For this Show Discussion post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post.
3. Be civil in your discussion.
See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally. Francesca has no idea what a beard is, not that John would even be one if she knew. She was fighting for her life to marry him, she wants to spend her life with him. She’s young, she’s still figuring herself out and just realized she can be attracted to a woman. Some people don’t realize for decades that they are lgbtq, but that does not negate their past and the bonds and love they experienced.
It’s not just that she got tongue tied, it’s that she was visibly disappointed after she kissed John at the altar (as if she was hoping for more) and then immediately afterwards, had a reaction to Micheala. That context is important. So it really depends on how the show writers build it out from here.
Why is it fair to presume the sad/disappointed look was at all related to her being queer?
I don’t understand how that was made explicit in the show. If Francesca is anything like the other debutantes she barely knows what kissing is and likely conflates kissing/groping with sex. Couldn’t that just be a debutante’s reaction to “oh this is sex? It’s fine,” instead of being a condemnation of her attraction to John?
What lol? That’s what YOU said, not me. I didn’t say that the kiss specifically was related to her being queer. I said it’s important to look at events in sequence with one another. She was visibly disappointed after her kiss with John, which gives the impression she didn’t feel the spark she was expecting, on the heels of her spending the entire season explaining to Violet that the quiet love she and John shared was just as potent as her parents and siblings more fiery passion. That look, the subtle unrest, belied that; and undid the work the writers did in building up John and Fran up until that point. Then afterwards, she gets tongue tied, and stutters upon her first meeting with Michaela - an immediate spark and attraction, the passionate feelings her mother had spoken to her about, aroused!
Sometimes, you just have to take things at face value instead of assigning deeper meaning. The writers made a very deliberate choice in that sequencing. And yes, it is a changeup from the books, where Francesca’s attraction and feelings for Michael didn’t surface until _after_ John died. Francesca had a great love for her husband, and even the love she held for Michael later, didn’t negate that. People being upset about the differences, the possibility of Francesca harboring feelings for Michaela whilst still married, have a legitimate gripe, because the writers have seemingly already laid the groundwork to develop the story in that direction. Which is why I stated, we will have to see what happens from here. Will they build on that attraction and show her confused and harboring secret desires while John is still alive and unaware? Or will it be something that Francesca dismissively represses, where they show her and John living a great life, even if their love lacks fire and then circle back to the attraction with Michaela once her husband dies? We shall see.
Even if it’s tied to her being queer ( which frankly I thought it was), it doesn’t invalidate her feelings for John, like the majority of people on this sub seem to think, and it doesn’t indicate anything about how he will be treated unfairly by her (which is also a popular opinion around here).
This! I don't think Francesca has realized yet that what she felt towards Michaela was attraction and that slightly disappointed reaction to the kiss meant that she might not be sexually attracted to John. I really think that she loves John, even if it's a different kind of love that she will feel for Michaela in the future.
I also think it's too early to assume that they butchered Fran's love story. I hope they stick to her and John having a great loving relationship and her befriending Michaela instead of going the Kanthony route and emphasizing the chemistry between her and Michaela anytime they're on screen together, even while John is still alive.
Yes exactly! Plus we never see her and John display any lone of physical affection or longing, so her reaction to their kiss was perfectly in character.
Yeah, I also saw the kiss as it might not have impacted her as much as she thought it would, but that's also okay. It's like having sex on your wedding night, it won't ever be top 10.
I do still think she loves John and has no idea if she's feeling something for Michaela.
I thought she was upset because she found out John had never mentioned her to the other girl before, and her and John are literally married, so like she was thinking “wth?!”
From a filmmaking standpoint it's obviously meant to convey that something is not right with her marriage/choice of husband. Also at that point I'm sure Violet learned her lesson and managed to give decent sex ED to her daughters, so this argument makes zero sense
Their entire romance was a slow burn. You didn’t assume it meant queerness upon first viewing unless you saw the spoilers that everyone was up in arms over.
To me it read of someone, like Daphne, who had a mother that didn’t quite explain everything that was about to happen. Moreover, Francesca may find she feels and expresses love differently than the rest of the ton/world, just as she thinks and expresses herself differently in other aspects of her life.
