It’s disturbing that historical fiction, especially television, is so often used as evidence of some type of historical precedent. Regardless of the subject’s accuracy, television shows are ultimately written to evoke an emotional response which can’t help but color the viewers perception of the historical events. For instance, in Downton Abbey, part of the drama involves the relationship between the staff and the nobility. The focus on this specific type of relationship may make the viewer believe it was more or less prominent than in reality.
In the right hands some fiction is perhaps the best evidence for some history. As Engels (who was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) says:
> I have learned more [from novelist Honoré de Balzac] than from all the professed historians, economists, and statisticians of the period together.
Speaking more generally, in the right hands all fiction provides fantastic evidence for some history. As Lenin says about Tolstoy:
> The contradictions in Tolstoy's views are not contradictions inherent in his personal views alone, but are a reflection of the extremely complex, contradictory conditions, social influences and historical traditions which determined the psychology of various classes and various sections of Russian society in the post-Reform, but pre-revolutionary era.
> That is why a correct appraisal [!] of Tolstoy can be made only from the viewpoint of the class which has proved, by its political role and its struggle during the first denouement of these contradictions, at a time of revolution, that it is destined to be the leader in the struggle for the people's liberty and for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation—the class which has proved its selfless devotion to the cause of democracy and its ability to fight against the limitations and inconsistency of bourgeois (including peasant) democracy; such an appraisal is possible only from the viewpoint of the Social-Democratic proletariat.
How this applies to Downton Abbey or Bridgerton is an interesting dilemma. I seriously doubt most people who watch these shows are equipped to make the "correct appraisal."
Why are you assuming that Engels and Lenin made the "correct appraisal?" To me, these examples illustrate that they both used fiction inappropriately. Just because Engels and Lenin are notable humans doesn't make them infallible.
Imagine you were having a discussion with someone about some topic, and your discussion partner said:
> I have learned more from [some novelist] than from all the professed historians, economists, and statisticians [who study the topic].
Would you really consider that a well-reasoned opinion?
He's replying to an aspiring author who sees Engels as an authority on the matter, and he's giving an account of the structure of a new genre of literature (realism) and using its greatest representative (Balzac) to do so. Presumably she takes Engels to be an authority for the same reason many do today: he's one of the best read people to have lived and he was on the frontier of every domain of science for which he had utility. (See the lasting impact of his Anti-Dühring.)
My intent was to provide an entry point into the rich domain of Marxist literary theory by the authority of two of its most important progenitors. Engels and Lenin were crucial in developing an apparently important way of studying and creating history. I figured this is a relevant addition to the conversation because I am gesturing to a positive answer to the gaping question that you opened: what is it that makes a historical interpretation "correct"? Unless perhaps your intent was to leave it agape, which is fit for the postmodernist ideological realm in which Downton Abbey and Bridgerton were written in the first place.
If you want an alternative example, the same argument applies to India's caste system.
If people agree that the caste system is correct, is it still classist? I'd say yes, because it enforces the maintenance of classes, and assigns people different opportunities based on their class.
The substance of the opinions matter more than the consensus
But the caste system was explicitly based on the idea that people in different "castes" cannot possibly relate to one another. By contrast, one of the most recurrent themes in Victorian-age fiction is the trope that even "low-class" people can oftentimes embody supposedly-'elite' moral values and standards of behavior a lot better than actual members of the elite do. Thus essentially flipping the whole idea of virtue signaling on its head.
The sad/bizarre thing is that I've seen a number of serious articles/commentery that Queen Charlotte was actually black or biracial, which is basically invented nonsense. Even if you give too much credence to a piece of her ancestry 15 generations back, given all the intermarriage of European royalty, most of Europe's royals have Madragana as an ancestor, including King George III.
I think this is especially sad because there are much more fascinating true stories of European nobility with Sub-Saharan ancestry, e.g. the famous Russian poet Alexander Pushkin's great grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, was black.
The series is consciously playing with race. Certainly Charlotte didn't look like that, but her slightly-mixed racial background was inspiration for designing the character that way. Similarly, her costuming is patterned after pre-revolutionary France.
Other Regency-period movies are probably more accurate with respect to people's complexions -- pasty white, uniform, and bland. Bridgerton isn't designed to give you a photograph of what you might see were you in the Regency court.
Rather, it's designed to give you a sense of what it might have felt like: diverse, colorful, exciting. To focus on Charlotte's face is to miss the ways in which everything about the show is inauthentic -- the clothing, the language, the dances -- but also deeply in love with the period that inspires it. The couldn't have played with the tropes so consistently without knowing them very, very well.
There is also a lot more to be said about the way real race affected real people at the time. We should have more TV shows and movies, rather than this being the only one.
I agree with you, but I was basically joking about Downton Abbey. Main point was that your opportunity being largely determined by your birth circumstances in the UK in Victorian (and, honestly, much later - ever see the Up! series, which is not fiction) times is very well supported by non-fiction sources.
You see a similar thing with fantasy television being interpreted as evidence towards non-fantastical elements of medieval life, when they really represent our modern feelings towards the past more than anything else.
