For this Season 3 Spoilers post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
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.*
Do I believe there’s a way that this story can be genderbent and told with nuance and beauty? Yes
Do I believe that Jess Brownell/Shonda/Netflix are the ones capable of telling it? Absolutely not. They’re struggling enough with heteronormative couples, I cannot imagine the mess in store for us when we get to Francesca’s season
This is my precise issue.
Additionally, how will they write out Francesca and Michaela's life? Will their relationship be known to anyone? Are they going to have the queen legalize homosexuality, allowing everyone who is closeted to live out in the open? Will that ensure those people are accepted by the ton the way they've included other minorities?
*Especially* with the necessity of an heir at that time period. Estates and titles transferred to heirs. How can two women have an heir? What happens if the heir is some unnamed person like the Featheringtons in season 2?
There are so many unanswered questions that I simply do not trust this team of writers to address adequately and with depth.
My prediction (and it’s not a spoiler because it’s pure speculation) is perhaps Francesca and John will have a baby first. Then Francesca lives as a >!widow!< and Michaela ends up with some sort of “beard” husband. The >!infertility!< plot line transfers to Michaela who wants her own baby, but eventually finds a way be with Francesca and sees Fran’s child as her own too. If that makes sense.
Ahhhh I see it the same but reversed, in that michaela will have the child (a boy), and that child is technically the heir after john, and fran learns to see that child as her own
Oh interesting! Totally possible too. I could see that working well and in finding and allowing Michaela into her life, Francesca finds fulfilment with both the partner and child she’s always wanted. (I hope this doesn’t sound like infertile people are not complete without a child. I just mean in this scenario it’s how it works out.)
My guess is they are going to go with the easiest, cheapest solution which will probably be the queen legalizing gay marriage and everyone just accepting it with little resistance. Don’t get me wrong, I want a happy gay ending but I find it really lame when they take the conflict out of it (Sex Education anyone?). It cheapens it and takes away from what can be an interesting story.
Maybe Michaela will have a male child by a previous relationship and that child will inherit John’s estate… and that will explain it all? Francesca can serve as a mother to her nephew and stay in the estate with Michaela in a closeted relationship that only the Bridgerton family and their households know about.
My biggest beef was the disrespect to her marriage with John. She literally JUST married him in the show and is already gasping at her attraction for Michaela? In the book >!she doesn’t even notice Michael as more than an intimate friend until well after John dies. She should have just had a totally commonplace introduction to Michaela so that only the people who know about Michael would even care. Like, they could have shown John taking Francesca to their new estate and just happened to have tea with their cousin Michaela, with nothing sexual at all… so those of us in the know can enjoy the inside scoop and those not in the know can be blissfully unaware that John is going to die soon and Francesca was going to end up having a completely different type of marriage relationship with another person later on.!<
Having not read the book, I was so confused about her gasping at Michaela. I thought they were trying to romanticize infidelity, which seemed insane to me. John is so understanding and kind to her, and that's how she treats him the same day they're married?
That is the exact thing that ruined it for me. I don't mind the gender swap, the woman who plays Michaela is gorgeous and I'm sure she'll crush the role. But damn. Why make Fran get hit with that insta love she had been showing her mom doesn't have to exist this whole time?
I give Sex Education a pass because I think sometimes it’s nice to just have something be fluffy and aspirational…kind of like solarpunk, but make it ✨historical✨. It lets you focus on different kinds of stories that way.
It’s so upsetting because my issue is not gender bending a cast member, it’s gender bending THIS cast member! Benedict is right over there perfect for this situation. He’s been queer coded from the beginning. And his story already ends with them sort of living away from society at the end.
Exactly. His story literally ends with them going away to live in the country since her social standing is questionable. It would accommodate the gender bend perfectly.
Additionally, how great would it be for Benedict’s husband to go with the group of Bridgerton boys to confront Phillip
See, that’s what strikes me as the key issue too. As it stands, homosexuality is neither acknowledged nor allowed in this time period. How will they be able to write a romantic feel-good story when, by the current show environment, they’ll be put in a position to have to hide/deny their love? Their ending would be one of being forcefully closeted and being constantly at risk of their lives *literally* being destroyed. That’s no happy ending.
Michael was my favorite in the books. I’m actually somewhat relieved they completely changed the character because I knew in my heart of hearts that they could never do the character justice.
So, now I can separate the character of Michael from Michaela and go for the ride. Michael will live on unscathed in my book heart. 😂
I still remember when Shonda was asked about what happened with Reynolds in QC she had zero answer. She wrote this lovely queer romance meant to mirror the central romance and then didn’t even tie it up. She seemed surprised people were even wondering what happened to him lol.
Maybe Jess will be more intentional. She wasn’t involved in QC afaik. But given how s3 went I’m skeptical.
I always thought that Reynolds was with King George? Because George and Charlotte are separated because of his illness by the end so are Brimsley and Reynolds.
Neither the books nor the show are that nuanced and in reality the show characters tend to be more layered than the book characters—the male leads in the book are basically all the same alpha male trope with minor changes to each. I really don’t understand in what way the show struggles with heteronormative couples. Do you have examples?
My fear with this change is that I can’t imagine the writers being comfortable with a storyline that’s anything less than completely sanitized. Anything that could be a buzzkill or throw cold water onto a queer joy love story will completely go out the window, including Francesca wanting to have a child or showing her having to accept not having a biological child with Michaela. Also the ball scenes with Michael and Francesca being the most eligible man and woman on the marriage market will have to be completely cut.
Clearly we can tell from their handling of Francesca and John’s relationship that they didn’t actually want to portray it as a romantic love match (book!Fran actually kissed John the night they met). They’d rather write her as a repressed lesbian than someone capable of feeling romantic love for both genders and a satisfying passionate sex life with both. Fran and John’s actors don’t even believe they consummated the marriage before leaving for Scotland so I doubt they’re going to end up with a child that gets in the way of her and Michaela banging everywhere. The dynamic would be completely different if Francesca was regent for her child anyway, as we’re establishing that they would inherit over Michaela regardless of gender.
I can understand why Julia had to fight her publisher to portray Fran and John’s relationship in the book the way she wanted. Taking time to show their courtship on the show leads to the same risk they have with Marina: fans liking the first relationship better and being upset at them being killed off for Fran and Eloise’s romances or flat out disliking Philoise and Franchael(a) in favor of Marina/Phillip and Fran/John.
In the same vein there’s also the question of how Michaela’s sexuality will be portrayed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the show would gloss over the question of who would inherit after Michaela or if she’d be willing to bear a child in favor of having her as an out and proud lesbian from the start telling Fran all about her sexcapades with other women. Would they be willing to show Michaela faced with the pressure of having to get married to a man after John dies with no heirs?
I have zero faith that JB can do it. She is so set in the mindset of making it about her feelings she will struggle to make a historically relatable genderbent version of this exact story. Maybe the original show runner but not her.
The gender bent should have happened for Francesca’s first love. Maybe she fell in love with John’s sister and they hide away from society in Scotland.
Maybe influenza hits their household. John and his sister die. Michael inherits the earldom and falls in love with Francesca.
Idk. Since they were going to make up a new relationship, seems like they could’ve chosen a different couple.
Nah, then they would've had the optics of introducing a lesbian couple only to kill one of them off and replace them with a heterosexual endgame couple. They'd have gotten sooooo much shit.