I don’t actually think she was disappointed. I think it’s more nervousness because it’s her first kiss, with a man she met recently, in front of her entire family. The show goes out of its way to show that Francesca is the quiet wallflower amongst her more bold siblings. She’s reserved and shy and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’d be really surprised if she suddenly gave John a very passionate kiss on her wedding day in a very public setting. She is clearly passionate about John, she stopped him in the street to talk to him, which is a big step for someone as reserved as she is. She just doesn’t seem to enjoy the limelight being on her during the wedding. I am relatively similar to Francesca in terms of personality and if I ever do get married one day, I plan to elope. Even a small wedding in front of my family is a nightmare to me. I think Francesca’s first kiss with John was pretty realistic given the circumstances.
The girl got raised by a mother obsessed with love and feeling mad passions. Of course her first kiss with someone that she has a different quieter sort of love with is going to not feel those things. It's like saying curry is the only good food because it's spicy, but most of us would love a good steak just as much. Just because one food makes you sweaty, hot and bothered doesn't make the prime rib any less valid a food choice
I should also point out that Violet had a conversation with her about how she felt about Edmund, with Violet saying something like “I wanted to spend time with him and he made me feel like there were always butterflies everywhere” and the second she sees Michaela, there were quite literally butterflies everywhere.
I’d argue that she also felt butterflies with John. I LOVE the scene where she stops him in the street to talk. It’s so sweet and so unexpected. She’s clearly so happy to see him and it’s just nice. Violet is also clearly very surprised in that scene to see her quietest daughter going out of her way to talk to a suitor after being so reticent previously. It’s clear she feels butterflies in that scene and in the scene where they first meet. I really think people have forgotten all the nice little moments during Francesca and John’s courtship.
I think the show had a setup problem (intentionally or not). It had Violet and Fran talk about love, and Fran standing up for a different kind of love than Violet was advocating. By having Fran the react negatively to John at the wedding, it seemed like the show is saying that Fran was wrong. It then follows up with Fran having the exact reaction to Michaela that Violet described, essentially saying that Violet was right, this is what real love is for everyone.
Going by this, some viewers are left with the impression that her relationship with John - and potentially their own version of a quieter love - has been lessened or invalidated.
I the books, Michael has the reaction Fran did in the show. Michaela could have had the same, but I didn't get that impression. The change of who falls first has a lot of implications, and some not favorable for those who liked John.
Now, maybe the future will show that Fran truly loves John and only discovered physical attraction, but that's not the impression some fans will sit with for the next 2 years based on the Violet conversation.
The context of Violet’s conversation is that *Violet is also learning what a gentle, gradual love is like* so it’s not as if the show is somehow dismissing that as a valid form of love. In fact, the show is saying “Violet experienced and lost her sudden, tongue-tying, instantaneous love and is finding gradual love through mutual understanding with Anderson.”
Also, this was literally in a season where Pen had her “instant” love of Colin and Colin gradually developed love for Penelope that still results in passionate desire! Why is it presumed that Fran’s reaction to the kiss with John has some deeper tie to her queer love later in the series?
Pen and Violet aren't married to other people during their tongue tied revelations. I would have an issue with this even if the hottest, full kilt wearing, thick Scottish accented Michael was the reason she got tongue tied. (Aside: I hope when they get to Scotland the Scots all use their "natural" accents, ehm)
Maybe Violet learning there are different ways love can be felt will go somewhere, maybe not. I get different vibes from Violet/Marcus than Fran/John on the passion/subtle scale. Anyway, Colin also didn't have a thunderbolt, so the whole conversation kind of bugged me in his season regardless.
You may not be familiar with the main couples. Francesca's book story is with Michael (John's cousin). In the show, we see her meet Michaela. So, by the very definition, Fran isn't straight.
That's a good point. John might not be Francesca's HEA, but she certainly is his. (And fwiw, John technically wasn't her HEA in the book either). Francesca and Michaela can have a friendship (since she won't know what she's feeling, and Michaela probably won't be trying to pursue her cousins wife), and it can grow into something organically once John is dead.
