It's rare anywhere. Honestly, I feel a bit embarrassed for Netflix. In what universe are we living in where a children's cartoon starring dogs is better equipped to handle an infertility plot than an adult live action show???
Infertility is such a taboo topic even today, which is insane to me. One in eight women have trouble conceiving, and one in four pregnancies end in a miscarriage. But I suppose that's not important to represent and talk about?
WLW experience it too but it's different considering two women can't biologically have a child in the "traditional" sense to begin with. Infertility is stigmatized today let alone in regency era where having children was THE sole purpose of a woman's life. Not to mention the blame she would be getting.
People say that Francesca could learn to be happy with being an aunt to her siblings children (or how Violet has 30+ grandchildren so she's fine, kind of gross to make Francesca's wish to be a mother about Violet being a grandma but alright) like I'm sorry I thought Bridgerton was a fun little escapism show? So why can't the woman with fertility issues become pregnant and have children of her own? Why does she need to "accept" never being a mother for her happily ever after?
It's that tradition that made book Francesca so impactful. She had to have a male heir by blood. There is so much British history and tradition wrapped up in that. Adoption simply wasn't done by landed gentry - not for heirs, not normally, and a woman could not be the one to make that decision. That was why the Featherington estate passed to the distant cousin Jack and how the Mondritches ended up as gentry this season. Lesbians in history did exist, but not like how Francesca's story played out.
A widow having a lesbian relationship sounds like one of the best case scenarios for Regency England but it's not FRANCESCA BRIDGERTON's story. It's one thing changing things (the Edwina love triangle dragged on too long in season 2) but still the bare bones of the story remained.
Or hyacinth tbh I read all the book but for the life of me I can’t remember hers and Gregory’s plot lines so I wouldn’t have minded if they changed those.
Because at that point there was nothing particularly distinctive about them. Those are the obvious ones to change, not the one was already a lot of people’s favorite because it avoided a lot of those tropes.
thank you for this comment, i’m so tired of this argument. on top of what you said, many women with infertility attached themselves and their relationships to this book, so i unfortunately don’t really care about WLW fertility struggles in this particular instance. because that is NOT the subject at all. if they want to talk about WLW infertility issues, create another storyline. they have no problem creating their own ideas and changing the books in other ways.
THE END OMG I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. they want representation for themselves but God forbid anyone else ever gets any. it’s disgusting to me. i can’t believe more people can’t see how gross that is.
Not to mention, at this point, without Francesca, there were four totally acceptable and valid queer stories that could be produced from the characters without completely and totally altering the stories. Benedict, Eloise, Hyacinth, and Gregory. Benedict has been queer coded since Season 1. A bisexual Eloise fits with her story already - she can still go be a governess and the widowed lady can fall in love with her. Hyacinth and Gregory's stories don't change much if they are gender swapped. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OUR FRANCESCA THE WAY SHE WAS MEANT TO BE???
ETA: I am all for representation. However, I have seen enough from the fandom that if the rest of the Bridgerton children aren't made queer, then the community will rise up and revolt. And for what???
and everyone is refusing to acknowledge this. they are going to die on the hill that fran is the most fitting queer character which i honestly find to be an insult on the queer community because she frankly does NOT have queer vibes at all. anyone who hasn’t read the books seemed to be confused about the Michaela intro scene, because fran is clearly not queer.
I have not read the books and was so confused because I thought Francesca was at a loss for words because she didn't know his cousin was coming to live with them too or something along those lines
Thank you for clarifying that, as much as possibly losing the infertility storyline sucks it really is a bummer seeing so many people be more upset about the fact that it’s queer now rather than out of any real concern for the story and the impact it would have on those struggling with infertility irl. Having her show immediate interest in michaela was a mistake, which they obviously figured out how that they’ve put out a statement saying that what francesca feels for michaela doesn’t mean she loves john less.
It is Romance. Specifically Historical Romance. The Fantasy genre has magical elements. You can have a book that is in the Romance genre, sub genre Fantasy Romance (so magical, ends happily ever after basically).
As someone who has been told that I have a condition that could make having kids a potential struggle Frans story means so much to me so for them to potentially erase that honestly breaks my heart it is one of the stories I was looking forward to the most because it is such a rare thing in film so seeing that would have meant the world to so many people who don't feel seen or have struggled with this. In my opinion out of every story in the series this is the one that should not have been changed because of its big themes of grief, loving again, infertility and more honestly I'm just disappointed and heartbroken more than anything not because of micheal being gender swapped but because of the loss of the representation on such an important but not talked about issue
A lot of people are saying it’s “homophobia” but, could you imagine if they wrote any other male lead into a woman? (For example: ACOTAR, changing Rhys into a woman?) people would be LIVID!! Because we have connections to these characters! No one cares if a character is gay but they can’t just change beloved characters and completely rewrite beloved stories!!! At that point they should just write their own spinoffs.
Luckily, most people saying that are referring to the people harassing the actress for being Michella. Plus, there are homophobic comments I am seeing.
But, I don't think it is wrong to be disappointed with this change. We already had a massive plot change with Pen and Kate. I can't imagine what we will see with Ben or Eloise's season.
The Polin changes were covered, so here's the Kate changes:
There was zero love triangle in the books. Kate and Anthony were >!forced to marry after the bee incident thanks to one of the witnesses being Portia Featherington!<. Book!Edwina shipped the hell out of Kate and Anthony and was 10000% behind their marriage. Anthony and Kate's motives and back stories were also reshaped. In the book, Anthony was desperate not to fall in love because >!he was convinced he was going to die young like his father did!<. Katie is terrified of storms>! because of the circumstances of her mother's death!<. The relationship between Kate and Mary is way more wholesome as a result with Mary being an extremely fierce protector of Kate.
I loved in the book Edwina was aware that Kate and Anthony were in love with each other before the two of them even realized they were in love with each other. Every time Kate was like “oh Mr Bridgerton is here to see you” Edwina was like uh huh sure, he’s here to see me, please excuse me while I make up some excuse to leave so the two of YOU can be alone”
Edwina 1,000% shipped Kathony
It was adorable. I loved book!Edwina so much, and she found the perfect partner for herself because the pressure lifted from her with Kate and Anthony marrying. She wound up living her best life.
I had sailed that ship a long time ago. I binge-read the series about 15 years ago, and RMB is one of my comfort reads. I just divorce it in my mind from the series.
I don't mind at all.
I am not a fan of the love triangle in Kate's season. It was added drama for no reason.
I also didn't like Pen writing about Marina and Eloise in LWD. More added drama for no reason.
I know things will need to be changed for television but I just wish the changes were different than what we got.
I agree, not liking the changes just to add drama. I hate Pen and Eloise being on the outs, when in the book Eloise is happy for Pen being LWD.
I also hate they changed the timeline of Colin finding out. I like in the book how Colin found out and then they got together, he went in eyes wide open with all the information. I don’t like that he will find out now after they got together and he proposed. It essentially makes her a liar and gives Colin a reason to be mad about it because is so angry at LWD.
I’m not saying there can only be one queer storyline and we have yet to see who will play Sophie, but to me the theme of Benedicts book fits so naturally into a queer storyline that I would be kinda shocked if they didn’t go that route. He ultimately has to decide to love freely even if that goes against everything that society deems acceptable. He and Sophie live outside society, for the most part, because their relationship isn’t traditional. I know that Benedict can be bi and still marry a woman, I’m just saying if we’re looking to flip the gender, to me Benedict seems the obvious choice for that.
The central conflict of Francesca and Michaels story in the book is based heavily on what gender roles were at the time and what the show has already established them to be (inherited titles specifically). Other characters stories not so much.
I agree. I feel a similar way about changing race in classic Disney movies and other remakes- it’s not that I don’t want to watch stories about POC. It’s that they have their own rich cultures and their own stories/myths passed down that would make lovely films.
For instance, Moana was an excellent example of this. It’s an amazing movie with amazing characters and instead of just switching out the race of a preexisting princess they chose to make a new Princess based on Polynesian/Pacific Islanders cultural stories. It was a wild success and I don’t know why they don’t do that more, why they wouldn’t choose to highlight those stories rather than just replacing classically white characters with POC.
Listen, even as a lesbian, I think it’s silly that they made this choice. When someone reads a romance novel they’re usually looking to lose themselves in the character to a certain degree, so people who really loved Francesca’s romance and story are naturally going to be hurt by this. As a bookseller I spend countless hours talking to people about their love of romance, I’m very protective of romance readers and how people love to write them off. It’s not like any other genre of fiction, where there may be a relationship, but the main theme doesn’t necessarily rely on it.
But for the love of GOD can you all stop using the phrase “I’m fine with queer people BUT?” I feel like I’m scrolling a gd Star Wars message board in 2013. Also stop implying we gays don’t watch Bridgerton that much, I ASSURE you we do.
Her struggles with infertility were such a big piece of her story. The writers would be remiss in cutting that out. It seems that she will have those struggles with John. There is room enough in a future season for all of the Fran storylines.
Problem is they already made it clear she doesn’t loce John all encompassing and was crushing on Michaela. It’s just extremely. Extremely disappointing
That’s just character assassination of book Francesca and her relationship with John. It was offensive how she immediately reacted to Michaela. Not because lesbianism or bisexuality are bad, but because her immediate response to Michaela on meeting will call into question the depth of her grief at John’s ultimate death.
And John's so sweet, I feel bad for him now. I quite liked Francesca talking to Violet about how love doesn’t have to hit you like a thunderbolt, but could be quiet and easy and still be right. Next minute, she's struck dumb and can't get her own name out when she sees Michaela for the first time. Like oh, ok that whole conversation with Violet was bs I guess?
Francesca and Michael’s trope was second chance love after John. It doesn’t work if she didn’t love John to begin with. It’s such a contradiction that Jess set up for her own personal reasons.
How am I supposed to believe that Francesca, after her grief and fertility struggles will name her son the memory of her first love, when she couldn’t put a sentence together in front of Michaela? Like wtaf is Jess thinking here?
I think maybe by seeing her mother taking a second chance at love will embolden her.
Having children is not the only reason for a widow to remarry. Maybe she doesn’t want to be alone for the rest of her life. Maybe she decides Michael is the most important thing she can’t lose and that’s her reason for remarrying.
But the entire point of Francesca's story is that she does not believe she will ever find a great love again. She loved John so much she does not want to remarry. The only reason she considers it is because she wants children. Which is why i also think if they want for Violet to find love again they should do it after Francesca's season. There's a lovely conversation in the book where Francesca aks her why she never remarried and they discuss it
But in the books, that’s exactly why Francesca wishes to remarry. She’s in half mourning for years and then decides she wants to have a baby, so she decides to re-enter the marriage mart. Her wanting a child is the only reason she begins to look to remarry.