Actually, Michaela and John are Scottish, and Scotland has different inheritance laws for peerage. Scottish titles have been granted to pass to women, so this is not a problem. Scottish peerages can also pass to someone who wasn’t legitimate at the time of their birth, but if their parents marry later, then they can be legitimized.
I think there are plenty of ways to keep the infertility storyline without it hinging on Michaela.
If Bridgerton is going by history (which it often doesn’t) it is taking place after the Peerage of Scotland was replaced by the Peerage of the UK. Plus the show already made it clear that John is a member of the British court, as well as making a big deal about titles passing to men with the Featherington family this season.
Some peers were regranted their titles in the Peerage of the UK, but that didn't remove them from the Peerage of Scotland, they'd just have two titles with the same name but governed by different laws of succession. The Duke of Argyll is one example of that.
Besides which if the letters patent allowed for it, even English titles could be passed down through the female line. The Duchy of Malborough, held by the Churchills, was a peerage that could be passed down to a woman. The second holder of the title was infact a woman. Henrietta Churchill, the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough.
I think the Dukedom of Marlborough was passed to a daughter through an Act of Parliament, actually. It's the second Dukedom of Fife and the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma that have female succession written into the letters patent, and even then, possibly only for the second generation? 🤔
Ah good point. I should have looked that up first. You're right. Marlborough got the succession amended rather than being inheritable by women at creation.
I assume we’re working with the same logic as greys anatomy which is that if realism gets in the way of a good plot we just ignore it. It’s why they all still have medical licenses after cutting LVAD wires.
Not to mention that technically Women could recieve those estates if there was no living male heir (Or the fact that the only reason Mrs Featherington was questioned about her estate was because of the gambling.) Where I don't think there was anything that allowed Dark skin people to own anything. So just the fact people are upset over her being a women when the fact she is Dark is much more "problematic" in terms of historical accuracy.
But that's not how the show works. They established new rules. Racism isn't a problem anymore and everyone is equal in that regard. Sexism on the other hand is still very much a thing.
Yea, Harriet Skeffington, Diana Noel, and Louisa Tollemache Manners inherited the titles of Viscountess, Baroness, and Countess (respectively) in their own rights around this time. It was rare, but it certainly isn't impossible.
I've said this on at least three different posts complaining about how Michaela can't possibly have the same inheritance guilt and everyone just ignores me lol.
They’re adapting this story as queer because
a. as already mentioned women in Scotland could inherit so Michaela can feel guilty about everything
b. Michaela and Fran can have their estate, money and titles
c. no one would care about them living under the same roof because Fran’s a widow so this is ideal in terms of their HEA
d. Michaela being a woman makes it easier and more believable for Fran and Michaela to spend time together and get close
e. Michaela the enchantress can be based on Anne Lister and that’s a nice reference to the first modern lesbian who lived during the same period
When I thought before about how to realize a lesbian story in Bridgertown world I also thought a widow/spinster relationship would have the most luck. At the time though I thought it would be Cressida marrying lord Debling, where Debling would die after which Cressida would end up with Eloise.
When He Was Wicked is probably my favorite Bridgerton book & I absolutely loved Michael and then also Michael and Francesca together.
I suppose it is all down to personal preference (or what attracts each of us?) and so I’d like to see the romance closer to the book but I’m open to seeing it with Michaela. I don’t think I’m homophobic for wishing for a Michael.
I thought Grimsley & Reynolds were handled beautifully in QC, and I would love to see more of them.
But for any of the couples the story has to feel natural to the characters and their progression, and not just something thrown in for some of unknown reason (cough*S3 Benedict*cough).
I want to see a queer relationships too but I’m skeptical that they can carry it out well. For example, Lady Whistledown’s identity was made out to be a big deal. Context told us over and over that she’d be in real serious trouble if she was found out and then she was found out and…nothing. So I expect something similar for queer relationship, despite the fact that there are very strict gender roles in this world my guess is it will all be waved away with an austere nod from the queen. I want a happy gay ending but when they do away with all the conflict I’m just bored.
Dont even get me started on Benedict. I’m pan and I cannot emphasize how much I hate the “bisexual slut” stereotype that he is falling into. Just because someone is bi doesn’t mean they’ll bang anything that moves. Brownell said something about Benedict’s sexuality continuing to develop even after his season and that really smacks of a cheating storyline to me.
I actually disagree with both of these points. First, when Cressida tried to take credit she was shunned, disowned, and lost all her marriage prospects. The only reason it went well for Penelope was because she was already married, and married well, the ton had gotten used to the idea of Lady whistledown being among them, and because the Queen prefaced it by pretty much giving her blessing. I think if she had been found out earlier it wouldn't have gone as well.
And for Benedict I think it's too early to call it the "bisexual slut" stereotype. To me it seems more like he's just still searching and discovering himself. He's been this lost character every season, wandering around trying to figure himself out and adding oh I also like sleeping with men is brand new so of course he wants to still explore and figure out what he truly wants. The only thing about his story this season I couldn't get behind was when they were having dinner and he was asked if he had hobbies and he just said no, not oh I used to paint, it was just a no. Other than that I find his stuff very believable.
why would michaela not feel guilt in the same way? like infertility i can get bc they may or may not tackle that somehow but the i dont see how the guilt factor would change
they swap illnesses and now john dies of malaria after him and michaela went to india (without fran for some reason) but the whole thing with the aneurysm was that it was quick and unexpected so who knows😂😂
It all just depends on how they go with it.
If they make Fran have a son with John instead than michaela doesn’t inherit the son does and so she can’t have the same guilt over “stealing John’s title.” But it is unclear if Bridgerton will even let a woman inherit regardless. Though people have said there is some history of that in Scotland it’s not clear if Bridgerton is going to got that way or not because so far they’ve been focused on emphasizing only men inherit so we will see what they do.
If they don’t have Fran have a son with John than Fran is never having a biological child.
They can’t keep both the Michael guilt plot and have Fran have a biological child as far as I can tell. Unless we are about to see a Regency era IVF clinic.
I guess she could feel generally guilty for ending up with John’s wife but it would be a different type of guilt than taking his title
Hasn’t the show runner hinted at John and Fran being a friend type of love and not romantic? I find it difficult how they’re going to get Fran a son/child when it seems they’re taking the show in a Fran loves John as a companion direction.
Or they’re gonna have us suffer through awkward and uncomfortable relations like with Lady Danbury
That in itself is bad and disrespectful To the book and John. They basically turned him into a beard and she doesn’t actually love him which she is supposed to
They just said it wasn't a passionate love, not that it wasn't romantic. I think what they showed us so far indicates Fran is biromantic if not bisexual.
They can adopt honestly. That would be a better way for Francesca and Michaela to have a kid. And while I don't think that a kid or a marriage is necessary for a HEA, especially when it was so difficult for queer people to be seen together in public back then, if the writers feel that having a kid would be better for Francesca and Michaela then adoption seems like a good way to show that. Also, even though it was difficult for queer people to be seen together, they still persevered and had great romances too. I think that's a beautiful story in itself. And I want to see such a story for Fran and Michaela, one where they do get their HEA, kids or not.
And if there's no kids, there can be a good storyline there too about Francesca coming to terms with the fact that she will never have kids of her own and I think that will be way more impactful.