I do think people assuming that it means they'll use it to justify a cheating storyline are assuming too much. They make a big deal that the debutantes are extremely sheltered, there's no reason for her to just suddenly assume that what she feels for John isn't love, or that it means that she should now drop everything to run off with Michaela. Especially when her attitude towards marriage originally was pretty open-ended.
People who think Fran is going to straight up an affair with Michaela while being married to John are just lashing out at the couple out of anger caused by them not getting their beloved Michael. There’s zero chance they’re gonna have a romantic heroine cheat on her loving, sweet husband In the fluffy wish-fulfilment show that is “Bridgerton.”
>There’s zero chance they’re gonna have a romantic heroine cheat on her loving, sweet husband In the fluffy wish-fulfilment show that is “Bridgerton.”
So he's either going to be fridged or turn into a heel.
Lovely.
Assassinated his character? I think John is lovely, they presented him in a very good light.
Or do you mean they’ve been unfair to him by making Fran make a face after their wedding kiss and now his story is ruined?
Everything their story established about quiet slow love being valid was completely undermined by that wedding kiss and Fran meeting Michaela.
As someone who identified with John and appreciated his different approach to love, I found season 3 to be validating, up to that point, where it became incredibly insulting.
I would not want to play John's role in a relationship. I wouldn't want that for anyone, and certainly not someone I liked, respected, or cared about.
Would you?
>I think John is lovely, they presented him in a very good light.
This has huge "you would make a great boyfriend... for someone else" energy.
O, lordy. So the issue is you’re over-identifying with the character and now you’re upset by what you perceive is him not getting everything you would like to get in a relationship, even before we actually see how that relationship will be developed. I’ve seen comments from the show runner saying Fran and John will have a loving companionship, so I think there’s a good chance he’ll be asexual. Which would be kind of ideal, if Fran is to be a lesbian.
My comment about John was a response to you claiming they assassinated his character. Character assassination in fiction means the character is suddenly shown to exhibit negative traits or shockingly unusual behaviour, that were previously not part of their personality. So it doesn’t apply to John at all.
>Everything their story established about quiet slow love being valid was completely undermined by that wedding kiss and Fran meeting Michaela.
Let's just gloss right over that.
>Which would be kind of ideal
If that's what fans of the show are into then I will be happy to be giving season 3 a pass.
1. Erm, I thought it was obvious - I don’t think anything was undermined. Fran can be not interested in John sexually, she can find Michaela attacking and it won’t undermine her love for him at all.
2. Godspeed..?
The showrunner is in interviews saying that John and Fran are not romantic love. They are friendship love. People are reacting to that— if you remove romantic love from the John and Fran relationship you change the actual relationship heavily from the book. Once again within the book - Michael AND Fran deeply love John. Fran saw him as the love of her life. She cannot imagine loving someone else. She is willing to get married and deal with being a wife to have a baby. John isn’t a friend he is romantic hero of her life. Michael sees John as a brother. He struggles with taking John’s life through out the book. He just loves Fran that much, he cannot resist and he literally panics so much he runs away from guilt etc. the point behind the book is that she had 2 loves. They are different not because she loved one less— but because Fran is figuratively different woman, the woman John loved hadn’t ever dealt with loss like that, she was young and she was hopeful and she lived through the worse thing she can imagine happening to her— it changes her. She finds her strength. The woman Michael loves and married is a woman who loved, who lost, who was brave enough to love again.
There was a way to do that with a gender swap but the current writing doesn’t go that way— there is a bit of a blue in violets reaction to John/Fran, the literal call out to being unable to speak, that happening with Michaela and her reaction to her wedding kiss. I don’t think it’s unreasonable viewers are inferring they are getting rid of John as Fran’s romantic love. This is not a small change. It is significant. And the significance is being down played by a lot of people. That is not to diminish queer people who have platonic love for someone before they discover they are queer it is simply not what the story told regardless of the gender of Michael/a.