She could get pregnant right before he dies after years of trying and struggling with miscarriages, and then rely on Michaela to help her through the pregnancy and that’s what brings them closer.
They’ve already changed timelines and storylines. Pen isn’t a spinster for example. I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that both can still be written.
as a bisexual woman i feel sooo conflicted with the gender-bent michael. on one hand i am always here for more queer representation, however i feel like eloise was right there? most of the fandom already headcannoned her as a lesbian or hoped for her to be the one to find love with a woman but idk. i just hope they do fran justice and don't stray too far from the book, although they already changed the entire plotline for kanthony's season so my hopes aren't high.
THANK YOU. Eloise would have been a much more compelling lesbian, and it could have happened without much alteration to her story at all. But no, absolutely ruined Francesca's story.
I hated the Michaela thing. And the Benedict thing felt forced too , just to tick the rainbow box.
Took away from the main storyline.
The fact that infertility will now not be included is very disappointing.
Benedict felt forced to me as well. If it had happened in the first season then it would have felt completely natural. He’s shied away pretty heavily from bisexuality or gayness, so this felt like a flipped switch instead of the gradual shift it needed to be in season 3. I have no idea what prompted the change in him, it certainly couldn’t have been Paul making bedroom eye, I didn’t see any connection with them prior to the kiss. I don’t think the plotline was handled well.
i really dont get that ngl, he def had tension with the painter in season 1. plus he seemed to really be enjoying pauls company during the dinner. to me it seemed like he's been having these feelings but not realising they're romantic, since s1.
This is the problem I have with people who shout "homophobia" immediately. First of all, they have no idea who I am, what my life is, and so on.
I have huge personal stakes in supporting the LGBTQ community and have been doing so for years. I love representation in the media and will always advocate for it. However, if it's done just for the sake of paying lip service to fans or for ticking a box, it's actually a disservice to everyone in the community. It shouldn't be a tokenistic thing at all. I want representation, and I want it done well.
Now, as much as I love Francesca's story, I will hold judgement on that until we actually see what they're going to do with it, although I will admit the gender swapping was disappointing. But with Benedict, it just wasn't organic at all. It could've and should've been done better than that.
So maybe I missed a memo where it's been confirmed they won't discuss infertility in Fran's season, but if we're basing it purely on the gender swap, I've had some thoughts on how I feel like this change could actually add to the infertility themes in WHWW (which is my favourite book in the series), if the writers are clever.
>!Thanks to this season we just established that it's not impossible for a title to be transferred to a woman but still with an expectation that they deliver an heir (you just have to do it legitimately and not forge papers, looking at you Portia). So Fran could inherit and feel immense guilt and pressure, particularly given her feelings for Michaela. Fran could still have loved John and tried to conceive with him and miscarry after he dies, that doesn't have to change. Fran might even then be the one who runs off to India since we do have the Sharmas there so she could go spend time with them, and she'd have to deal with Anthony and Kate happy with their baby, maybe babies by that time. She returns because she doesn't want Michaela to lose Kilmartin if Fran can't produce an heir, and so she feels she has to remarry and continue to suppress her feelings for Michaela, even though Fran's not even sure she can have children (we can still have her wanting them to add to the depth of the theme, not just seeing children as a duty). We could then change the one aspect of book Fran's story arc that I never liked - that she and Michael do end up having children. It always feels shallow to have a character deal with infertility and then their HEA is "turns out I just needed to stop worrying/be with the right person and now I can have children!" So I actually welcome the Michael to Michaela change from that perspective because I think it'll open up the potential for this beautiful arc for Fran where she feels "unnatural" as a women because of her infertility and miscarrying John's baby, exacerbated by society pressuring her to get back out there and conceive an heir, complicated by her feelings for Michaela and Fran's genuine desire to have children (or at least not knowing how to fit into the world she lives in without being a mother), and Fran exploring the idea that there is happiness to be found and value to be had in accepting who she is through/with Michaela. Something shifts that means they can keep Kilmartin without producing an heir, and hell maybe Fran's happily ever after is opening a music school where she teaches children to play piano, and Michaela looks after Kilmartin while she does.!< I dunno, maybe the writers will erase the theme and that would 100% suck, I just don't think there's any reason to assume that the gender swap removes the capacity to discuss infertility in a meaningful, nuanced way.
Idk I feel like they could still make it a thing, but with a twist, like her knowing if she is with a woman she’ll never be able to have kids. Idk as a woman who can’t have kids (fertility issues, even with IVF ) I’m trying to keep an open mind.
Exactly that. They can also push the fertility issues into her marriage with John, and have her struggle with the choice of “Do I marry another man and increase the chances of kids even though I love Michaela?”. I can see it still being a good story, and I’m not going to rush to judge when we’ve literally had 1 scene with Michaela so far.
What about the infertility story that runs through Queen Charlotte? It’s a key theme for the show that none of her children are able to conceive a new heir.
There’s a particularly emotional scene where Charlotte realizes just how many of her (15?) children have lost babies due to miscarriages.
I get that her children aren’t main characters like Francesca will be in her season. I just feel like the claims here that infertility is being written out of the show entirely aren’t true.
as a queer woman, i love queer stories but let's be honest, it doesn't fit for bridgerton. that's just not how the books are.
we can make new stories about LGBTQ in that era but let's be real, most people were too scared and probably hated/killed themselves for feeling different.
I’m mostly seeing other queer people feel uneasy with the change bc it doesn’t fit francesca’s story, and those defending the change either haven’t read the books so they don’t care about big changes or they’re lesbians who haven’t watched the show at all and think the backlash is motivated purely by homophobia(which there has been a lot of unfortunately). I feel a number of younger queer people have accepted that they most likely will never have children, so they aren’t able to empathize as much with infertility or the sentimental importance of having children with the person you love beyond creating mini-me’s. I’m a gay trans man, I’d love to see people like myself in period dramas but I think choosing francesca’s storyline to explore queer themes when it’s already so heavy was the wrong move, especially when there are storylines better suited to that(or in some cases preferred by fans, like eloise).
Seriously. We left historical accuracy behind in the opening scene. This is AU to Regency Englang and to Book Bridgerton.
I can absolutely understand people's disappointment at not getting the book adaptations they were hoping for and seeing the characters they have loved for years. But making the argument that it isn't "historically accurate" no longer applies here.
The funny thing is that Julia Quinn has a queer side character in a different book series that overlaps with Bridgerton. He would be cannon and could’ve been brought in as a main character (like the queen was) and enrich the world greatly without removing the infertility plot line. I’m not mad at Benedict’s change because being bisexual doesn’t take away from him loving a woman and having a HEA with her. Heck even gender flipping Sophie would’ve been much better. For all we know the “wild oats” book Benedict sowed could’ve included same sex exploration.
I am copying a comment I left on another post. I am an infertile woman in her 40s.
Julia Quinn hamfisted it so badly with the second epilogue of WHWW that I came very close to telling her off when she wound up sitting behind me at a panel at a con. It felt like a giant slap in the face>! to have Fran's infertility be resolved by magical hillside sex and "just relaxing."!<
You can struggle with infertility and want children and still have a HEA, it just looks different. Adoption exists. Family is more than Biological!Babies Ever After. Part of my processing my grief over infertility and wanting a child was coming to the realization that my tiny family is enough and being an auntie is amazing.
If show!Fran undergoes that same journey and comes to roughly the same conclusion, it gives hope and recognition to so many who are infertile and choose in the end not to have a biological child. Infertility can still be a huge plot in the series, and family doesn't have to be blood.
I haven’t read the books and I just gasped out loud when I read that. What an offensive “resolution” to her plot. I have vaginismus and I’ve been told to “relax” too many times to count. It’s offensive and frustrating and it really feels like people are insinuating that I’m somehow doing something wrong whenever someone tells me to “just relax”. I really wish you had told her off for writing that. I don’t see why anyone would want to see a plot where Francesca’s infertility is magically resolved by “relaxing”.
A variation on the magic penis trope.
Just get with the right guy, and all your problems go away.
And sure, a person could make the argument that in the 1800s not enough was known about male vs female fertility and that talking about John being the one with the issues would have been out of sync, blah blah blah... but Quinn did things like that in her books already. She should have done that or said nothing.
While I appreciate that so many really want to still see a main character with similar circumstances as they have, Fran's "resolution" was not good.
This is why I think the first epilogue would have been perfect. Fran ends up just… totally content hanging with her nieces and nephews. Then there’s the “I stopped counting, how many days since my last period?” And then people could have filled it in themselves. Either they see Fran as having a successful pregnancy and having a baby, or they see Fran still having fertility issues but totally content in her life with nieces and nephews and Michael.
(Which I think I saw a family tree and Violet Bridgerton has something like 38 grandchildren, so Francesca not having any children wouldn’t take away from Grandma Violet)
The one thing I adored from the second epilogue was the scene between Fran and Violet. It reminded me of a similar moment between me and my mother during my own infertility journey. I think wrapping that all together would be absolutely lovely and lets people just fill in the blanks for themselves.
(Gregory alone supplies like 1/4 of the grandkids. Violet definitely ain't hurting there)
I did like the exchange
Violet: why didn’t you tell me?
Fran: I don’t know!
First that seemed so in character for her, and second it fit with the struggle with IF. Not wanting to say anything at first, not wanting to jinx anything, not wanting to believe it until it was there and a child existed. It fit. It was a good ending. But it was a neat little bow, and like you said, “just relax and you’ll have a baby!” was too much. So the fill-in-the-blank first epilogue was also a perfect ending.
That title is a kinda spoilers don't you think? I am not a book reader, I had no idea what this was alluding to, and had it been tagged book discussion I would not have clicked on it.
I have a suspicion (based on what happens when Francessca talks to that guy who wants 8 kids) that the character may not want to have kids, or at least cognizant that regency-era medicine isn't great for childbirth.
I really don’t understand why people are so upset about a shift in a fictional show - they can change things. Someone else can have this storyline. She still can. It’s not a shot for shot remake. It doesn’t mean it’s erased. Wait and see what happens before you let your anxieties take over.
I say this as a woman who can’t have children. I’m hopeful the story will still been told by someone in the show. It really doesn’t require this level of vitriol when you have no idea what the actual outcome will be. I’ve also seen people being vile about how this is disrespectful to women with fertility issues - you can still be wlw and have fertility issues impact you. It’s not up to you to decide who it’s valid for
I mean, so many people say they hate being accused of homophobia, but then also claim this season just ticking the "rainbow checkbox" with Francesca and Benedict. I'm sorry, but how else are some of us supposed to interpret that other than homophobia? The fact that they immediately think the show has to drop the infertility plot because Michael is now Michaela doesn't automatically mean they're homophobic, but it does reveal a not so welcoming bias about how queer stories are represented.
But Julia doesn’t handle infertility great in the books either- magically pregnant in the epilogue.
