These are excellent points and I'm sure viewing habits will change over the next few years - as they have been over the last decade or so.

Bridgerton feels (ironically) like a bridge. It's an interesting example of seeing a diverse cast representing a mono-cultural experience. That's why it doesn't really ring true and why there's seemingly a lot of backlash. Caroline of Brunswick was a white German woman, it was unlikely that non-white people occupied as many positions in court as the show suggests.

If the roles were reversed, it would be considered offensive to have white actors portray historically black characters in a historically black environment. What would the reaction be to a diverse casting of a Beverly Jenkins adaptation? This isn't about scoring points for one side or the other - but identity politics gets very confused about what it's trying to achieve in the real world. It wants integration and separation, and colour blind casting, but not at all times. It's a contradictory mess of people pulling in different directions.

Bridgerton is still a culturally white story seen through the lens of a black showrunner and with a talented and diverse cast. I'd like for stories to move past 'this is for white people' and 'this is for black people' narrative - I'd just like 'this was a blood good story' - and I'd like those stories to be drawn from everywhere and written by anyone with the skill to write them and performed by the best people to do the job regardless of their skin colour. That's my idea of what progress looks like though - and that isn't shared by everyone.

In order to make progres, we need to stop fixating on the cast, the creatives and whether the narratives themselves score political points for identity politics - and just enjoy them for what they are - good stories. Bridgerton is flawed, but it's progress. It's a step in the right direction and I hope that it opens the door for some Beverly Jenkins adaptations.