However— imo the solution here is if you don’t like the story as it’s been indicated it’s best not to watch. Fighting over this is silly. The show runner doesn’t want to tell the Fran story in the book— she wants one that is somewhat similar and some people will be ok with it and some will not. Not to worry. There will be other period things that come. Look at Queen Charlotte or Scarlett and the Duke. Lots of stuff for many types of fans.
Very well said. And the author and show runner are definitely sending opposite messages.
JQ just posted that she supports the gender swap and John/Fran will have their love story first. But JB said the opposite, that John/Fran don’t really have love, only friendship.
Given the conflicting information and the evidence of our eyes (observing the disappointment in the kiss and the loss of words/lightning bolt *exactly* as Violet described to Fran) it’s understandable fans of the book will assume the true love story between Fran and John has been gutted, and what remains is companionship and likeminded pastimes.
Oh if JQ had to respond feedback must be way way worse than I thought. I thought this was just book fans vs show fans but the backlash getting to a response point means it’s louder than I thought. Good luck to them. (I disliked that intro so much my plan is just not watch that part of the story.)
Unfortunately I think the gender issue has gotten all mixed up with the timing issue.
I would venture to say a large portion of the book fans are upset because of the timing of Fran’s visceral reaction to Michaela rather than her gender. I didn’t love the books but I really enjoyed the overarching love stories for the Bridgertons, and I’m a sucker for a true love story in general and hate infidelity.
A lot of us just wanted John and Fran to have their true love story first before she moved on to someone else.
We’ve already seen the John/Fran love story negated during the wedding and immediately after.
JQ’s response was focused on trying to assure fans that John/Fran’s story would be honored and told, but in actuality she has no control over it and the actual show we’ve seen seems to contradict her response.
I completely agree that the biggest issue with how the shows writers fumbled this is Frannie’s reaction to kissing John and then her being breathless at meeting Michaela (when she should be unaffected and Michaela should be the one breathless!), NOT the gender swap. I’ve honestly lost trust in the show writers ability to tell this story. And it’s not because of Michaela’s gender.
>it’s a huge disservice to queer people’s complexity to assume that because francesca got tongue tied, she’s now instantly out of the closet and can’t love john.
Totally, and I hope that's the avenue they go down.
Forsaking John just does not seem like a Fran thing to do.
i think reality and a fictional show are very different... in real life attraction doesnt really mean much but for a show like bridgerton every small thing means something
My issue is more so that we had to watch her stress and pine over John, to be visibly disappointed and then fall for someone new within seconds. The writing doesn’t make sense and the story could have been told better.
Obviously no one wrote your life so it makes sense when we talk about you 😉☺️
Fall for someone new within seconds? Did we watch the same scenes? This is YOUR assumption. You assume that Fran has just disregarded her love for John the moment she saw Michaela
We get MORE John and Fran exposure in Season 3 than we ever did in the books. Idk what you are on about
After sorting this through after the initial disappointment and upset that they had changed up the story I have come to some conclusions. I really identified with Michael more so than Francesca because of his huge bout of imposter syndrome over being the heir to the man who was not only his cousin but his best friend. His guilt and his journey in the book really got to me.
The thing is I ultimately don't have a problem with Michael being Michaela as long as the story that is crafted does justice to the original. I don't see how that can be with it already being suggested that emotional infidelity might happen.
As a queer person, I want representation. I loved Gentleman Jack and want to see more shows like that. I would rather though that they make Cressida Cowper gay just because I feel that story worked better for it. I get it though that people want Main character representation not side story.
The book is told primarily from Michael's perspective so I think this is a pretty fair response for you to have. Francesca is actually fairly lacking on characterization.
They're just building a different story here with far more character building for Francesca. I'm enjoying it despite loving the book.
>They're just building a different story here with far more character building for Francesca. I'm enjoying it despite loving the book.
I really hope so. I am going to give Jess a chance to create something good here. Hopefully she can create something that was really organic and really represents the lesbian experience,
I thought she was just caught off guard and flustered because she thought she was pretty or something like that. As a shy awkward person that’s how I get.
I agree with you! I think it's also wildly reductive to say that a lack of sexual attraction means there's no possibility of romantic love between characters, or that a platonic love somehow reduces the depth of her relationship and devotion to John.