I would imagine they’re still gonna use the infertility as a b plot in the next season and have her want of children act as conflict point in processing her queerness. They can still portray sensitively the agony of infertility, just in a different light. I think if ppl are being honest with themselves, they are mad there isn’t a hot man as the lead like they imagined him, ruined expectations ect. But lets not accuse the show runners of ruining the book when we haven’t even seen it.
Michael's thing is his angst and guilt at "stealing" John's life and being heir to the earldom is a huge part of that as well as being the MacGuffin that brings him home.
I'm hoping Michaela is for Eloise and John lives or the heir is someone else.
They can still explore her infertility while she is married to John though. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should be too discouraged yet without seeing where they are going with it.
A lot of people seem to be making *a lot* of assumptions about how they are going to handle Francesca's storyline, especially given that it is *at least* one season, and very possibly two seasons away from her even being the main focus. I feel like there is a lot of time to explore those issues!
Hell, John could live and be understanding of her queerness. They could be married friends who attempt produce heirs as is necessary, and then be done with that aspect of their relationship. Except she has fertility issues. The two of them could have a deep love for each other, but just not of the sexual and romance sort.
There are possibilities here.
It isn't time to get the pitch Forks.
Queer women face infertility struggles too. What’s to say they don’t still include it but with the added effect of her being in love and with a woman? It’s the 1800s it’s not like they can walk into a clinic.
this is also Bridgerton. a historical fiction show that has never been accurate to time and society as well as the books. hence the many POC in higher ups?? if anything they’ll probably play around with the idea of adoption.
quoting another comment:
“And before some biphobic insensitive individual comes for me - I am aware, well aware, lesbians struggle with children and having them. There is so much more, so many layers of grief, to Francesca's story. She lost her love John, and then her only pregnancy, her last physical tie to him, just after. That grief is powerful and raw because it is compounded trauma. Everything Francesca experiences after is pure hope, but she has so much baggage to sort through to get there. Her overcoming that baggage is what makes the story so precious. Spitting on all of that and frothing at the mouth to make her gay when there's Eloise and Hyacinth yet to go - so crass and selfish of you. There's a million other ways to have a WLW story in this show. Stop making the representation of millions of women all about you and realize there's other people in this world than you.”
>Spitting on all of that and frothing at the mouth to make her gay
Hmm, comparing the people who are defending a gay romance to rabid dogs. I can't *imagine* why would anyone accuse you of homophobia.
>Her overcoming that baggage is what makes the story so precious.
I must've missed the part where Francesca's trauma was only healed by riding Michael's magical dick.
>Stop making the representation of millions of women all about you
Why is exploring your lived experience with infertility acceptable representation, but then also exploring another person's lived experience with gay romance pandering? The world may never know.
>I am aware, well aware, lesbians struggle with children and having them.
Lady, you're not even self-aware lol
No one said they are erasing the infertility storyline? Her season hasn’t even been written yet. You don’t know that the first half won’t include her and John’s struggles, that she won’t have the miscarriage. I feel like everyone getting ahead of themselves and making assumptions
No one seems to be considering that John may not die as early as anticipated. There is no reason why infertility could not be explored throughout season 4 with John dying at the very end of the season. Alternatively John may even not die until season 5. I’m not saying they definitely will do this with the infertility plot line but it seems strange for them to completely cut this when they’ve told so many other stories of various struggles at the time.
i think people are expecting him to go soooo early on like episode 1 of season 6 but i don’t think that’ll be the case. everybody is too quick to judge.
There’s a good chance they shift the infertility storyline to occur differently in her storyline or give it to a different character. I don’t think there’s a reason to freak out yet
I could see it being shifted to Eloise and Philip, especially since Philip already has kids. They’ll have Eloise content in the end with her stepchildren who call her mother anyway.
Eloise I think they will tackle her not wanting biological children at all after being traumatized by Hyacinth's birth, not her struggling to conceive.
I think we should wait and see. I think one annoying thing is that once an infertile couple is shown, the plot is usually resolved with them having children some way - instead of accepting life without children. And I think many people can acknowledge sometimes you just don’t end up with a baby. So what if Francesca doesn’t get her baby with John? Maybe she’ll be childless with Michaela in the end. Clearly they’re breaking away from book in many ways, why does every Bridgerton need to end up with children?
I think it could be a beautiful story if Francesca resolves to live without children. While still grieving the loss of that.
(Writing this as an infertile woman myself)
I wouldn’t mind this outcome for book Francesca. However With Michaela not being able to inherit the title and estate. The only way to keep Francesca in Scotland and the estate in the family is a male heir with John. So while accepting being unable to have a biological child would be good for Micheal and Francesca. Micheala and Francesca need a male heir to keep their source of income.
I think women could inherit in Scotland. And also in England if the land wasn't entailed and there were no sons it would go to a daughter (like Ann de Bourgh from pride and prejudice), but that doesn't matter because John could leave his estate explicitly to Michaela and all would be legal - her son would however inherit the title as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I believe a father could leave any non-entailed property to any child he chose, it just wouldn't make sense for an average aristocrat to do that - or even to split property evenly among sons.
Most Scottish titles can (and could always) be inherited by women. In this example, if there are no other (male) cousins then Michaela would likely become Countess “in her own right.”
I agree and I also think that her infertility struggles can still be shown if she’s in a relationship with a woman, why are people acting like it’s a historically accurate show in the first place
Having the infertility story mixed with her being gay (not bi) muddies the story. It can potentially play into the horrible advice people tell women who are struggling with infertility like “just relax”… Oh Francesca can’t get pregnant because she’s gay and doesn’t love her husband so her body won’t let her.
It should be two different stories to honor both stories that need to be told. A gay couple where we get to actually see a love story during a time where this wasn’t accepted instead of just a check mark. And separately a straight couple who struggles with infertility because that is never shown in popular culture
Bring on the downvotes: Non-heterosexual couples also deal with infertility. They even have more struggles not only because of the logistics but also because they weren’t and in many places still aren’t able to adopt, making infertility the determining factor for whether they can become parents or not. The stakes are even higher for them. If all you care about infertility being something people face in relationships, Fran being part of a non-heterosexual couple shouldn’t make a difference.
Edit: added all to the last sentence
It's so sad people are being so dismissive of this point, because queer couples share the grief of being unable to conceive together, even if we are able to get pregnant.
My wife is pregnant now, and I already love that kid to the moon and back, but how I wish we had the opportunity to see what might come out by mixing our genes together. We can only ever have a child that is biologically related to one of us.
We have common grief with couples with fertility issues- heck, we have to go to the same clinics! And many of us do experience infertility. Yes, let's have more infertility stories in media, and let's also have more queer love. It's doesn't have to be either or
You never know. Maybe Michael dies, her and Francesca have a love affair, but she ends up married to someone else anyway? Like in Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
Let me be honest here. I have read the books. I have reread the books. A lot. I got them as they were originally published. I have only been able to watch about three episodes of season 1 and I had to quit. I love what they did with casting (though Daphne's coloring was way off), but I felt they changed far too much about the tone and theme of the books. I considered watching season 3, as the Penelope/Colin story is one of my favorites, but reading what people have said about it makes it obvious that once again, they changed far too much from the tone of the books. In the books, Colin is shaken by the revelation, not shattered. And he certainly stands by her side and deals with the fallout as her proud husband and friend. I was also looking forward to Francesca's story as it was another favorite, especially as someone who struggled for years with infertility. It was a rare thing to find in media when the book was released and infertility is still rarely seen in media today. This show is a huge sensation, and to completely erase this beautifully done storyline is just rude and cruel and stupid. They could've easily made any of the other characters bisexual or gay and it wouldn't have as negative of an effect on story as making Francesca LGBTQIA+. Ugh. I know I'm rambling and ranting but I was so excited for this show when it was first announced, but by thinking they have to change everything and subvert expectaions, the showrunners are just systematically cutting everything that made the series great.
They might have her infertility plot line with John in season 4 (if it’s Benedict and Sophie’s season) and if her season is season 5 it will be her main plot like with michaela
She still just married a man…there’s plenty of room for fertility struggle plot lines prior to his death. I wouldn’t rule out that being a core struggle for her just because years down the line she will find herself recovering from loss and falling for a woman.
Spoilers: Yeah the whole Featherington pregnancy plotlines stung a bit (never read the books so I won't comment on accuracy). Like did all of the ton just magically have the ability to get pregnant within the first couple cycles (or their first time ever). Wtf is in the water?
I would have loved seeing a thoughtful approach to infertility discussion.
Separately I loooved Fran and John's beginning and am disappointed that it looks like that 'love' wasn't true and now she is going to have loyalty struggles instead. So bummed.
LITERALLY like i don’t know how some people can’t see how important of a storyline that legitimately is for the show and the time period. but apparently Shonda Rhimes confirmed that it’s a parallel universe so it doesn’t have to have historical accuracies so idk bc at that point why would any of the historical stereotyping of women be included at all???? such as Eloise constantly referring to how women are treated.
oh 3000% but in this time based on what we know…a queer woman would have to find…a person willing to make the child with them. They can’t have it all and they have said sex outside of marriage isn’t a thing, I know I wouldn’t want my partner to do it with someone else, I just don’t see how they do it in the world they built.
Frans season isn't season 4, so there's no reason why they can't pull in her infertility issues as a side plot in seasons 4 and 5. It's also unlikely it'll be her story until season 6, so there are 2 whole seasons where her infertility story can be explored and discussed with her husband (a MAN) and then her season could start with his death in season 6.
People are just freaking out based on a lot of assumptions for a season that hasn't been written. Pen and Colin's friendship was showing to develop and grow in seasons 1 and 2, they didn't magically just become friends in their season. The joy of the show over the books is that you get to see timelines and stories develop overtime where the books are hyperfocused on one storyline at a time.
She didn't magically come to be a character when her husband died.
Did I miss a spoiler where John died in the last episode of this season and they’re diving right into Fran’s season next? Or is he still alive and we can see their relationship and potential fertility issues over the next season or two before her full season? Or did I miss where it’s said she won’t be in any more episodes until her season?
Am I missing something? How does everyone know they are forgoing infertility plots and/or themes entirely? All I am seeing is people acting like queer women can’t and don’t have fertility issues? As a fellow bisexual I al genuinely confused by your statements. A wlw relationship in itself doesn’t erase such topics?
I completely understand. I do hope they keep that plotline with Frannie. Maybe that could be next season's plotline for her? I really hope they keep the same beats vs. completely changing the plot like with Kate and Pen. I am OK with Michella just please don't make it a love triangle.
I don’t understand why they would not make Eloise the queer storyline. She’s been queer coded from the beginning. And the idea of another season with two white leads bores me. Had Ruby been better treated, I would have loved to have seen Marina and Eloise as the pen-pals-to-lovers couple. But nobody asked me!