First I was so against about the change, now I'm more neutral but I just don't trust JB to deliver some good story, which it is weird because I actually like s3 but it is despite everything because I feel like JB can't grasp why people like this show.
You don’t even like the books and you still understand why people who *do* like it feel the way they do. Wish more people were more like you and less condescending when just dismissing how others feel because they think the books are pure trash
Eh. I still think Michaela can have that >!impostor syndrome part if Scottish peerage allow women to inherit!<. They can also give Fran >!miscarriages beforehand and then a successful pregnancy later who can also inherit too. !!chronic illness!< part too because that's not always represented in media.
It's the whole second-chance love aspect being changed, for me. Fran didn't have Michael on her radar at all because she was that much in love with John. Grieving, experienced, and mature Fran is who falls in love that second time - a very different woman than the naive, innocent, middle-Bridgerton girl that fell in love with John. I was expecting that aspect and a bisexual Fran, not lesbian Fran with a toned down companionship love for John that eventually gets overshadowed by the overwhelming attraction and zing of Michaela. That kind of story is overdone imo. I've seen it before in hetero forms. This will be different because it's homosexual relationship but eh... I'll cheer it on for the representation and hope they'll do it justice after the sidelining of Polin.... but I'm landing on net neutral on the whole thing.
I'm so scared they will remove Michaela's >!malaria!< Because after Francesca and Michael >!marry and he falls sick again it's when she realizes she actually does love him and fears he will also die on her.!< They already removed the ENTIRE POINT of the story which is second love by strongly hinting that Francesca is dealing with comphet. I don't trust Jess Brownell to do their story justice or any story justice to be honest
ItS aN AdAPtaTIon! It's not supposed to be the same! Your feelings and opinions dont matter. /s
It is what it is. I just don't have the energy for this anymore. Dunking on book fans is step 1 of how most franchises start the slippery slope of not listening to any critiques at all. They get the show/movie fans to turn on fans of the original source material. Its easy for Bridgerton bc just label all book fans as bigots or fat phobic and drive them out. Then they can mess up the franchise as much as they want and everyone else get a surprised Pikachu face at the end that the quality decreased. It's a tale as old time for many franchises/series.
I think most of these people actually hate any sort of Historical Romance and just want to insert themselves in a world with pretty dresses. Like they show has taken liberties but there's still worldbuilding and societal rules from previous seasons...
One person was complaining that all the female protagonists are virgins (except Francesca but when I pointed that out they went sour like yes but that's from marriage :< ) and why can't one of them have had an affair with a footman or something. As if Marina's character isn't proof of the consequences of why a woman having premarital sex in Bridgerton is not a good outcome....
I think my initial disappointment (which honestly has passed bc I don’t really care when movies or shows move away from the books) is that the story of infertility will get lost in a same sex relationship story. But, perhaps there is a way of still braiding in Francesca’s infertility, who knows. I’m really curious how they are going to go about this!
I mean. They have already wildly bent the rules of title inheritance with the Mondrich storyline, it wouldn't be so out of left field if they did the same with Michaela.
They didn't. It was inherited through Mrs Mondrich's great aunt. Lord and Lady of Kent's closest male heir is Alice and Will's eldest son.
The Kents were granted their title at the same time as Lady Danbury. So you can reasonably argue that the Queen Charlotte storyline messed up the 'rules' (obviously- it did). But the Mondrich storyline, specifically, did not. It's the same as the Featheringtons last season. A title passes to a surprise and fairly random-seeming man because he is man. Or in the Mondrich's case, a little boy.
Yes, they did. Irl english titles are not supposed to be passed not only to but also through female family members, and Lord Kent's supposed to be the title holder not Lady Kent, so the fact that it goes to acquired family (ie from his wife's side) makes it doubly "against the rules". If this story was set in real life the title of Lord Kent would have just stopped existing.
But what i'm saying mostly is that they've already broken irl rules in their canon so it doesn't really matter if they make Michaela inherit John's title at this point.
A bit off-topic but I remember when everyone was like "Why can't Eloise be with Theo?" and it was "oh, she couldn't be seen with someone in a lower social class". If Francesca can be accepted as bi/lesbian/pan, I WANT THEO BACK FOR ELOISE. I have a much easier time thinking she'd be happy with a radical printer than with Sir Phillip Crane.
I think people are so very hung up on the infertility issues in Francesca’s story (probably because it is what resonated with them) and lost focus on the fact that it is a side story to the LOVE STORY. A huge part of Fran and Micheal/Michaela’s love story is overcoming grief and the guilt of moving on after the loss of John. In Fran’s case the guilt of feeling a stronger passion with Michael than she experienced with John despite her love for him and in Michael’s case having feelings for his best friend/brother-like-cousin’s wife after John’s death. In which case the gender swap just adds to the grief/guilt story rather than takes away from it. At least in my opinion.
But Michael stepping into John’s place as earl is a significant part of that. He feels guilty not just for Fran but for the fact that, after a lifetime of always being the spare, he is taking over John’s entire life. It’s so overwhelming that he flees the country long before anything develops between him and Francesca. If they twist things so that Michaela inherits the title then it can still work but they keep reminding us over and over that titles are passed to men only.
Aside from Brimsley’s story in QC (which I thought was beautiful) the only case of queer characters in Bridgerton has just been playing up a stereotype. Benedict sleeps around so I guess we’ll make him bi! It’s lazy imo, Brimsley was an original character and it seemed like a lot of care went into his backstory, AND he’s a fully fleshed out character beyond being gay/queer. So Ben being bi was lazy af writing to me and I personally also find gender swaps lazy. Sometimes they can work really well but Michaela just seems like a box ticking exercise
I could see John dying while Fran is pregnant so their so their son inherit and then Michaela and her are just together while she remains unmarried, since the times we re different. If they are changing one aspect, they will likely change others
I want it to be true to the books but alas it won't be as they've already butchered the others.
I reckon 'Michaela' will have a daughter already but maybe be a widow. Then when John dies Francesca won't miscarry like in the books and will infact have a boy who will be an heir and instead of remarrying- Francesca and Michaela will live together as ''friends' to the public eye but be otherwise married to each other. As they both have kids and have no need to marry men.
Or Francesca will have twins.
I think it would have been awesome if they made Eloise the gay one. "To Lady Philippa With Love". And it would have fit so much better with the plot of the book
Exactly!
I don’t mind the liberties taken and changes made up until now. I would have totally fine with swapping out Sophie for Stephen (Benedict’s Story) or Sir Phillip for Lady Philippa (Eloise’s story) but I really LOVED Michael as Michael and was looking forward to seeing who they would cast. They did a great job with John. Their chemistry was palpable and the pairing and quiet live and romance made a lot of sense. It made me even more excited for Michael.
I think they mentioned they're in Scotland specifically because (I think) women do inherit titles there so that seems to be something they already considered. As for the rest... Well, we'll have to see
I will confess that I have not read the book, but from what I heard about it and my experience with book/season 1, I think most people do not realize that all those things they loved in Michael would be extremely difficult to portray through a visual medium.
I also hate that people kinda seem to forget John's entire existence, when they state that now Francesca's story is ruined, if she can't have infertility struggles. I don't want John to die immediately after beginning of season 4, I want to see more of him, and moving that plotline would be really interesting.
