After Lady Dandbury: For Wives Whose Gardens Never Bloomed

What if marriage as a tool to preserve chastity is just a myth we sell ourselves?

So much has been opined about the character of the young Lady Dandbury in the weeks since Netflix/Shondaland’s Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton story was released. And while I may have a great many opinions — on the make-up choices for her husband’s character, and the sheer number of times we had to sit through gratuitous scenes of their “lovemaking”, or the choices of partners she ‘entangled’ with after becoming a widow (and may or may not write about those later) — this is a medium for sexual and reproductive health education (especially for women from conservative religious background) so I’m going to stay in my lane.

Disclaimer — 1. Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen the series, and spoilers aren’t your thing, now’s the time to back off reading this. Come back after your binge!

2. If you have objections to watching this kind of media, for whatever reason, you don’t need to watch it on my account; I’m about to spoil a huge chunk of what is needed to understand this essay, specifically the young Lady Dandbury’s plot.

Agatha Dandbury was a young beautiful African woman of royal bloodlines (from Sierra Leone) married to an old, objectively unattractive and demonstrably inconsiderate husband of similar background, living in London as part of the marginalized wealthy but racialized sections of Society. Between aforementioned gratuitous scenes of “lovemaking” where she’s wincing, grimacing, yawning or making otherwise disinterested faces while he grunts and ruts above or behind her, (and if that was cringe to read, imagine having to sit through it, or — like the women this piece is about — live it!), we see her maneuver her way into a title, public acceptance by the ton, genuine female friendships and — after her husband’s inglorious death — personal and sexual liberation.

The parallels of the young Agatha Dandbury to the many, many Muslim wives I have come across in my years as a reproductive health physician are uncanny. A young girl prepared solely for the life of being a wife and mother, her ignorance of sex and the horror stories of her wedding night “…I did not know what to expect. He was old and impatient. All of it was painful and quite terrifying!”, the marital relations that did not improve with time and brought her no joy, the husband who so clearly only cared about his own gratification, her eventual loathing of and bitterness toward him and his memory (even their children, the result of the act she had to endure.) The reasons seem to be similar too -

1. Undesired (usually early) Marriage — any attempt to have a conversation about how early marriage may contribute to the disenfranchisement of girls and women is usually met with staunch defensiveness from religiously conservative folks. And I get it, we do not want (our kids) to fall into premarital sex. I concede that there may, under the right circumstances, be a case for young people (at an age legally recognised in their locality) being supported in marriage where they begin life and explore their sexuality together. What is more common and fraught with greater potential hassles, however, is marrying off a young person (let’s face it, it is almost always girls) to a much older spouse (almost always a man).

The implications of such a power imbalance within marriage, an already imbalanced structure in almost all conservative religious cultures, is beyond the scope of this essay — except for where it often produces a husband who cannot, or cannot be bothered to try to, satisfy his wife sexually. Like Lord Dandbury, these men are too old, or too set in their ways, or never considered sex as anything beyond seeking their own pleasure, or… to put in the time and effort required to fulfill the sexual needs of a wife they view as barely more than chattel. And the wives, for reasons shown below, suffer.

2. Lack of sexual and reproductive health information — Conservative religious populace, wives especially — inversely proportional to age at marriage — but husbands, too, are collectively lacking in correct SRH information. Like Agatha Dandbury (and the queen she was trying to educate — “You do know what I mean when I say ‘consummate’?” — in a classic case of the blind leading the blind) we see this manifest in women as horror ‘wedding night’ stories, incorrect assumptions about and an aversion to sex (and to their partners), resulting eventually in resentment and marital rancor. Of course, an environment where the woman does not feel empowered enough to voice her dissatisfaction compounds the problem.

In men, lack of proper SRH information manifests as holding / perpetuating false ideas, (“women don’t enjoy sex” / the whore-madonna binary/ porn-ified ideas of what is good sex) erectile dysfunction (usually premature ejaculation), performance anxiety, low self esteem for being unable to satisfy their wives which may lead to aggression and other forms of marital rancor.

3. Silence and the culture of shame– in an ideal setting, with equally matched and considerate partners who are willing to learn together, sexual education and exploration should help a couple find their groove. But silence and the culture of shame in most religiously conservative societies means bad marital sex persists, because ‘proper XYZ women do not talk about sex.’ Not in a serious or meaningful way that can impact a change, anyway. We can hint at it, giggle and titter, titillate the about-to-wed or taunt the unmarried with it, but any attempt to seriously address the issue of sexual education is met with shame.

So the Lady Dandburys endure. They do not know it doesn’t have to be this way, that some people enjoy the marital bed. Or they do, and have tried, but their “Lord” would not listen/ cannot be bothered/ will label them a whore, because “how did you know all that?!”

4. Lack of resources / help — The Lady Dandburys of our communities endure because they have no other options. They accept their lot, becoming staunch soldiers of the “a wife is always patient” narrative, unknowingly painting a bleak picture of what should be a fulfilling — yes sexually, too — union. They tell young brides “… do not think of it as something to enjoy, more of a chore…” after being married for years, as part of their ‘marital preparation talk,’ with no sense of irony whatsoever. These are the women who preach the gospel of ‘marriage is a duty” and, when they are being most vulnerable, “it can be a painful, lifelong sentence.”

Of course, this only reinforces the narratives that feed this problem in the first place — that sexual desire and its gratification is a male prerogative, that “good” women merely endure/ tolerate (bad) sex, that men do not need to try beyond what gets them off/ catches their fancy (especially in this porn-demic most of them inhabit) that trying to improve sexual relations, even among lawfully wedded partners is shameful… And the carousel never stops!

In the one-woman confines of my medical practice, the Lady Dandburys I meet are either ignorant, desperate or resigned. The former are a bittersweet bunch because any help offered will, unless their husband is willing and loving and patient, move them into the desperate group. This second group knows that they are missing out. Some even know what they are missing out on, and are usually constrained — or otherwise — only by their religious convictions, or the limit thereof. The last group, who may or may not be bitter, have usually found a way — sanctioned or not — to cope with their deprivation. In light of these (many and not-fictional) Lady Danburys, I often question the idea that (especially early) marriage is a tool to preserve chastity; whose chastity, exactly?!

Of the entire six episode series that is Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, the characters we see having ‘unlawful’ intercourse were currently/ previously married to someone else. And yes, one of them was Lady Dandbury, whilst she was still in mourning after the death of her husband. To hear her tell it, years later, her “garden never bloomed” until then; she hadn’t even been aware that it could bloom! Her ‘gardener’ was of a similar age to her husband, was not especially attractive, but “he was kind.” He spent time with her, listened to her, and valued her opinions and that was apparently all it took.

I have pondered how we, as a community who uphold sex to be lawful only in the context of marriage, show up for the Lady Dandburys amongst us? How do we ensure lawful sexual satisfaction within our sanctioned marriages? What can an individual do?

I say, have these conversations, no matter how uncomfortable. Confront the culture of silence and shame in your immediate circle of influence by engaging in open and candid discussions where necessary / appropriate. Facilitate the dissemination of factual sexual and reproductive health information within our community, especially to marriage-aged members. Send this article to someone; like and follow this page, this medium is specifically for disseminating SRH information. Finally, do not be afraid to seek expert help.

In addition, we need to promote a culture of healthy sexual exploration between lawful spouses unhindered by false narrative on, especially female, sexuality. Every married person should be invested in sexually satisfying their partners. Women do not want/ deserve this less than men.

Finally, speak up and stop marrying off our young (girls) against their wishes and/ or to partners they do not find desirable.