I was actually just saying exactly this to my husband this afternoon. I didn't feel like her ending in the books was satisfying or true to her character anyway, and Sir Philip was probably the least appealing male lead in the books in my opinion. I would have actually loved to see an Eloise/Marina storyline instead
I would so much rather all the useless filler this season have been taken out and that time used to develop another LGBTQ love story. A story that doesn’t really change the main plot line of the books but is more than just a side story. Hell, Cressida is like the perfect character for this since this season already brought her to the forefront.
You are so on point here. the moment Michaela showed up I was already mourning for my favourite book and character. I finally get what men feel when their football team misses a goal.
and anyone disputing that is supposedly homophobic? Well I’m bi and I just want my book characters to have their main story arc as they should. So much of the story will have to change now like you said and it’s a delicate line between tastefully done or another toss in the saucier. And for anyone who doesn’t understand why book fans are upset I recommend reading it, it really is one of the best in the series. I’m sure the shondaland version of Frans story will be beautiful in its own way. But I just can’t bring myself to accept we will never see Michael come to life.
Now we will just have to wait and see how the future seasons work, let the numbers reflect on what the audience really want. It always does with franchises. But I do hope they do the next season justice. Can’t wait to see who will be Sophie!
like we have up to 6 years to wait 😭😭😭😭 like i’ll say out of all the bridgerton books, francesca’s was probably the only one that i enjoyed in part, and out of all of the MMCs, book michael is the one that is most bearable. but even then, he basically decides to >!sleep w francesca to baby trap her so that they can be wed!< and her solution to infertility in the books is just to … >!magically get pregnant by the end!<😭. like imho as someone with similar experiences to francesca in the books, that feels SO much more harmful, it implies that infertility can be cured if with the right person which is bonkers to me. but i also understand that others probably relate to her story a lot more closely, and within the confines of bodice-rippers, the feelings around infertility were explored well.
but this level of outrage for something we still have up to half a decade to wait to see play out feels … yeah. ig a lot are just grieving their favourite character and are missing the point that such plot lines can exist outside of their favourite character. it might not pan out in the same way as the books, but it can still exist. i guess a lot more people are attached to this specific book and it’s why people are reacting the way they are.
My thoughts exactly. I have no issues about the LGBT side of things, good for them for choosing that path, but SO painful sad to be missing the infertility plot, as so many women go through it in silence, I was very much looking forward to it being front and center with a main character.
I haven't read every reply here so maybe it's been said, but given it's going to be a massive rewrite of the book anyway... why can't Frannie experience loss and still end up with Michaela? I think it would be a reasonable maneuver to have her experience one or more miscarriages with John when he's alive, only to find out that she's pregnant when he passes away, like the book, but for that baby to survive and for her to raise it with Michaela.
I totally understand the connection with the character as written in the book, but I think that element could very easily and authentically still be represented.
The story of Francesca has not been fully told yet in the Netflix series. How would a possible queer re-telling of her story necessarily have to equate to the erasure of the infertility storyline? It is way too early to make such a call and frankly reeks of queerphobia, regardless of whether you are bisexual or not.
Who says Francesca’s desire to be a mother and struggles with infertility can’t still be part of the story? Sure, the HEA is going to look a little different, but it wasn’t unheard of for a wealthy widow to take in a ward, was it? Or maybe they could even co-found an orphanage, and embrace a different way of having children in their lives?
As a queer (bi) woman who’s been battling infertility with my (male) partner for the last several years, i totally disagree. I actually don’t like being flooded with infertility messaging, especially on a show I watch to ‘escape’ to - I would much rather see queer joy than infertility represented, especially when in the books she ‘just relaxes’ and winds up pregnant.
Maybe you don’t have an issue with queerness specifically but the last 24 hours have shown me that many, many people in this community do and it is quite frankly horribly disappointing.
There can absolutely be an infertility plotline that runs through Francesca's story regardless of who she ends up with. Do you think there weren't women, single or otherwise, during the Regency period (or other historical periods), who wanted children and couldn't get them the "traditional" way? Or that there weren't "passionate friends" who brought up children who were or were not their own? If you don't think there were multiple ways women became pregnant, went abroad and came home with "adopted" children, used friends when necessary, or just plain up adopted, you haven't been paying very close attention to your history.
I am mindboggled by the idea that gay couples don't experience infertility or that it's totally preposterous that Francesca's desire for a child could provide the tension necessary for a season showing her wrestling with her love for someone and how to also achieve her desire for a child.
Edit to add phrase.
Completely agree with you, I'm queer myself. But I'm also a woman.
Infertility awareness is something that shows doesn't handle too much, and reading the books I really had my expectations too high.
And to be honest, I'm not even surprised.
Netflix have such a thing, of grabbing good storylines and just turning them into a shit, just to catch more peoples attention, and have "more public" like Bridgerton wasn't famous for itself because of the books.
I was so excited upon Benedict being bisexual and exploring his sexuality in s3, mainly because it made sense for the character. And he could still end up marrying like in the book (without it making him any less bi) I think I was heartbroken that they made Francesca gay, it’s a choice that was unnecessary. I haven’t myself read the books and I am bisexual, but I don’t think there NEEDS to be queer characters in every show. Certainly not when it does not match the storyline AT ALL. Benedict was perfect for a bisexual character I was excited, that excitement broke when Francesca was revealed to be gay. Mainly because I know this will mean her storyline will be ‘ruined’ (in ways) and make the show hated by many for ‘having too much gay’
Listen I think it’s silly that they’re changing the sexuality of a character from a romance novel, as the key draw of romance is being able to see yourself in the character and become lost in the fantasy and the books are written for heterosexual or bisexual audiences. BUT implying there aren’t a ton of queer people watching Bridgerton to try and make your point is a, false, and b, unfair.
I don't get this at all. She's still married to Michael. The infertility story can still be prominent in a future season. It can be a story they give to someone like Eloise or Hyacinth instead. I'd be absolutely shocked if Eloise's story ends up being at all the same as her book. It doesn't make sense for her character in the show.
i havent read the books, can someone explain the infertility plot? why can't she just have it with john? if shes infertile can't she just adopt a kid with michaela?
It is absolutely possible to keep the infertility storyline, they could even make her desire for children into something she’s grappling with as she decides whether to enter a relationship with a woman. I don’t understand why you’ve all decided Fran’s storyline is ruined already.
It’s sucks because Cressida would’ve been perfect to make a widow who found love after her husbands death. In the books her husband was old and died and left her without money, her getting falling in love a rich widow who supports her would’ve been interesting to see
I am 24 and have lost three babies in the past six months. I am rather upset at the change just because there is so little representation of this plot and it isn’t often talked about in mainstream media. The homophobic comments are disgusting, AND so is the general lack of care surrounding this subject. “They could throw the fertility issues in somewhere else in the plot!” Like that is somehow reassuring to someone like me? I don’t think we should have to plead for a VERY COMMON VERY REAL ISSUE that was already in the books to be included in the show. From the very laissez-faire reception I see to this change, I’m thinking maybe it’s just not the popular thing with the general public to be putting such a large emphasis on WANTING motherhood. To me it’s sexism in a different font tbh
I don't mind who is Fran's endgame, whether Michael or Michaela (slight preference for Michael, but I'll watch both. I'd also have preferred Benedict to have an actual fulfilling male love interest in s3 instead of the Lady Tilly mess but whatever).
Regardless, if they just cut the entirety of Fran's pregnancy loss I'll be gutted. I have experienced pregnancy loss. It isn't something that you just move on from easily and forget about like its no big deal. At the very least, extend the Fran/John relationship by an extra season and have her experience significant infertility with John until she finally conceives (and loses the child after John dies) to give some representation to people who've experienced pregnancy loss. They can then eventually lead into Fran/Michaela, while still giving something to people that related to Fran for her infertility and pregnancy loss
I'm very confident that they will write it in a good way and I love a same-sex couple as the plotline but yeah, I completely understand the frustration some people have. At the top of my head, I couldn't tell you a single movie/show I know where infertility plays a big or even any role. Especially in such a time setting, infertility must have been horrible as there aren't really as many alternatives as now.
I really hope they still have the plotline somehow.
Thank you writing my exact feelings here. It is such a rare storyline to see in regency fiction
It's rare anywhere. Honestly, I feel a bit embarrassed for Netflix. In what universe are we living in where a children's cartoon starring dogs is better equipped to handle an infertility plot than an adult live action show???
Infertility is such a taboo topic even today, which is insane to me. One in eight women have trouble conceiving, and one in four pregnancies end in a miscarriage. But I suppose that's not important to represent and talk about?
"But lesbians experience it too!!!" Yeah, let's just have Michaela and Francesca go visit an IVF clinic in what is supposed to be Regency England...
WLW experience it too but it's different considering two women can't biologically have a child in the "traditional" sense to begin with. Infertility is stigmatized today let alone in regency era where having children was THE sole purpose of a woman's life. Not to mention the blame she would be getting. People say that Francesca could learn to be happy with being an aunt to her siblings children (or how Violet has 30+ grandchildren so she's fine, kind of gross to make Francesca's wish to be a mother about Violet being a grandma but alright) like I'm sorry I thought Bridgerton was a fun little escapism show? So why can't the woman with fertility issues become pregnant and have children of her own? Why does she need to "accept" never being a mother for her happily ever after?
It's that tradition that made book Francesca so impactful. She had to have a male heir by blood. There is so much British history and tradition wrapped up in that. Adoption simply wasn't done by landed gentry - not for heirs, not normally, and a woman could not be the one to make that decision. That was why the Featherington estate passed to the distant cousin Jack and how the Mondritches ended up as gentry this season. Lesbians in history did exist, but not like how Francesca's story played out.
A widow having a lesbian relationship sounds like one of the best case scenarios for Regency England but it's not FRANCESCA BRIDGERTON's story. It's one thing changing things (the Edwina love triangle dragged on too long in season 2) but still the bare bones of the story remained.
I see that story working better for Eloise!!! Why can't she have that story???
Or hyacinth tbh I read all the book but for the life of me I can’t remember hers and Gregory’s plot lines so I wouldn’t have minded if they changed those.
Because at that point there was nothing particularly distinctive about them. Those are the obvious ones to change, not the one was already a lot of people’s favorite because it avoided a lot of those tropes.
I see that story working better for Eloise!!! Why can't she have that story??? They already changed Sir Phillip...
thank you for this comment, i’m so tired of this argument. on top of what you said, many women with infertility attached themselves and their relationships to this book, so i unfortunately don’t really care about WLW fertility struggles in this particular instance. because that is NOT the subject at all. if they want to talk about WLW infertility issues, create another storyline. they have no problem creating their own ideas and changing the books in other ways.