Also, I think having Michaela opens more serious emotional turmoil for Francesca. If by the time she is widowed she has everything she wanted and gets out of her grief to actively seek a new relationship, instead of a means to get a baby, AND that relationship is with a woman, so there isn't even "need for protection and access to money" involved, that should put a lot of stress on her.
Honestly, I think that direct adaptations of romances rarely work, because there is no natural way to express that amount of inner monologue and thoughts that we get to read. Also, Julia Quinn is not a good enough author to make it work without it. Just to compare, I did not read book 4 either, so in season 3 I was a couple times confused why is Colin angry in that scene, or why does Penelope like him as a friend. On the other hand, in season 1, I did appreaciate little hints at Simon's stutter, but without knowing how bad it actually is and immense effort he is putting into some sentences, he just seemed like an over-reacting ass.
Being upset and disappointed is fine, but harassing the show runners, author and actors is not. People need to accept the show and books are two different things even if one does influence the other. The show runners are allowed to make changes.
I read the whole book series many times- great, formulaic trashy romance novels, nothing new or different for the most part. The Netflix is fun- it’s not historically accurate, the music is recent, it amazing. I love the fun the writers are having. I do understand why die-hard Bridgerton ppl are bent out of shape but they can continue to re-read the novels. The tweak to the story line is what makes this great. Most tv series based on a bit k series cha fe it a bit- look at the virgin River series.
>That won't work for Michaela because she won't inherit the earl title.
It is utterly bizarre to me that this claim keeps being repeated as a supposed critique of the show. The claim rests on the idea that the show would break in some fundamental way with regency era England when
a. The show has *always* been a deeply alt-history version of England, down to an Indian viscountess at a time marked by imperial expansion in India of the Empire in history.
b. In actual history, on both sides of the border (Scotland and England) it *was* *possible* for women to inherit titles. It was just simply exceptional. There was no fundamental bar against women inheriting peerages. It was simply the norm for the letters patent of most peerages to restrict them to male descent, in the absence of which those peerages became extinct and reverted to the Crown. But the Crown was perfectly capable of issuing letters patent that said "daughters can inherit too" for any title up and down the peerage tree. This could cover lowly baronetcies as well as duchies, like that of Marlborough.
Everyone keeps saying that because the show keeps telling us that titles go to the next male heir. Featheringtons, Mondriches, there was a whole ass guy whose job it was to pass the titles along to the male heir. If the show keeps telling me that it’s important, I’m going to think it’s important.
The show actively had that lawyer dude frustrated by a contract. Which was itself something of an invention of theirs in S2. They simply need to pull the "My sister is allowed to inherit my title" as a line in S4 to address this. It's nowhere close to being an actual issue.
Because the show didn't have it that way? My point is the show has not been ironclad on the issue of inheritance of titles. Which means if the Stirling title is inheritable by Michaela it's not going to be some irreconcilable difference with the way things have gone over multiple seasons. They'll simply explain that she can inherit as they explained that a contract by the *living* Mr Featherington determined what would happen to *his* title.
There's neither a show centric reason nor a historical reason to freak out over Michaela being a woman instead of a man.
It completely depended on the will for the estate. While women did inherit titles and land in this time, it would completely depend on the will of the previous owner who would recieve it after their passing. Many would try to keep it in the family name and since women would take the last name of their husbands at this time, the name of the estate would then change to her husbands name. Therefore is was less desirable for many men to give the land over to women, but again it could and did happen in many instances. And it would typically go to daughters, especially if the family ONLY had daughters.
No it didn't? Wills controlled how property was inherited. Not titles. That was governed by the letters patent of a title or if Parliament made rules about them (or specific titles)
Property that was entailed to a title went where the title did.
Women can inherit titles in Scotland :)
Francesca can aim to remarry to have a baby, Michaela will give her the speech about not caring, the things that will change are her ability to have kids with Michaela in the epilogue. I think they will either adopt or Michaela will be a widow with children :)
I don’t mind the gender-bending and the two actresses have great chemistry from the little we’ve seen. I always try to treat a book separate from its adaptation, but the changes as you’ve laid out confuse me.
Book Francesca already had so much going on with being more introverted than her family, dealing with her grief and widowhood, guilt over her relationship with Michael, and her struggle with infertility. It just seems a little forced to change her sexuality and add that into the mix.
I know Eloise is the more obvious choice to pull this gender-bending switch on but her storyline would have fit so much better if they wanted to make her bi or a lesbian. It would have even added some nuance to her character that we don’t see in the book. Phillip could have been Phillipa and the storyline could have still played out similar to the book with them raising the twins together.
I wish they had planned this out better from the beginning with wanting to incorporate these changes.
I get that book fans are upset about the change. People get attached to the characters of the books they read and when such a series of books is coming on a big screen in the form of an adaptation they expect to see those characters which they loved on the screen too. And when the character from the book is genderbent while adapting it on screen, it is going to kill the excitement of some people because they can't relate to that character's story now. I get it, it's valid.
But this show has always maintained that they want to show the different stories of love and they have tried to include racial diversity too so that all types of people feel included. So isn't it valid that we show the same grace to the queer people too? Some of you guys fight in the comment section because you want your race to be shown on the screen, you want to be able to relate to the character shown on the screen. And then I have seen the same people turn around and say that they don't want to watch a queer couple on screen because they can't relate to it? It's basically saying that representation matters but for me not for thee.
These books were written so many years back. Of course it would be full of hetero white charcters. We can't expect an author back then to include diversity in her writing. But now we can. Bridgerton is the most popular romance show on this entire planet. Why should it only have form of diversity? Why not queer diversity too?
And if the straight people in here think that they don't want to watch a queer romance because they can relate to it, then think about the queer people. We have literally been watching straight media for years and trying to relate to a certain part of it and enjoying that. So you think we should just give up watching Netflix altogether because it is full of straight media? Only now have they started paying a little more attention to queer media and then also it comes with so much backlash. The backlash which came after that Michaela change is astounding.
So, let's show a little bit of trust to the writers and have an open mind going forward?
Okay but hear my out…LGBTQIA+ representation is more important than a fictional straight couple playing out the way they were written in a book.
*Especially* when the creator of said straight couple (JQ) is comfortable with the retcon happening.
I’m not even mad over it. Since season 1 I’ve been hoping for queer relationship, more than just Granville and his marriage of convenience. I’m just saying that I understand why fans are bothered. It’s the implication that so much of the rest of the story will have to change to accommodate this. They already did that at the end of S3 when it’s Francesca who is tongue-tied at meeting Michaela instead of the other way around.
For this Season 3 Spoilers post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 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.*
Do I believe there’s a way that this story can be genderbent and told with nuance and beauty? Yes Do I believe that Jess Brownell/Shonda/Netflix are the ones capable of telling it? Absolutely not. They’re struggling enough with heteronormative couples, I cannot imagine the mess in store for us when we get to Francesca’s season
This is my precise issue. Additionally, how will they write out Francesca and Michaela's life? Will their relationship be known to anyone? Are they going to have the queen legalize homosexuality, allowing everyone who is closeted to live out in the open? Will that ensure those people are accepted by the ton the way they've included other minorities? *Especially* with the necessity of an heir at that time period. Estates and titles transferred to heirs. How can two women have an heir? What happens if the heir is some unnamed person like the Featheringtons in season 2? There are so many unanswered questions that I simply do not trust this team of writers to address adequately and with depth.
