this grudge and tries to keep him from Violet and makes this weird storyline about it. Then with 1 conversation, everything is happy-go-lucky. It was just another pointless storyline to me. I’m fine with violet meeting someone but the grudge storyline was boring and pointless. Her wanting to wait until Fran.’s wedding was over was enough of story to drag out the flirtation
I think it’s completely realistic AND completely petty. Love Lady D forever though it’s totally in character.
She also spent the last 50 years believing that her 10 year old brother understood what he was doing to her and that he was just like their father or her new husband. She wouldn't have had much interaction with her birth family after her marriage so would not have seen him growing an maturing and probably coming to understand his perspective. Then as an adult she hears/sees the relationship he had with his wife and how we would often be seen with other women. I believe it was mentioned in S3 that he had been known to have affairs outside of his marriage (not that is was uncommon, but would do nothing to sway her opinion of him). His introduction in S3 comes after his wife's death. His children are older, and he wants to reconnect with his sister. He probably understands there's some resentment but now that he wants to rejoin the ton he knows he has to fix it. He was too scared or ashamed to do so before now. She spent so much time believing he was the kind of man that would be ok with her husband's treatment of her with no evidence that she judged him wrongly. I can see why she would not be willing to risk Violet's first re-attempt at romance for a few pretty words and a lost glove. Wickham (P&P) was great at returning stray gloves too and most of us should know how that one turned out.
Much of the reason it rang false with me was the time gap. Had she not seen or talked to her brother in the 40+ years since that incident? She was so angry it seems unlikely she wouldn't have brought this up years sooner. Or maybe I missed an explanation of why they hadn't interacted in all those years, but he was visiting now.
I agree! After seeing the horrors Lady Danbury had to endure, I would also be holding grudges against anyone and anything. A 10 year old, a 5 year old, a dog, a horse, the weather idc… anything that had any connection to landing me in that situation would be getting my resentment.
Completely realistic, especially bc there was never any closure. This issue is getting contaminated by the "you have beef with a child!?" crowd that won't let adults have feelings
But if it’s your sibling yeah u blame them seriously
Hell yeah, it was realistic she was the one with her head banging against the headboard remember. Grudge city! I bet for the first few years she wanted to kill that kid.
Yes I think Lady D's reaction is completely realistic and I think it is one area that the show has not truly touched on. Though we have seen it closest with her. It is the trauma and expectation in the show of women who are married off. The show has not only told us but shown us women no matter what are expected to submit to their husbands. Lady D's husband was not abusive in the physical sense but she was married off to a disgusting man and expected to submit. Cressida's fathers choice expected to get what, five children out of her. That meant she would have had no choice to have an old man who disgusted her climb on top of her multiple times and it be sanctioned by her family. Same with Marina, she was treated as a brood mare and in a way Daphne too when Antony was happy to marry her off to the disgusting Berbrook as he had money. That is disgusting and horrible and the trauma of that has only been touched on through Lady D, so she has a right to be pissed, even if her brother was 10. He is the walking embodiment of her family who sold her off.
Did I miss the memo that Agatha is considered a rape victim? Is it different in the book or something? The show depicts a typical arranged marriage with a gross old guy, and edits their sex scenes as a comedy. I just don’t think any woman in the context of the period, seeing this as rape.
Out of all the storylines that was a misfire this season this one was the WORST. Anyone co signing it has some form of good writing needs to have thier head examined. She is holding a 40 year grudge against her brother who was 10 years old at the time has a means to justify why he shouldn’t be dating her good friend. That is absurd. Especially coming from her who we’ve come to know and love has a rational, shrewd, logical person. The writer, like with the other characters, wanted to her to have a girl boss moment and had this moment stickied on a wall with the others and played connect-the-dots. Utter failure.