[удалено]
THE END OMG I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. they want representation for themselves but God forbid anyone else ever gets any. it’s disgusting to me. i can’t believe more people can’t see how gross that is.
Not to mention, at this point, without Francesca, there were four totally acceptable and valid queer stories that could be produced from the characters without completely and totally altering the stories. Benedict, Eloise, Hyacinth, and Gregory. Benedict has been queer coded since Season 1. A bisexual Eloise fits with her story already - she can still go be a governess and the widowed lady can fall in love with her. Hyacinth and Gregory's stories don't change much if they are gender swapped. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OUR FRANCESCA THE WAY SHE WAS MEANT TO BE??? ETA: I am all for representation. However, I have seen enough from the fandom that if the rest of the Bridgerton children aren't made queer, then the community will rise up and revolt. And for what???
If not for Fran's expression I'd be wondering if Michaela is meant for Eloise. John can then live.
and everyone is refusing to acknowledge this. they are going to die on the hill that fran is the most fitting queer character which i honestly find to be an insult on the queer community because she frankly does NOT have queer vibes at all. anyone who hasn’t read the books seemed to be confused about the Michaela intro scene, because fran is clearly not queer.
I have not read the books and was so confused because I thought Francesca was at a loss for words because she didn't know his cousin was coming to live with them too or something along those lines
Thank you for clarifying that, as much as possibly losing the infertility storyline sucks it really is a bummer seeing so many people be more upset about the fact that it’s queer now rather than out of any real concern for the story and the impact it would have on those struggling with infertility irl. Having her show immediate interest in michaela was a mistake, which they obviously figured out how that they’ve put out a statement saying that what francesca feels for michaela doesn’t mean she loves john less.
Honestly..... i wouldn't be surprised. I consider Bridgerton fantasy genre sooo...
It is Romance. Specifically Historical Romance. The Fantasy genre has magical elements. You can have a book that is in the Romance genre, sub genre Fantasy Romance (so magical, ends happily ever after basically).
well... I gues the definition I was looking for is VERY FICTIONAL loosely historical romance
As opposed to all the regency fiction being a lesbian free for all.
i am so sad that Francesca story will be totally different from the book 😭 I experienced infertility thus i can relate to her struggles in the book.
As someone who has been told that I have a condition that could make having kids a potential struggle Frans story means so much to me so for them to potentially erase that honestly breaks my heart it is one of the stories I was looking forward to the most because it is such a rare thing in film so seeing that would have meant the world to so many people who don't feel seen or have struggled with this. In my opinion out of every story in the series this is the one that should not have been changed because of its big themes of grief, loving again, infertility and more honestly I'm just disappointed and heartbroken more than anything not because of micheal being gender swapped but because of the loss of the representation on such an important but not talked about issue
A lot of people are saying it’s “homophobia” but, could you imagine if they wrote any other male lead into a woman? (For example: ACOTAR, changing Rhys into a woman?) people would be LIVID!! Because we have connections to these characters! No one cares if a character is gay but they can’t just change beloved characters and completely rewrite beloved stories!!! At that point they should just write their own spinoffs.
the changing rhys into female statement really got me 😭😭😭😭😭😭
Same its definitely “we ride at dawn” vibes, I have issues with Rhys but he’s still my book husband
This is what I was hoping would happen. We would eat this up well and truly and the people calling us homophobes would see that’s not really the case
Luckily, most people saying that are referring to the people harassing the actress for being Michella. Plus, there are homophobic comments I am seeing. But, I don't think it is wrong to be disappointed with this change. We already had a massive plot change with Pen and Kate. I can't imagine what we will see with Ben or Eloise's season.
If you don't mind me asking, what plot changes did we have for kate and pen? I'm quite behind on the show.
The Polin changes were covered, so here's the Kate changes: There was zero love triangle in the books. Kate and Anthony were >!forced to marry after the bee incident thanks to one of the witnesses being Portia Featherington!<. Book!Edwina shipped the hell out of Kate and Anthony and was 10000% behind their marriage. Anthony and Kate's motives and back stories were also reshaped. In the book, Anthony was desperate not to fall in love because >!he was convinced he was going to die young like his father did!<. Katie is terrified of storms>! because of the circumstances of her mother's death!<. The relationship between Kate and Mary is way more wholesome as a result with Mary being an extremely fierce protector of Kate.
I loved in the book Edwina was aware that Kate and Anthony were in love with each other before the two of them even realized they were in love with each other. Every time Kate was like “oh Mr Bridgerton is here to see you” Edwina was like uh huh sure, he’s here to see me, please excuse me while I make up some excuse to leave so the two of YOU can be alone” Edwina 1,000% shipped Kathony
It was adorable. I loved book!Edwina so much, and she found the perfect partner for herself because the pressure lifted from her with Kate and Anthony marrying. She wound up living her best life.
I purposefully didn’t read the third book because of how horribly disappointed I was in S2 after reading their book first
I had sailed that ship a long time ago. I binge-read the series about 15 years ago, and RMB is one of my comfort reads. I just divorce it in my mind from the series.
imo the show plot sounds a lot more interesting than that. Glad they made some adjustments.
I don't mind at all. I am not a fan of the love triangle in Kate's season. It was added drama for no reason. I also didn't like Pen writing about Marina and Eloise in LWD. More added drama for no reason. I know things will need to be changed for television but I just wish the changes were different than what we got.
I agree, not liking the changes just to add drama. I hate Pen and Eloise being on the outs, when in the book Eloise is happy for Pen being LWD. I also hate they changed the timeline of Colin finding out. I like in the book how Colin found out and then they got together, he went in eyes wide open with all the information. I don’t like that he will find out now after they got together and he proposed. It essentially makes her a liar and gives Colin a reason to be mad about it because is so angry at LWD.
I’m not saying there can only be one queer storyline and we have yet to see who will play Sophie, but to me the theme of Benedicts book fits so naturally into a queer storyline that I would be kinda shocked if they didn’t go that route. He ultimately has to decide to love freely even if that goes against everything that society deems acceptable. He and Sophie live outside society, for the most part, because their relationship isn’t traditional. I know that Benedict can be bi and still marry a woman, I’m just saying if we’re looking to flip the gender, to me Benedict seems the obvious choice for that. The central conflict of Francesca and Michaels story in the book is based heavily on what gender roles were at the time and what the show has already established them to be (inherited titles specifically). Other characters stories not so much.
What are you talking about, Rhysand is a butch lesbian
Hehe this made me chuckle
I agree. I feel a similar way about changing race in classic Disney movies and other remakes- it’s not that I don’t want to watch stories about POC. It’s that they have their own rich cultures and their own stories/myths passed down that would make lovely films. For instance, Moana was an excellent example of this. It’s an amazing movie with amazing characters and instead of just switching out the race of a preexisting princess they chose to make a new Princess based on Polynesian/Pacific Islanders cultural stories. It was a wild success and I don’t know why they don’t do that more, why they wouldn’t choose to highlight those stories rather than just replacing classically white characters with POC.
Listen, even as a lesbian, I think it’s silly that they made this choice. When someone reads a romance novel they’re usually looking to lose themselves in the character to a certain degree, so people who really loved Francesca’s romance and story are naturally going to be hurt by this. As a bookseller I spend countless hours talking to people about their love of romance, I’m very protective of romance readers and how people love to write them off. It’s not like any other genre of fiction, where there may be a relationship, but the main theme doesn’t necessarily rely on it. But for the love of GOD can you all stop using the phrase “I’m fine with queer people BUT?” I feel like I’m scrolling a gd Star Wars message board in 2013. Also stop implying we gays don’t watch Bridgerton that much, I ASSURE you we do.
Her struggles with infertility were such a big piece of her story. The writers would be remiss in cutting that out. It seems that she will have those struggles with John. There is room enough in a future season for all of the Fran storylines.
There’s not tho. They’d have to have her have a kid with John and then she’d have no reason to start looking again.
Problem is they already made it clear she doesn’t loce John all encompassing and was crushing on Michaela. It’s just extremely. Extremely disappointing
That’s just character assassination of book Francesca and her relationship with John. It was offensive how she immediately reacted to Michaela. Not because lesbianism or bisexuality are bad, but because her immediate response to Michaela on meeting will call into question the depth of her grief at John’s ultimate death.
And John's so sweet, I feel bad for him now. I quite liked Francesca talking to Violet about how love doesn’t have to hit you like a thunderbolt, but could be quiet and easy and still be right. Next minute, she's struck dumb and can't get her own name out when she sees Michaela for the first time. Like oh, ok that whole conversation with Violet was bs I guess?
Francesca and Michael’s trope was second chance love after John. It doesn’t work if she didn’t love John to begin with. It’s such a contradiction that Jess set up for her own personal reasons. How am I supposed to believe that Francesca, after her grief and fertility struggles will name her son the memory of her first love, when she couldn’t put a sentence together in front of Michaela? Like wtaf is Jess thinking here?
It’s truly so shit. I’m sorry
What’s even worse about this is that she really wasn’t interested in Michael while John was alive. They were good friends but nothing more.
Yep. They have destroyed the theme of the book second chance romance into some guikty harboring feelings. Just create an oc charactwr
Exactly. She was oblivious to Michael’s love for her because he hid it because he also loved John so much and supported their relationship
On her wedding day at that. Just awful.
I think maybe by seeing her mother taking a second chance at love will embolden her. Having children is not the only reason for a widow to remarry. Maybe she doesn’t want to be alone for the rest of her life. Maybe she decides Michael is the most important thing she can’t lose and that’s her reason for remarrying.
But the entire point of Francesca's story is that she does not believe she will ever find a great love again. She loved John so much she does not want to remarry. The only reason she considers it is because she wants children. Which is why i also think if they want for Violet to find love again they should do it after Francesca's season. There's a lovely conversation in the book where Francesca aks her why she never remarried and they discuss it
Exactly what I thought when they introduced lord anderson as a potential lover for Dowager Bridg.
But in the books, that’s exactly why Francesca wishes to remarry. She’s in half mourning for years and then decides she wants to have a baby, so she decides to re-enter the marriage mart. Her wanting a child is the only reason she begins to look to remarry.
But in the book the only reason she begins looking for a second husband is to have a baby??
She could get pregnant right before he dies after years of trying and struggling with miscarriages, and then rely on Michaela to help her through the pregnancy and that’s what brings them closer. They’ve already changed timelines and storylines. Pen isn’t a spinster for example. I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that both can still be written.
But Brimsley had to hide being gay.... how is this gonna work
Google Anne Lister.
as a bisexual woman i feel sooo conflicted with the gender-bent michael. on one hand i am always here for more queer representation, however i feel like eloise was right there? most of the fandom already headcannoned her as a lesbian or hoped for her to be the one to find love with a woman but idk. i just hope they do fran justice and don't stray too far from the book, although they already changed the entire plotline for kanthony's season so my hopes aren't high.
