Critical response
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 80 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10. The website's consensus reads: "A resplendent romance between two of the most interesting characters in the Bridgerton saga, Queen Charlotte is a spin-off that arguably perfects the primary series' formula." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, has assigned a score of 76 out of 100 based on 30 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
Time ranked the series on The 5 Best New TV Shows of May 2023. Judy Berman of the same magazine wrote that the plot "It’s a neat explanation and one that works well thematically, if not historically" found out that "Rhimes’ reimagined 18th century England has much in common with the contemporary U.S. It's a multicultural society, but one that is in the midst of a painful transformation". Lucy Mangan of The Guardian gave 4 out of 5 stars, defining the series as a "gorgeous six-episode romp from Shondaland" and "a rare exception to the rule of prequels and will hopefully set many of its younger stars on the road to success" especially appreciating the acting of Amarteifio. Nicole Vassell of The Independent pointed out that "Queen Charlotte delivers everything a Bridgerton fan could want . . . with touches of social commentary that feel refreshing, rather than preachy".
The Hollywood Reporter's writer Angie Han found the story a "delectable romantic treat", writing that "Queen Charlotte is the tension between the cotton-candy fantasy that’s made Bridgerton so beloved with the thornier ground already laid out for the central couple by the core series" in which "the challenge ultimately yields a spinoff that’s richer and more complex than the flagship series". Lorraine Ali of Los Angeles Times wrote that "lighthearted romance and romps in the gilded bed still play starring roles, and the prequel offers plenty of splendid scenery", appointing that "there is finally a gay love affair in the 'Bridgerton' franchise, perhaps in response to criticisms that the series lacked a same-sex relationship, but the subplot does not feel engineered or obligatory. It naturally dovetails with all the other affairs of the heart". Alison Herman of Variety wrote that Queen Charlotte "offers an ideal metaphor for what the best spinoffs can do; [...] In its brevity, Queen Charlotte can strip down the broad ensemble of 'Bridgerton' into a more focused story". Inkoo Kang, writer of The New Yorker, appointed that "this counter-history is hardly convincing as a remedy to ingrained prejudice. [...] But this is also an alternate universe where eighteenth-century musicians play twenty-first-century pop hits and the reigning English monarch is toe-curlingly handsome, so let us feel free to exercise some suspension of disbelief".
Historian S. I. Martin, who specializes in Black British history, described the series as "an absurd take on Black history" and accused it of "inviting, or fomenting, the forgetting or overlooking" of the "time when Britain was the largest trader in human lives on the planet". Gretchen Gerzina, author of Britain's Black Past, fears that the series' race twisting "gives people a pass to say, 'Oh, it was all right. They didn’t suffer and they were wealthy.'"
.jpg?width=400){kind=small}