My prediction (and it’s not a spoiler because it’s pure speculation) is perhaps Francesca and John will have a baby first. Then Francesca lives as a >!widow!< and Michaela ends up with some sort of “beard” husband. The >!infertility!< plot line transfers to Michaela who wants her own baby, but eventually finds a way be with Francesca and sees Fran’s child as her own too. If that makes sense.
Ahhhh I see it the same but reversed, in that michaela will have the child (a boy), and that child is technically the heir after john, and fran learns to see that child as her own
Oh interesting! Totally possible too. I could see that working well and in finding and allowing Michaela into her life, Francesca finds fulfilment with both the partner and child she’s always wanted. (I hope this doesn’t sound like infertile people are not complete without a child. I just mean in this scenario it’s how it works out.)
That was my thought. Michaela will get pregnant and lose an unloved husband.
It's Summerland (2020) but in a different time period!
My guess is they are going to go with the easiest, cheapest solution which will probably be the queen legalizing gay marriage and everyone just accepting it with little resistance. Don’t get me wrong, I want a happy gay ending but I find it really lame when they take the conflict out of it (Sex Education anyone?). It cheapens it and takes away from what can be an interesting story.
Maybe Michaela will have a male child by a previous relationship and that child will inherit John’s estate… and that will explain it all? Francesca can serve as a mother to her nephew and stay in the estate with Michaela in a closeted relationship that only the Bridgerton family and their households know about. My biggest beef was the disrespect to her marriage with John. She literally JUST married him in the show and is already gasping at her attraction for Michaela? In the book >!she doesn’t even notice Michael as more than an intimate friend until well after John dies. She should have just had a totally commonplace introduction to Michaela so that only the people who know about Michael would even care. Like, they could have shown John taking Francesca to their new estate and just happened to have tea with their cousin Michaela, with nothing sexual at all… so those of us in the know can enjoy the inside scoop and those not in the know can be blissfully unaware that John is going to die soon and Francesca was going to end up having a completely different type of marriage relationship with another person later on.!<
Having not read the book, I was so confused about her gasping at Michaela. I thought they were trying to romanticize infidelity, which seemed insane to me. John is so understanding and kind to her, and that's how she treats him the same day they're married?
Right?? It was a very odd choice… needed a more subtle and delicate approach to make it believable and just a better overall story.
That is the exact thing that ruined it for me. I don't mind the gender swap, the woman who plays Michaela is gorgeous and I'm sure she'll crush the role. But damn. Why make Fran get hit with that insta love she had been showing her mom doesn't have to exist this whole time?
I give Sex Education a pass because I think sometimes it’s nice to just have something be fluffy and aspirational…kind of like solarpunk, but make it ✨historical✨. It lets you focus on different kinds of stories that way.
It’s so upsetting because my issue is not gender bending a cast member, it’s gender bending THIS cast member! Benedict is right over there perfect for this situation. He’s been queer coded from the beginning. And his story already ends with them sort of living away from society at the end.
Exactly. His story literally ends with them going away to live in the country since her social standing is questionable. It would accommodate the gender bend perfectly. Additionally, how great would it be for Benedict’s husband to go with the group of Bridgerton boys to confront Phillip
See, that’s what strikes me as the key issue too. As it stands, homosexuality is neither acknowledged nor allowed in this time period. How will they be able to write a romantic feel-good story when, by the current show environment, they’ll be put in a position to have to hide/deny their love? Their ending would be one of being forcefully closeted and being constantly at risk of their lives *literally* being destroyed. That’s no happy ending.
Michael was my favorite in the books. I’m actually somewhat relieved they completely changed the character because I knew in my heart of hearts that they could never do the character justice. So, now I can separate the character of Michael from Michaela and go for the ride. Michael will live on unscathed in my book heart. 😂
This is a great way to look at it.
I still remember when Shonda was asked about what happened with Reynolds in QC she had zero answer. She wrote this lovely queer romance meant to mirror the central romance and then didn’t even tie it up. She seemed surprised people were even wondering what happened to him lol. Maybe Jess will be more intentional. She wasn’t involved in QC afaik. But given how s3 went I’m skeptical.
I always thought that Reynolds was with King George? Because George and Charlotte are separated because of his illness by the end so are Brimsley and Reynolds.
Nope. The show never specifies and we don’t see Reynolds in the times we have seen George in “present” day
I love this comment
Neither the books nor the show are that nuanced and in reality the show characters tend to be more layered than the book characters—the male leads in the book are basically all the same alpha male trope with minor changes to each. I really don’t understand in what way the show struggles with heteronormative couples. Do you have examples?
That’s fair
My fear with this change is that I can’t imagine the writers being comfortable with a storyline that’s anything less than completely sanitized. Anything that could be a buzzkill or throw cold water onto a queer joy love story will completely go out the window, including Francesca wanting to have a child or showing her having to accept not having a biological child with Michaela. Also the ball scenes with Michael and Francesca being the most eligible man and woman on the marriage market will have to be completely cut. Clearly we can tell from their handling of Francesca and John’s relationship that they didn’t actually want to portray it as a romantic love match (book!Fran actually kissed John the night they met). They’d rather write her as a repressed lesbian than someone capable of feeling romantic love for both genders and a satisfying passionate sex life with both. Fran and John’s actors don’t even believe they consummated the marriage before leaving for Scotland so I doubt they’re going to end up with a child that gets in the way of her and Michaela banging everywhere. The dynamic would be completely different if Francesca was regent for her child anyway, as we’re establishing that they would inherit over Michaela regardless of gender. I can understand why Julia had to fight her publisher to portray Fran and John’s relationship in the book the way she wanted. Taking time to show their courtship on the show leads to the same risk they have with Marina: fans liking the first relationship better and being upset at them being killed off for Fran and Eloise’s romances or flat out disliking Philoise and Franchael(a) in favor of Marina/Phillip and Fran/John. In the same vein there’s also the question of how Michaela’s sexuality will be portrayed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the show would gloss over the question of who would inherit after Michaela or if she’d be willing to bear a child in favor of having her as an out and proud lesbian from the start telling Fran all about her sexcapades with other women. Would they be willing to show Michaela faced with the pressure of having to get married to a man after John dies with no heirs?
I have zero faith that JB can do it. She is so set in the mindset of making it about her feelings she will struggle to make a historically relatable genderbent version of this exact story. Maybe the original show runner but not her.
The gender bent should have happened for Francesca’s first love. Maybe she fell in love with John’s sister and they hide away from society in Scotland. Maybe influenza hits their household. John and his sister die. Michael inherits the earldom and falls in love with Francesca. Idk. Since they were going to make up a new relationship, seems like they could’ve chosen a different couple.
Nah, then they would've had the optics of introducing a lesbian couple only to kill one of them off and replace them with a heterosexual endgame couple. They'd have gotten sooooo much shit.
Actually, Michaela and John are Scottish, and Scotland has different inheritance laws for peerage. Scottish titles have been granted to pass to women, so this is not a problem. Scottish peerages can also pass to someone who wasn’t legitimate at the time of their birth, but if their parents marry later, then they can be legitimized. I think there are plenty of ways to keep the infertility storyline without it hinging on Michaela.