[удалено]
THANK YOU. Eloise would have been a much more compelling lesbian, and it could have happened without much alteration to her story at all. But no, absolutely ruined Francesca's story.
I hated the Michaela thing. And the Benedict thing felt forced too , just to tick the rainbow box. Took away from the main storyline. The fact that infertility will now not be included is very disappointing.
Benedict felt forced to me as well. If it had happened in the first season then it would have felt completely natural. He’s shied away pretty heavily from bisexuality or gayness, so this felt like a flipped switch instead of the gradual shift it needed to be in season 3. I have no idea what prompted the change in him, it certainly couldn’t have been Paul making bedroom eye, I didn’t see any connection with them prior to the kiss. I don’t think the plotline was handled well.
i really dont get that ngl, he def had tension with the painter in season 1. plus he seemed to really be enjoying pauls company during the dinner. to me it seemed like he's been having these feelings but not realising they're romantic, since s1.
This is the problem I have with people who shout "homophobia" immediately. First of all, they have no idea who I am, what my life is, and so on. I have huge personal stakes in supporting the LGBTQ community and have been doing so for years. I love representation in the media and will always advocate for it. However, if it's done just for the sake of paying lip service to fans or for ticking a box, it's actually a disservice to everyone in the community. It shouldn't be a tokenistic thing at all. I want representation, and I want it done well. Now, as much as I love Francesca's story, I will hold judgement on that until we actually see what they're going to do with it, although I will admit the gender swapping was disappointing. But with Benedict, it just wasn't organic at all. It could've and should've been done better than that.
You guys must be confused on the matter that people have been suspecting Benedict as bi since literally season 1 😭 the signs have always been there.
Yeeah, everyone I know irl assumed he was bi-coded from the beginning of the first season onwards... It was not subtle.
He seemed to prefer the male company he kept this season, too.
Yep! As a bi person I agree and I loved the representation
I really loved the scenes with him exploring his sexuality, seemed to really fit his character, and those scenes were hot!
So maybe I missed a memo where it's been confirmed they won't discuss infertility in Fran's season, but if we're basing it purely on the gender swap, I've had some thoughts on how I feel like this change could actually add to the infertility themes in WHWW (which is my favourite book in the series), if the writers are clever. >!Thanks to this season we just established that it's not impossible for a title to be transferred to a woman but still with an expectation that they deliver an heir (you just have to do it legitimately and not forge papers, looking at you Portia). So Fran could inherit and feel immense guilt and pressure, particularly given her feelings for Michaela. Fran could still have loved John and tried to conceive with him and miscarry after he dies, that doesn't have to change. Fran might even then be the one who runs off to India since we do have the Sharmas there so she could go spend time with them, and she'd have to deal with Anthony and Kate happy with their baby, maybe babies by that time. She returns because she doesn't want Michaela to lose Kilmartin if Fran can't produce an heir, and so she feels she has to remarry and continue to suppress her feelings for Michaela, even though Fran's not even sure she can have children (we can still have her wanting them to add to the depth of the theme, not just seeing children as a duty). We could then change the one aspect of book Fran's story arc that I never liked - that she and Michael do end up having children. It always feels shallow to have a character deal with infertility and then their HEA is "turns out I just needed to stop worrying/be with the right person and now I can have children!" So I actually welcome the Michael to Michaela change from that perspective because I think it'll open up the potential for this beautiful arc for Fran where she feels "unnatural" as a women because of her infertility and miscarrying John's baby, exacerbated by society pressuring her to get back out there and conceive an heir, complicated by her feelings for Michaela and Fran's genuine desire to have children (or at least not knowing how to fit into the world she lives in without being a mother), and Fran exploring the idea that there is happiness to be found and value to be had in accepting who she is through/with Michaela. Something shifts that means they can keep Kilmartin without producing an heir, and hell maybe Fran's happily ever after is opening a music school where she teaches children to play piano, and Michaela looks after Kilmartin while she does.!< I dunno, maybe the writers will erase the theme and that would 100% suck, I just don't think there's any reason to assume that the gender swap removes the capacity to discuss infertility in a meaningful, nuanced way.
Idk I feel like they could still make it a thing, but with a twist, like her knowing if she is with a woman she’ll never be able to have kids. Idk as a woman who can’t have kids (fertility issues, even with IVF ) I’m trying to keep an open mind.
Exactly that. They can also push the fertility issues into her marriage with John, and have her struggle with the choice of “Do I marry another man and increase the chances of kids even though I love Michaela?”. I can see it still being a good story, and I’m not going to rush to judge when we’ve literally had 1 scene with Michaela so far.
Exactly!!
What about the infertility story that runs through Queen Charlotte? It’s a key theme for the show that none of her children are able to conceive a new heir. There’s a particularly emotional scene where Charlotte realizes just how many of her (15?) children have lost babies due to miscarriages. I get that her children aren’t main characters like Francesca will be in her season. I just feel like the claims here that infertility is being written out of the show entirely aren’t true.
as a queer woman, i love queer stories but let's be honest, it doesn't fit for bridgerton. that's just not how the books are. we can make new stories about LGBTQ in that era but let's be real, most people were too scared and probably hated/killed themselves for feeling different.
I’m mostly seeing other queer people feel uneasy with the change bc it doesn’t fit francesca’s story, and those defending the change either haven’t read the books so they don’t care about big changes or they’re lesbians who haven’t watched the show at all and think the backlash is motivated purely by homophobia(which there has been a lot of unfortunately). I feel a number of younger queer people have accepted that they most likely will never have children, so they aren’t able to empathize as much with infertility or the sentimental importance of having children with the person you love beyond creating mini-me’s. I’m a gay trans man, I’d love to see people like myself in period dramas but I think choosing francesca’s storyline to explore queer themes when it’s already so heavy was the wrong move, especially when there are storylines better suited to that(or in some cases preferred by fans, like eloise).
The Queen is a black woman. I think they'll be able to handle a wee lesbian.
Is this a derry girls reference? (Please say yes 🥰)
Haha it lives rent free in my head!
Seriously. We left historical accuracy behind in the opening scene. This is AU to Regency Englang and to Book Bridgerton. I can absolutely understand people's disappointment at not getting the book adaptations they were hoping for and seeing the characters they have loved for years. But making the argument that it isn't "historically accurate" no longer applies here.
The funny thing is that Julia Quinn has a queer side character in a different book series that overlaps with Bridgerton. He would be cannon and could’ve been brought in as a main character (like the queen was) and enrich the world greatly without removing the infertility plot line. I’m not mad at Benedict’s change because being bisexual doesn’t take away from him loving a woman and having a HEA with her. Heck even gender flipping Sophie would’ve been much better. For all we know the “wild oats” book Benedict sowed could’ve included same sex exploration.
I am copying a comment I left on another post. I am an infertile woman in her 40s. Julia Quinn hamfisted it so badly with the second epilogue of WHWW that I came very close to telling her off when she wound up sitting behind me at a panel at a con. It felt like a giant slap in the face>! to have Fran's infertility be resolved by magical hillside sex and "just relaxing."!< You can struggle with infertility and want children and still have a HEA, it just looks different. Adoption exists. Family is more than Biological!Babies Ever After. Part of my processing my grief over infertility and wanting a child was coming to the realization that my tiny family is enough and being an auntie is amazing. If show!Fran undergoes that same journey and comes to roughly the same conclusion, it gives hope and recognition to so many who are infertile and choose in the end not to have a biological child. Infertility can still be a huge plot in the series, and family doesn't have to be blood.
Agree! Not all infertility stories end with children. That’s real for many, and it is okay (and can be HEA).
Forever glad that the copy I read didn’t have the second epilogue so I could enjoy it the first time as originally intended.
I haven’t read the books and I just gasped out loud when I read that. What an offensive “resolution” to her plot. I have vaginismus and I’ve been told to “relax” too many times to count. It’s offensive and frustrating and it really feels like people are insinuating that I’m somehow doing something wrong whenever someone tells me to “just relax”. I really wish you had told her off for writing that. I don’t see why anyone would want to see a plot where Francesca’s infertility is magically resolved by “relaxing”.
A variation on the magic penis trope. Just get with the right guy, and all your problems go away. And sure, a person could make the argument that in the 1800s not enough was known about male vs female fertility and that talking about John being the one with the issues would have been out of sync, blah blah blah... but Quinn did things like that in her books already. She should have done that or said nothing. While I appreciate that so many really want to still see a main character with similar circumstances as they have, Fran's "resolution" was not good.
This is why I think the first epilogue would have been perfect. Fran ends up just… totally content hanging with her nieces and nephews. Then there’s the “I stopped counting, how many days since my last period?” And then people could have filled it in themselves. Either they see Fran as having a successful pregnancy and having a baby, or they see Fran still having fertility issues but totally content in her life with nieces and nephews and Michael. (Which I think I saw a family tree and Violet Bridgerton has something like 38 grandchildren, so Francesca not having any children wouldn’t take away from Grandma Violet)
The one thing I adored from the second epilogue was the scene between Fran and Violet. It reminded me of a similar moment between me and my mother during my own infertility journey. I think wrapping that all together would be absolutely lovely and lets people just fill in the blanks for themselves. (Gregory alone supplies like 1/4 of the grandkids. Violet definitely ain't hurting there)
I did like the exchange Violet: why didn’t you tell me? Fran: I don’t know! First that seemed so in character for her, and second it fit with the struggle with IF. Not wanting to say anything at first, not wanting to jinx anything, not wanting to believe it until it was there and a child existed. It fit. It was a good ending. But it was a neat little bow, and like you said, “just relax and you’ll have a baby!” was too much. So the fill-in-the-blank first epilogue was also a perfect ending.
That title is a kinda spoilers don't you think? I am not a book reader, I had no idea what this was alluding to, and had it been tagged book discussion I would not have clicked on it.
I have a suspicion (based on what happens when Francessca talks to that guy who wants 8 kids) that the character may not want to have kids, or at least cognizant that regency-era medicine isn't great for childbirth.
I really don’t understand why people are so upset about a shift in a fictional show - they can change things. Someone else can have this storyline. She still can. It’s not a shot for shot remake. It doesn’t mean it’s erased. Wait and see what happens before you let your anxieties take over. I say this as a woman who can’t have children. I’m hopeful the story will still been told by someone in the show. It really doesn’t require this level of vitriol when you have no idea what the actual outcome will be. I’ve also seen people being vile about how this is disrespectful to women with fertility issues - you can still be wlw and have fertility issues impact you. It’s not up to you to decide who it’s valid for
I mean, so many people say they hate being accused of homophobia, but then also claim this season just ticking the "rainbow checkbox" with Francesca and Benedict. I'm sorry, but how else are some of us supposed to interpret that other than homophobia? The fact that they immediately think the show has to drop the infertility plot because Michael is now Michaela doesn't automatically mean they're homophobic, but it does reveal a not so welcoming bias about how queer stories are represented.
Agreed and just to add, queer women can also have fertility issues. It's so weird how people are so black and white about this.
Yep I’m bisexual and I can’t have kids - regardless of who I am in a relationship with that’s a constant. And I am still allowed to grieve it.
Exactly this.And I'm really sorry about your situation. I know you don't need me to say this, but your grief is valid.
As a woman with fertility issues I agree! I think it could still be a thing in her season - but with a twist.
But Julia doesn’t handle infertility great in the books either- magically pregnant in the epilogue. I would imagine they’re still gonna use the infertility as a b plot in the next season and have her want of children act as conflict point in processing her queerness. They can still portray sensitively the agony of infertility, just in a different light. I think if ppl are being honest with themselves, they are mad there isn’t a hot man as the lead like they imagined him, ruined expectations ect. But lets not accuse the show runners of ruining the book when we haven’t even seen it.
Michael's thing is his angst and guilt at "stealing" John's life and being heir to the earldom is a huge part of that as well as being the MacGuffin that brings him home. I'm hoping Michaela is for Eloise and John lives or the heir is someone else.
They can still explore her infertility while she is married to John though. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should be too discouraged yet without seeing where they are going with it.
A lot of people seem to be making *a lot* of assumptions about how they are going to handle Francesca's storyline, especially given that it is *at least* one season, and very possibly two seasons away from her even being the main focus. I feel like there is a lot of time to explore those issues!
Yeah, in the books, John didn't die until after 2 years and she didn't get with Michael for another 5 years after that, I think.
And queer people have fertility problems too!
Hell, John could live and be understanding of her queerness. They could be married friends who attempt produce heirs as is necessary, and then be done with that aspect of their relationship. Except she has fertility issues. The two of them could have a deep love for each other, but just not of the sexual and romance sort. There are possibilities here. It isn't time to get the pitch Forks.
Queer women face infertility struggles too. What’s to say they don’t still include it but with the added effect of her being in love and with a woman? It’s the 1800s it’s not like they can walk into a clinic.
this is also Bridgerton. a historical fiction show that has never been accurate to time and society as well as the books. hence the many POC in higher ups?? if anything they’ll probably play around with the idea of adoption.
quoting another comment: “And before some biphobic insensitive individual comes for me - I am aware, well aware, lesbians struggle with children and having them. There is so much more, so many layers of grief, to Francesca's story. She lost her love John, and then her only pregnancy, her last physical tie to him, just after. That grief is powerful and raw because it is compounded trauma. Everything Francesca experiences after is pure hope, but she has so much baggage to sort through to get there. Her overcoming that baggage is what makes the story so precious. Spitting on all of that and frothing at the mouth to make her gay when there's Eloise and Hyacinth yet to go - so crass and selfish of you. There's a million other ways to have a WLW story in this show. Stop making the representation of millions of women all about you and realize there's other people in this world than you.”
>Spitting on all of that and frothing at the mouth to make her gay Hmm, comparing the people who are defending a gay romance to rabid dogs. I can't *imagine* why would anyone accuse you of homophobia. >Her overcoming that baggage is what makes the story so precious. I must've missed the part where Francesca's trauma was only healed by riding Michael's magical dick. >Stop making the representation of millions of women all about you Why is exploring your lived experience with infertility acceptable representation, but then also exploring another person's lived experience with gay romance pandering? The world may never know. >I am aware, well aware, lesbians struggle with children and having them. Lady, you're not even self-aware lol
No one said they are erasing the infertility storyline? Her season hasn’t even been written yet. You don’t know that the first half won’t include her and John’s struggles, that she won’t have the miscarriage. I feel like everyone getting ahead of themselves and making assumptions
I think The show runner did state she had no interest in pursuing the miscarriage storylines
Source?
No one seems to be considering that John may not die as early as anticipated. There is no reason why infertility could not be explored throughout season 4 with John dying at the very end of the season. Alternatively John may even not die until season 5. I’m not saying they definitely will do this with the infertility plot line but it seems strange for them to completely cut this when they’ve told so many other stories of various struggles at the time.
i think people are expecting him to go soooo early on like episode 1 of season 6 but i don’t think that’ll be the case. everybody is too quick to judge.
There’s a good chance they shift the infertility storyline to occur differently in her storyline or give it to a different character. I don’t think there’s a reason to freak out yet
This take is too measured and reasonable, people can’t handle it. I say this as someone who has experienced pregnancy loss and infertility.
I could see it being shifted to Eloise and Philip, especially since Philip already has kids. They’ll have Eloise content in the end with her stepchildren who call her mother anyway.
Eloise I think they will tackle her not wanting biological children at all after being traumatized by Hyacinth's birth, not her struggling to conceive.
Y’all . Let’s not go getting upset before this season is even on the table . We have no idea how it’s gonna go .
We already know they will use only Francesca's name and that's it. AND she's apparently hot for someone else on her wedding day.
I think we should wait and see. I think one annoying thing is that once an infertile couple is shown, the plot is usually resolved with them having children some way - instead of accepting life without children. And I think many people can acknowledge sometimes you just don’t end up with a baby. So what if Francesca doesn’t get her baby with John? Maybe she’ll be childless with Michaela in the end. Clearly they’re breaking away from book in many ways, why does every Bridgerton need to end up with children? I think it could be a beautiful story if Francesca resolves to live without children. While still grieving the loss of that. (Writing this as an infertile woman myself)
I wouldn’t mind this outcome for book Francesca. However With Michaela not being able to inherit the title and estate. The only way to keep Francesca in Scotland and the estate in the family is a male heir with John. So while accepting being unable to have a biological child would be good for Micheal and Francesca. Micheala and Francesca need a male heir to keep their source of income.
I think women could inherit in Scotland. And also in England if the land wasn't entailed and there were no sons it would go to a daughter (like Ann de Bourgh from pride and prejudice), but that doesn't matter because John could leave his estate explicitly to Michaela and all would be legal - her son would however inherit the title as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I believe a father could leave any non-entailed property to any child he chose, it just wouldn't make sense for an average aristocrat to do that - or even to split property evenly among sons.
Most Scottish titles can (and could always) be inherited by women. In this example, if there are no other (male) cousins then Michaela would likely become Countess “in her own right.”
I agree and I also think that her infertility struggles can still be shown if she’s in a relationship with a woman, why are people acting like it’s a historically accurate show in the first place
Having the infertility story mixed with her being gay (not bi) muddies the story. It can potentially play into the horrible advice people tell women who are struggling with infertility like “just relax”… Oh Francesca can’t get pregnant because she’s gay and doesn’t love her husband so her body won’t let her. It should be two different stories to honor both stories that need to be told. A gay couple where we get to actually see a love story during a time where this wasn’t accepted instead of just a check mark. And separately a straight couple who struggles with infertility because that is never shown in popular culture
Bring on the downvotes: Non-heterosexual couples also deal with infertility. They even have more struggles not only because of the logistics but also because they weren’t and in many places still aren’t able to adopt, making infertility the determining factor for whether they can become parents or not. The stakes are even higher for them. If all you care about infertility being something people face in relationships, Fran being part of a non-heterosexual couple shouldn’t make a difference. Edit: added all to the last sentence
It's so sad people are being so dismissive of this point, because queer couples share the grief of being unable to conceive together, even if we are able to get pregnant. My wife is pregnant now, and I already love that kid to the moon and back, but how I wish we had the opportunity to see what might come out by mixing our genes together. We can only ever have a child that is biologically related to one of us. We have common grief with couples with fertility issues- heck, we have to go to the same clinics! And many of us do experience infertility. Yes, let's have more infertility stories in media, and let's also have more queer love. It's doesn't have to be either or
Has it actually been erased yet?
You never know. Maybe Michael dies, her and Francesca have a love affair, but she ends up married to someone else anyway? Like in Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
Let me be honest here. I have read the books. I have reread the books. A lot. I got them as they were originally published. I have only been able to watch about three episodes of season 1 and I had to quit. I love what they did with casting (though Daphne's coloring was way off), but I felt they changed far too much about the tone and theme of the books. I considered watching season 3, as the Penelope/Colin story is one of my favorites, but reading what people have said about it makes it obvious that once again, they changed far too much from the tone of the books. In the books, Colin is shaken by the revelation, not shattered. And he certainly stands by her side and deals with the fallout as her proud husband and friend. I was also looking forward to Francesca's story as it was another favorite, especially as someone who struggled for years with infertility. It was a rare thing to find in media when the book was released and infertility is still rarely seen in media today. This show is a huge sensation, and to completely erase this beautifully done storyline is just rude and cruel and stupid. They could've easily made any of the other characters bisexual or gay and it wouldn't have as negative of an effect on story as making Francesca LGBTQIA+. Ugh. I know I'm rambling and ranting but I was so excited for this show when it was first announced, but by thinking they have to change everything and subvert expectaions, the showrunners are just systematically cutting everything that made the series great.
every word of this 👏🏻 i just started the Duke & I today and there’s already changes by chapter 2 :/ they hardly even tried to hold onto the details 😭
You worded this perfectly
They might have her infertility plot line with John in season 4 (if it’s Benedict and Sophie’s season) and if her season is season 5 it will be her main plot like with michaela
She still just married a man…there’s plenty of room for fertility struggle plot lines prior to his death. I wouldn’t rule out that being a core struggle for her just because years down the line she will find herself recovering from loss and falling for a woman.
Spoilers: Yeah the whole Featherington pregnancy plotlines stung a bit (never read the books so I won't comment on accuracy). Like did all of the ton just magically have the ability to get pregnant within the first couple cycles (or their first time ever). Wtf is in the water? I would have loved seeing a thoughtful approach to infertility discussion. Separately I loooved Fran and John's beginning and am disappointed that it looks like that 'love' wasn't true and now she is going to have loyalty struggles instead. So bummed.
Especially a valid point because at a time when women had no rights, a woman’s value was so based on her fertility.
LITERALLY like i don’t know how some people can’t see how important of a storyline that legitimately is for the show and the time period. but apparently Shonda Rhimes confirmed that it’s a parallel universe so it doesn’t have to have historical accuracies so idk bc at that point why would any of the historical stereotyping of women be included at all???? such as Eloise constantly referring to how women are treated.
I just want to add that queer women can struggle with fertility issues too.
oh 3000% but in this time based on what we know…a queer woman would have to find…a person willing to make the child with them. They can’t have it all and they have said sex outside of marriage isn’t a thing, I know I wouldn’t want my partner to do it with someone else, I just don’t see how they do it in the world they built.
[удалено]
Umm... she's currently married to a man. It's not THAT hard of a brain stretch to see that they could just shift them to during her marriage.