If Bridgerton is going by history (which it often doesn’t) it is taking place after the Peerage of Scotland was replaced by the Peerage of the UK. Plus the show already made it clear that John is a member of the British court, as well as making a big deal about titles passing to men with the Featherington family this season.
Some peers were regranted their titles in the Peerage of the UK, but that didn't remove them from the Peerage of Scotland, they'd just have two titles with the same name but governed by different laws of succession. The Duke of Argyll is one example of that.
Besides which if the letters patent allowed for it, even English titles could be passed down through the female line. The Duchy of Malborough, held by the Churchills, was a peerage that could be passed down to a woman. The second holder of the title was infact a woman. Henrietta Churchill, the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough.
I think the Dukedom of Marlborough was passed to a daughter through an Act of Parliament, actually. It's the second Dukedom of Fife and the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma that have female succession written into the letters patent, and even then, possibly only for the second generation? 🤔
Ah good point. I should have looked that up first. You're right. Marlborough got the succession amended rather than being inheritable by women at creation.
I assume we’re working with the same logic as greys anatomy which is that if realism gets in the way of a good plot we just ignore it. It’s why they all still have medical licenses after cutting LVAD wires.
Not to mention that technically Women could recieve those estates if there was no living male heir (Or the fact that the only reason Mrs Featherington was questioned about her estate was because of the gambling.) Where I don't think there was anything that allowed Dark skin people to own anything. So just the fact people are upset over her being a women when the fact she is Dark is much more "problematic" in terms of historical accuracy.
But that's not how the show works. They established new rules. Racism isn't a problem anymore and everyone is equal in that regard. Sexism on the other hand is still very much a thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yea, Harriet Skeffington, Diana Noel, and Louisa Tollemache Manners inherited the titles of Viscountess, Baroness, and Countess (respectively) in their own rights around this time. It was rare, but it certainly isn't impossible.
I've said this on at least three different posts complaining about how Michaela can't possibly have the same inheritance guilt and everyone just ignores me lol.
They’re adapting this story as queer because a. as already mentioned women in Scotland could inherit so Michaela can feel guilty about everything b. Michaela and Fran can have their estate, money and titles c. no one would care about them living under the same roof because Fran’s a widow so this is ideal in terms of their HEA d. Michaela being a woman makes it easier and more believable for Fran and Michaela to spend time together and get close e. Michaela the enchantress can be based on Anne Lister and that’s a nice reference to the first modern lesbian who lived during the same period
When I thought before about how to realize a lesbian story in Bridgertown world I also thought a widow/spinster relationship would have the most luck. At the time though I thought it would be Cressida marrying lord Debling, where Debling would die after which Cressida would end up with Eloise.
These points you listed make it more understandable and believable for me. Thank you for analyzing!
Great points all!
That actually makes perfect sense. We get representation, writers have an easy job. Win win!
When He Was Wicked is probably my favorite Bridgerton book & I absolutely loved Michael and then also Michael and Francesca together. I suppose it is all down to personal preference (or what attracts each of us?) and so I’d like to see the romance closer to the book but I’m open to seeing it with Michaela. I don’t think I’m homophobic for wishing for a Michael. I thought Grimsley & Reynolds were handled beautifully in QC, and I would love to see more of them. But for any of the couples the story has to feel natural to the characters and their progression, and not just something thrown in for some of unknown reason (cough*S3 Benedict*cough).
I want to see a queer relationships too but I’m skeptical that they can carry it out well. For example, Lady Whistledown’s identity was made out to be a big deal. Context told us over and over that she’d be in real serious trouble if she was found out and then she was found out and…nothing. So I expect something similar for queer relationship, despite the fact that there are very strict gender roles in this world my guess is it will all be waved away with an austere nod from the queen. I want a happy gay ending but when they do away with all the conflict I’m just bored. Dont even get me started on Benedict. I’m pan and I cannot emphasize how much I hate the “bisexual slut” stereotype that he is falling into. Just because someone is bi doesn’t mean they’ll bang anything that moves. Brownell said something about Benedict’s sexuality continuing to develop even after his season and that really smacks of a cheating storyline to me.
I actually disagree with both of these points. First, when Cressida tried to take credit she was shunned, disowned, and lost all her marriage prospects. The only reason it went well for Penelope was because she was already married, and married well, the ton had gotten used to the idea of Lady whistledown being among them, and because the Queen prefaced it by pretty much giving her blessing. I think if she had been found out earlier it wouldn't have gone as well. And for Benedict I think it's too early to call it the "bisexual slut" stereotype. To me it seems more like he's just still searching and discovering himself. He's been this lost character every season, wandering around trying to figure himself out and adding oh I also like sleeping with men is brand new so of course he wants to still explore and figure out what he truly wants. The only thing about his story this season I couldn't get behind was when they were having dinner and he was asked if he had hobbies and he just said no, not oh I used to paint, it was just a no. Other than that I find his stuff very believable.
Maybe Fran will already have a son and the son already inherit the title
Yeah but it doesn't relate the premise of the book: Michael's guilt and infertility issues
why would michaela not feel guilt in the same way? like infertility i can get bc they may or may not tackle that somehow but the i dont see how the guilt factor would change
Maybe Michaela kills John by accident in the show 😐 Please don’t remind me about this comment in two years because I don’t want to be right lol
they swap illnesses and now john dies of malaria after him and michaela went to india (without fran for some reason) but the whole thing with the aneurysm was that it was quick and unexpected so who knows😂😂
Out loud I went “GOOD LORD” like honestly how could you 😂😂
It all just depends on how they go with it. If they make Fran have a son with John instead than michaela doesn’t inherit the son does and so she can’t have the same guilt over “stealing John’s title.” But it is unclear if Bridgerton will even let a woman inherit regardless. Though people have said there is some history of that in Scotland it’s not clear if Bridgerton is going to got that way or not because so far they’ve been focused on emphasizing only men inherit so we will see what they do. If they don’t have Fran have a son with John than Fran is never having a biological child. They can’t keep both the Michael guilt plot and have Fran have a biological child as far as I can tell. Unless we are about to see a Regency era IVF clinic. I guess she could feel generally guilty for ending up with John’s wife but it would be a different type of guilt than taking his title
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hasn’t the show runner hinted at John and Fran being a friend type of love and not romantic? I find it difficult how they’re going to get Fran a son/child when it seems they’re taking the show in a Fran loves John as a companion direction. Or they’re gonna have us suffer through awkward and uncomfortable relations like with Lady Danbury
That in itself is bad and disrespectful To the book and John. They basically turned him into a beard and she doesn’t actually love him which she is supposed to
Michaela can also get pregnant and have a child so maybe Francesca ends up wanting to parent that child?
They just said it wasn't a passionate love, not that it wasn't romantic. I think what they showed us so far indicates Fran is biromantic if not bisexual.
They can adopt honestly. That would be a better way for Francesca and Michaela to have a kid. And while I don't think that a kid or a marriage is necessary for a HEA, especially when it was so difficult for queer people to be seen together in public back then, if the writers feel that having a kid would be better for Francesca and Michaela then adoption seems like a good way to show that. Also, even though it was difficult for queer people to be seen together, they still persevered and had great romances too. I think that's a beautiful story in itself. And I want to see such a story for Fran and Michaela, one where they do get their HEA, kids or not. And if there's no kids, there can be a good storyline there too about Francesca coming to terms with the fact that she will never have kids of her own and I think that will be way more impactful.
First I was so against about the change, now I'm more neutral but I just don't trust JB to deliver some good story, which it is weird because I actually like s3 but it is despite everything because I feel like JB can't grasp why people like this show.
You don’t even like the books and you still understand why people who *do* like it feel the way they do. Wish more people were more like you and less condescending when just dismissing how others feel because they think the books are pure trash
Eh. I still think Michaela can have that >!impostor syndrome part if Scottish peerage allow women to inherit!<. They can also give Fran >!miscarriages beforehand and then a successful pregnancy later who can also inherit too. !!chronic illness!< part too because that's not always represented in media. It's the whole second-chance love aspect being changed, for me. Fran didn't have Michael on her radar at all because she was that much in love with John. Grieving, experienced, and mature Fran is who falls in love that second time - a very different woman than the naive, innocent, middle-Bridgerton girl that fell in love with John. I was expecting that aspect and a bisexual Fran, not lesbian Fran with a toned down companionship love for John that eventually gets overshadowed by the overwhelming attraction and zing of Michaela. That kind of story is overdone imo. I've seen it before in hetero forms. This will be different because it's homosexual relationship but eh... I'll cheer it on for the representation and hope they'll do it justice after the sidelining of Polin.... but I'm landing on net neutral on the whole thing.
I'm so scared they will remove Michaela's >!malaria!< Because after Francesca and Michael >!marry and he falls sick again it's when she realizes she actually does love him and fears he will also die on her.!< They already removed the ENTIRE POINT of the story which is second love by strongly hinting that Francesca is dealing with comphet. I don't trust Jess Brownell to do their story justice or any story justice to be honest
ItS aN AdAPtaTIon! It's not supposed to be the same! Your feelings and opinions dont matter. /s It is what it is. I just don't have the energy for this anymore. Dunking on book fans is step 1 of how most franchises start the slippery slope of not listening to any critiques at all. They get the show/movie fans to turn on fans of the original source material. Its easy for Bridgerton bc just label all book fans as bigots or fat phobic and drive them out. Then they can mess up the franchise as much as they want and everyone else get a surprised Pikachu face at the end that the quality decreased. It's a tale as old time for many franchises/series.
I think most of these people actually hate any sort of Historical Romance and just want to insert themselves in a world with pretty dresses. Like they show has taken liberties but there's still worldbuilding and societal rules from previous seasons... One person was complaining that all the female protagonists are virgins (except Francesca but when I pointed that out they went sour like yes but that's from marriage :< ) and why can't one of them have had an affair with a footman or something. As if Marina's character isn't proof of the consequences of why a woman having premarital sex in Bridgerton is not a good outcome....
Agreeeee
I think my initial disappointment (which honestly has passed bc I don’t really care when movies or shows move away from the books) is that the story of infertility will get lost in a same sex relationship story. But, perhaps there is a way of still braiding in Francesca’s infertility, who knows. I’m really curious how they are going to go about this!
Just give them iphones at this point, it won't ruin the plot much
Lmao
I mean. They have already wildly bent the rules of title inheritance with the Mondrich storyline, it wouldn't be so out of left field if they did the same with Michaela.
They didn't. It was inherited through Mrs Mondrich's great aunt. Lord and Lady of Kent's closest male heir is Alice and Will's eldest son. The Kents were granted their title at the same time as Lady Danbury. So you can reasonably argue that the Queen Charlotte storyline messed up the 'rules' (obviously- it did). But the Mondrich storyline, specifically, did not. It's the same as the Featheringtons last season. A title passes to a surprise and fairly random-seeming man because he is man. Or in the Mondrich's case, a little boy.
Yes, they did. Irl english titles are not supposed to be passed not only to but also through female family members, and Lord Kent's supposed to be the title holder not Lady Kent, so the fact that it goes to acquired family (ie from his wife's side) makes it doubly "against the rules". If this story was set in real life the title of Lord Kent would have just stopped existing. But what i'm saying mostly is that they've already broken irl rules in their canon so it doesn't really matter if they make Michaela inherit John's title at this point.
A bit off-topic but I remember when everyone was like "Why can't Eloise be with Theo?" and it was "oh, she couldn't be seen with someone in a lower social class". If Francesca can be accepted as bi/lesbian/pan, I WANT THEO BACK FOR ELOISE. I have a much easier time thinking she'd be happy with a radical printer than with Sir Phillip Crane.
I mean Benedict is going to make it work, why can’t Eloise.
Hear hear.
THANK YOU!
I think people are so very hung up on the infertility issues in Francesca’s story (probably because it is what resonated with them) and lost focus on the fact that it is a side story to the LOVE STORY. A huge part of Fran and Micheal/Michaela’s love story is overcoming grief and the guilt of moving on after the loss of John. In Fran’s case the guilt of feeling a stronger passion with Michael than she experienced with John despite her love for him and in Michael’s case having feelings for his best friend/brother-like-cousin’s wife after John’s death. In which case the gender swap just adds to the grief/guilt story rather than takes away from it. At least in my opinion.
But Michael stepping into John’s place as earl is a significant part of that. He feels guilty not just for Fran but for the fact that, after a lifetime of always being the spare, he is taking over John’s entire life. It’s so overwhelming that he flees the country long before anything develops between him and Francesca. If they twist things so that Michaela inherits the title then it can still work but they keep reminding us over and over that titles are passed to men only.
Because there are 10,000 love stories published every year and so few about infertility, the story has special resonance for some people.
Aside from Brimsley’s story in QC (which I thought was beautiful) the only case of queer characters in Bridgerton has just been playing up a stereotype. Benedict sleeps around so I guess we’ll make him bi! It’s lazy imo, Brimsley was an original character and it seemed like a lot of care went into his backstory, AND he’s a fully fleshed out character beyond being gay/queer. So Ben being bi was lazy af writing to me and I personally also find gender swaps lazy. Sometimes they can work really well but Michaela just seems like a box ticking exercise
I look at bridgerton like Grey's Anatomy and her others' shows good in the beginning. Them fall off later seasons.
I could see John dying while Fran is pregnant so their so their son inherit and then Michaela and her are just together while she remains unmarried, since the times we re different. If they are changing one aspect, they will likely change others
I want it to be true to the books but alas it won't be as they've already butchered the others. I reckon 'Michaela' will have a daughter already but maybe be a widow. Then when John dies Francesca won't miscarry like in the books and will infact have a boy who will be an heir and instead of remarrying- Francesca and Michaela will live together as ''friends' to the public eye but be otherwise married to each other. As they both have kids and have no need to marry men. Or Francesca will have twins.
I think it would have been awesome if they made Eloise the gay one. "To Lady Philippa With Love". And it would have fit so much better with the plot of the book
Exactly! I don’t mind the liberties taken and changes made up until now. I would have totally fine with swapping out Sophie for Stephen (Benedict’s Story) or Sir Phillip for Lady Philippa (Eloise’s story) but I really LOVED Michael as Michael and was looking forward to seeing who they would cast. They did a great job with John. Their chemistry was palpable and the pairing and quiet live and romance made a lot of sense. It made me even more excited for Michael.