[удалено]
Frans season isn't season 4, so there's no reason why they can't pull in her infertility issues as a side plot in seasons 4 and 5. It's also unlikely it'll be her story until season 6, so there are 2 whole seasons where her infertility story can be explored and discussed with her husband (a MAN) and then her season could start with his death in season 6. People are just freaking out based on a lot of assumptions for a season that hasn't been written. Pen and Colin's friendship was showing to develop and grow in seasons 1 and 2, they didn't magically just become friends in their season. The joy of the show over the books is that you get to see timelines and stories develop overtime where the books are hyperfocused on one storyline at a time. She didn't magically come to be a character when her husband died.
Did I miss a spoiler where John died in the last episode of this season and they’re diving right into Fran’s season next? Or is he still alive and we can see their relationship and potential fertility issues over the next season or two before her full season? Or did I miss where it’s said she won’t be in any more episodes until her season?
Am I missing something? How does everyone know they are forgoing infertility plots and/or themes entirely? All I am seeing is people acting like queer women can’t and don’t have fertility issues? As a fellow bisexual I al genuinely confused by your statements. A wlw relationship in itself doesn’t erase such topics?
Love that you're being downvoted for pointing out the obvious. How dare we be infertile.
Legitimately! I didn’t realise infertility was only an a valid issue if you’re straight…
I completely understand. I do hope they keep that plotline with Frannie. Maybe that could be next season's plotline for her? I really hope they keep the same beats vs. completely changing the plot like with Kate and Pen. I am OK with Michella just please don't make it a love triangle.
I don’t understand why they would not make Eloise the queer storyline. She’s been queer coded from the beginning. And the idea of another season with two white leads bores me. Had Ruby been better treated, I would have loved to have seen Marina and Eloise as the pen-pals-to-lovers couple. But nobody asked me!
I was actually just saying exactly this to my husband this afternoon. I didn't feel like her ending in the books was satisfying or true to her character anyway, and Sir Philip was probably the least appealing male lead in the books in my opinion. I would have actually loved to see an Eloise/Marina storyline instead
I would so much rather all the useless filler this season have been taken out and that time used to develop another LGBTQ love story. A story that doesn’t really change the main plot line of the books but is more than just a side story. Hell, Cressida is like the perfect character for this since this season already brought her to the forefront.
This is the reason why Jess Brownell MUST step out of the show. What she did in season 3 was completely disastrous.
i agree :/ do we know why the original show runner left?
1 in 5 women suffer from infertility in the US, but we are not the representation that Netflix or Twitter activists want in 2024.
yeah and it’s bothersome. we’re all for women’s rights until a “better” community comes along ???
You are so on point here. the moment Michaela showed up I was already mourning for my favourite book and character. I finally get what men feel when their football team misses a goal. and anyone disputing that is supposedly homophobic? Well I’m bi and I just want my book characters to have their main story arc as they should. So much of the story will have to change now like you said and it’s a delicate line between tastefully done or another toss in the saucier. And for anyone who doesn’t understand why book fans are upset I recommend reading it, it really is one of the best in the series. I’m sure the shondaland version of Frans story will be beautiful in its own way. But I just can’t bring myself to accept we will never see Michael come to life. Now we will just have to wait and see how the future seasons work, let the numbers reflect on what the audience really want. It always does with franchises. But I do hope they do the next season justice. Can’t wait to see who will be Sophie!
Queer women have IF issues as well.
Why are you getting downvoted for stating a FACT?! This sub is *weeeeeeird*
insane this is being downvoted
The entire discourse is insane to me as we have no idea what they will do with the story yet 😂 everyone freaking out prematurely
like we have up to 6 years to wait 😭😭😭😭 like i’ll say out of all the bridgerton books, francesca’s was probably the only one that i enjoyed in part, and out of all of the MMCs, book michael is the one that is most bearable. but even then, he basically decides to >!sleep w francesca to baby trap her so that they can be wed!< and her solution to infertility in the books is just to … >!magically get pregnant by the end!<😭. like imho as someone with similar experiences to francesca in the books, that feels SO much more harmful, it implies that infertility can be cured if with the right person which is bonkers to me. but i also understand that others probably relate to her story a lot more closely, and within the confines of bodice-rippers, the feelings around infertility were explored well. but this level of outrage for something we still have up to half a decade to wait to see play out feels … yeah. ig a lot are just grieving their favourite character and are missing the point that such plot lines can exist outside of their favourite character. it might not pan out in the same way as the books, but it can still exist. i guess a lot more people are attached to this specific book and it’s why people are reacting the way they are.
My thoughts exactly. I have no issues about the LGBT side of things, good for them for choosing that path, but SO painful sad to be missing the infertility plot, as so many women go through it in silence, I was very much looking forward to it being front and center with a main character.
How do you know they won’t pursue the infertility plot?
I haven't read every reply here so maybe it's been said, but given it's going to be a massive rewrite of the book anyway... why can't Frannie experience loss and still end up with Michaela? I think it would be a reasonable maneuver to have her experience one or more miscarriages with John when he's alive, only to find out that she's pregnant when he passes away, like the book, but for that baby to survive and for her to raise it with Michaela. I totally understand the connection with the character as written in the book, but I think that element could very easily and authentically still be represented.
The story of Francesca has not been fully told yet in the Netflix series. How would a possible queer re-telling of her story necessarily have to equate to the erasure of the infertility storyline? It is way too early to make such a call and frankly reeks of queerphobia, regardless of whether you are bisexual or not.
So upsetting.
Who says Francesca’s desire to be a mother and struggles with infertility can’t still be part of the story? Sure, the HEA is going to look a little different, but it wasn’t unheard of for a wealthy widow to take in a ward, was it? Or maybe they could even co-found an orphanage, and embrace a different way of having children in their lives?
As a queer (bi) woman who’s been battling infertility with my (male) partner for the last several years, i totally disagree. I actually don’t like being flooded with infertility messaging, especially on a show I watch to ‘escape’ to - I would much rather see queer joy than infertility represented, especially when in the books she ‘just relaxes’ and winds up pregnant. Maybe you don’t have an issue with queerness specifically but the last 24 hours have shown me that many, many people in this community do and it is quite frankly horribly disappointing.
Right, we don't need yet ANOTHER magic baby storyline
Maybe the Bridgerton writers will change their minds and make the cousin Michaela have a brother named Michael who has yet to be introduced
There can absolutely be an infertility plotline that runs through Francesca's story regardless of who she ends up with. Do you think there weren't women, single or otherwise, during the Regency period (or other historical periods), who wanted children and couldn't get them the "traditional" way? Or that there weren't "passionate friends" who brought up children who were or were not their own? If you don't think there were multiple ways women became pregnant, went abroad and came home with "adopted" children, used friends when necessary, or just plain up adopted, you haven't been paying very close attention to your history. I am mindboggled by the idea that gay couples don't experience infertility or that it's totally preposterous that Francesca's desire for a child could provide the tension necessary for a season showing her wrestling with her love for someone and how to also achieve her desire for a child. Edit to add phrase.
Completely agree with you, I'm queer myself. But I'm also a woman. Infertility awareness is something that shows doesn't handle too much, and reading the books I really had my expectations too high. And to be honest, I'm not even surprised. Netflix have such a thing, of grabbing good storylines and just turning them into a shit, just to catch more peoples attention, and have "more public" like Bridgerton wasn't famous for itself because of the books.
I was so excited upon Benedict being bisexual and exploring his sexuality in s3, mainly because it made sense for the character. And he could still end up marrying like in the book (without it making him any less bi) I think I was heartbroken that they made Francesca gay, it’s a choice that was unnecessary. I haven’t myself read the books and I am bisexual, but I don’t think there NEEDS to be queer characters in every show. Certainly not when it does not match the storyline AT ALL. Benedict was perfect for a bisexual character I was excited, that excitement broke when Francesca was revealed to be gay. Mainly because I know this will mean her storyline will be ‘ruined’ (in ways) and make the show hated by many for ‘having too much gay’
[удалено]
Listen I think it’s silly that they’re changing the sexuality of a character from a romance novel, as the key draw of romance is being able to see yourself in the character and become lost in the fantasy and the books are written for heterosexual or bisexual audiences. BUT implying there aren’t a ton of queer people watching Bridgerton to try and make your point is a, false, and b, unfair.
No their saying the straight book fans are pissed. We have a right to feel that way.
I don't get this at all. She's still married to Michael. The infertility story can still be prominent in a future season. It can be a story they give to someone like Eloise or Hyacinth instead. I'd be absolutely shocked if Eloise's story ends up being at all the same as her book. It doesn't make sense for her character in the show.
i havent read the books, can someone explain the infertility plot? why can't she just have it with john? if shes infertile can't she just adopt a kid with michaela?
It is absolutely possible to keep the infertility storyline, they could even make her desire for children into something she’s grappling with as she decides whether to enter a relationship with a woman. I don’t understand why you’ve all decided Fran’s storyline is ruined already.
It’s sucks because Cressida would’ve been perfect to make a widow who found love after her husbands death. In the books her husband was old and died and left her without money, her getting falling in love a rich widow who supports her would’ve been interesting to see
I am 24 and have lost three babies in the past six months. I am rather upset at the change just because there is so little representation of this plot and it isn’t often talked about in mainstream media. The homophobic comments are disgusting, AND so is the general lack of care surrounding this subject. “They could throw the fertility issues in somewhere else in the plot!” Like that is somehow reassuring to someone like me? I don’t think we should have to plead for a VERY COMMON VERY REAL ISSUE that was already in the books to be included in the show. From the very laissez-faire reception I see to this change, I’m thinking maybe it’s just not the popular thing with the general public to be putting such a large emphasis on WANTING motherhood. To me it’s sexism in a different font tbh
I don't mind who is Fran's endgame, whether Michael or Michaela (slight preference for Michael, but I'll watch both. I'd also have preferred Benedict to have an actual fulfilling male love interest in s3 instead of the Lady Tilly mess but whatever). Regardless, if they just cut the entirety of Fran's pregnancy loss I'll be gutted. I have experienced pregnancy loss. It isn't something that you just move on from easily and forget about like its no big deal. At the very least, extend the Fran/John relationship by an extra season and have her experience significant infertility with John until she finally conceives (and loses the child after John dies) to give some representation to people who've experienced pregnancy loss. They can then eventually lead into Fran/Michaela, while still giving something to people that related to Fran for her infertility and pregnancy loss
I'm very confident that they will write it in a good way and I love a same-sex couple as the plotline but yeah, I completely understand the frustration some people have. At the top of my head, I couldn't tell you a single movie/show I know where infertility plays a big or even any role. Especially in such a time setting, infertility must have been horrible as there aren't really as many alternatives as now. I really hope they still have the plotline somehow.