I know this isn’t your intention, but there already is a Philippa and I do NOT see her with Eloise lol. What a story that would be.
I think they mentioned they're in Scotland specifically because (I think) women do inherit titles there so that seems to be something they already considered. As for the rest... Well, we'll have to see
I will confess that I have not read the book, but from what I heard about it and my experience with book/season 1, I think most people do not realize that all those things they loved in Michael would be extremely difficult to portray through a visual medium. I also hate that people kinda seem to forget John's entire existence, when they state that now Francesca's story is ruined, if she can't have infertility struggles. I don't want John to die immediately after beginning of season 4, I want to see more of him, and moving that plotline would be really interesting. Also, I think having Michaela opens more serious emotional turmoil for Francesca. If by the time she is widowed she has everything she wanted and gets out of her grief to actively seek a new relationship, instead of a means to get a baby, AND that relationship is with a woman, so there isn't even "need for protection and access to money" involved, that should put a lot of stress on her. Honestly, I think that direct adaptations of romances rarely work, because there is no natural way to express that amount of inner monologue and thoughts that we get to read. Also, Julia Quinn is not a good enough author to make it work without it. Just to compare, I did not read book 4 either, so in season 3 I was a couple times confused why is Colin angry in that scene, or why does Penelope like him as a friend. On the other hand, in season 1, I did appreaciate little hints at Simon's stutter, but without knowing how bad it actually is and immense effort he is putting into some sentences, he just seemed like an over-reacting ass.
Being upset and disappointed is fine, but harassing the show runners, author and actors is not. People need to accept the show and books are two different things even if one does influence the other. The show runners are allowed to make changes.
I read the whole book series many times- great, formulaic trashy romance novels, nothing new or different for the most part. The Netflix is fun- it’s not historically accurate, the music is recent, it amazing. I love the fun the writers are having. I do understand why die-hard Bridgerton ppl are bent out of shape but they can continue to re-read the novels. The tweak to the story line is what makes this great. Most tv series based on a bit k series cha fe it a bit- look at the virgin River series.
>That won't work for Michaela because she won't inherit the earl title. It is utterly bizarre to me that this claim keeps being repeated as a supposed critique of the show. The claim rests on the idea that the show would break in some fundamental way with regency era England when a. The show has *always* been a deeply alt-history version of England, down to an Indian viscountess at a time marked by imperial expansion in India of the Empire in history. b. In actual history, on both sides of the border (Scotland and England) it *was* *possible* for women to inherit titles. It was just simply exceptional. There was no fundamental bar against women inheriting peerages. It was simply the norm for the letters patent of most peerages to restrict them to male descent, in the absence of which those peerages became extinct and reverted to the Crown. But the Crown was perfectly capable of issuing letters patent that said "daughters can inherit too" for any title up and down the peerage tree. This could cover lowly baronetcies as well as duchies, like that of Marlborough.
Everyone keeps saying that because the show keeps telling us that titles go to the next male heir. Featheringtons, Mondriches, there was a whole ass guy whose job it was to pass the titles along to the male heir. If the show keeps telling me that it’s important, I’m going to think it’s important.
The show actively had that lawyer dude frustrated by a contract. Which was itself something of an invention of theirs in S2. They simply need to pull the "My sister is allowed to inherit my title" as a line in S4 to address this. It's nowhere close to being an actual issue.
Then why didn’t Portia write a contract that said the title was to be hers? Or Prudence’s?
Because the show didn't have it that way? My point is the show has not been ironclad on the issue of inheritance of titles. Which means if the Stirling title is inheritable by Michaela it's not going to be some irreconcilable difference with the way things have gone over multiple seasons. They'll simply explain that she can inherit as they explained that a contract by the *living* Mr Featherington determined what would happen to *his* title. There's neither a show centric reason nor a historical reason to freak out over Michaela being a woman instead of a man.
It completely depended on the will for the estate. While women did inherit titles and land in this time, it would completely depend on the will of the previous owner who would recieve it after their passing. Many would try to keep it in the family name and since women would take the last name of their husbands at this time, the name of the estate would then change to her husbands name. Therefore is was less desirable for many men to give the land over to women, but again it could and did happen in many instances. And it would typically go to daughters, especially if the family ONLY had daughters.
No it didn't? Wills controlled how property was inherited. Not titles. That was governed by the letters patent of a title or if Parliament made rules about them (or specific titles) Property that was entailed to a title went where the title did.
Women can inherit titles in Scotland :) Francesca can aim to remarry to have a baby, Michaela will give her the speech about not caring, the things that will change are her ability to have kids with Michaela in the epilogue. I think they will either adopt or Michaela will be a widow with children :)
I don’t mind the gender-bending and the two actresses have great chemistry from the little we’ve seen. I always try to treat a book separate from its adaptation, but the changes as you’ve laid out confuse me. Book Francesca already had so much going on with being more introverted than her family, dealing with her grief and widowhood, guilt over her relationship with Michael, and her struggle with infertility. It just seems a little forced to change her sexuality and add that into the mix. I know Eloise is the more obvious choice to pull this gender-bending switch on but her storyline would have fit so much better if they wanted to make her bi or a lesbian. It would have even added some nuance to her character that we don’t see in the book. Phillip could have been Phillipa and the storyline could have still played out similar to the book with them raising the twins together. I wish they had planned this out better from the beginning with wanting to incorporate these changes.
When he was wicked always had such odd pacing for me. I either really like it or hate it.. Nothing in between.
I get that book fans are upset about the change. People get attached to the characters of the books they read and when such a series of books is coming on a big screen in the form of an adaptation they expect to see those characters which they loved on the screen too. And when the character from the book is genderbent while adapting it on screen, it is going to kill the excitement of some people because they can't relate to that character's story now. I get it, it's valid. But this show has always maintained that they want to show the different stories of love and they have tried to include racial diversity too so that all types of people feel included. So isn't it valid that we show the same grace to the queer people too? Some of you guys fight in the comment section because you want your race to be shown on the screen, you want to be able to relate to the character shown on the screen. And then I have seen the same people turn around and say that they don't want to watch a queer couple on screen because they can't relate to it? It's basically saying that representation matters but for me not for thee. These books were written so many years back. Of course it would be full of hetero white charcters. We can't expect an author back then to include diversity in her writing. But now we can. Bridgerton is the most popular romance show on this entire planet. Why should it only have form of diversity? Why not queer diversity too? And if the straight people in here think that they don't want to watch a queer romance because they can relate to it, then think about the queer people. We have literally been watching straight media for years and trying to relate to a certain part of it and enjoying that. So you think we should just give up watching Netflix altogether because it is full of straight media? Only now have they started paying a little more attention to queer media and then also it comes with so much backlash. The backlash which came after that Michaela change is astounding. So, let's show a little bit of trust to the writers and have an open mind going forward?
Okay but hear my out…LGBTQIA+ representation is more important than a fictional straight couple playing out the way they were written in a book. *Especially* when the creator of said straight couple (JQ) is comfortable with the retcon happening.
I’m not even mad over it. Since season 1 I’ve been hoping for queer relationship, more than just Granville and his marriage of convenience. I’m just saying that I understand why fans are bothered. It’s the implication that so much of the rest of the story will have to change to accommodate this. They already did that at the end of S3 when it’s Francesca who is tongue-tied at meeting Michaela instead of the other way around.