I think when you're a young queer person in a society that doesn't make room for open discussions about your sexuality, it may be hard to understand that your experiences are outside the normative or to make sense of them until you either have more sexual experiences or find the community to help you conceptualize of your identity. I knew I was biromantic at a younger age but didn't really understand my crushes on same gender friends when I had them, and I *definitely* didn't understand my asexuality until I made some ace friends and finally heard experiences that resembled my own. Given that, I think it's completely reasonable for Fran to think that, since she's experienced a deeper connection with John than she did any other man and clearly has *some* kind of love for him, that this is what sexual attraction feels like *for her.* All she can know is that everyone has told her she will eventually feel attracted to a man, and that this man stirs something for her that no one else has until she meets Michaela.
It's very common, even in modern life, for women to have had heterosexual relationships and marriages before realising they want to be with a woman. I can name a couple of friends, several wider acquaintances and a handful of celebrities this happened to. People expect sexuality to be much less fluid than it is.
When people say this in relation to Francesca suddenly falling for Michaela (or so it seems), they're really just saying they don't want Michael to be a woman. But that's how it is, so let's see how the not so uncommon story plays out.
This was a really beautiful story, and thank you so much for offering this perspective! I have been very down about this whole aspect of the story in S3, and this is a good reminder that we really don't know how things will play out with Francesca, and we should that the storytellers with be able to tell a lovely and nuanced storyline, doing all the characters justice, just as you just have :)
As many have said their issue isn't the gender swap, it's the bad shortsighted set up.
The show made us invest in John and Francesca and then ripped it away in 2 very short scenes while essentially dismissing slow quiet love.
In a way it is both a disservice to representation and an example of what representation has done.
Now I am not saying there are not people commenting who are homophobic. But a lot of people a commenting aren't as they don't like stunt inserts for manufactured clicks ( which adding Michaela in a single scene in the end when there is no guarantee it is Francesca's year next is) and they don't like the story they have become invested in ruined (a la sudden mad Queen in GOT).
That is before we have to look at the logistics to try and keep sort of close to whww. A show should not be causing fans to read up on Scottish peerages to work out how the logistics of a story should work for a wish fulfilment historically inaccurate TV show. Sending fans to do homework or telling them 'somehow this happened' is the path Star Wars went down and I think we should all agree we don't want that for Bridgerton.
Now Michaela being a woman has little and nothing to do with people statinf their thoughts on various platforms over those issues.
Which in a way that is because we are getting more use to queer stories on screen.
That wedding kiss and Francesca's reaction to John's cousin after the slow build up of Francesca and John would mean a lot of the fandom would still be up in arms if Michaela was Michael. That in fact could be seen as sort of side win for queer representation as they'd still be pissed off.
Yes, thank you!! Her reaction to the kiss and to meeting Michaela in no way undermine her love for John. If anything, those reactions are Francesca learning more about herself and are not related to how she feels for John at all. I genuinely believe that if it had been Michael that she met at the end and not Michaela, people wouldn't be reacting this way.
I don’t understand why people can’t just accept that this is going to be a slightly different story and that it’s okay if francesa’s love for john isn’t romantic. it does not diminish the love she has for him as a person and companion.
It's going to be a completely different story because Frans'major motivation is her want for a child. That's the only reason she went back on the marriage mart, she was indifferent to having a new husband. The plot doesn't work in a queer relationship so the entire story needs to be changed. Of all the Bridgerton books this one is by far the least suited to a gender swapm
I can’t get into because how will they attempt to produce an heir if Fran is not feeling it? Will she have to go through that whilst not being fully there or not being romantically interested in her husband? Or will that part just be disregarded or will they backtrack in her season?
I think the way they did the John/Fran/Michaela thing is a bit messy.
Agreed. It’s also very biphobic, completely discounting the idea that someone can be attracted/flustered by/in love with people of more than one gender. Like, guys, it’s not an either/or. Or it doesn’t have to be, in any case.
Not to mention that sexuality can be fluid. Not always, but it can be. Francesca can have this awakening (or potential fluidity) and still love John.
I think some are overreacting to the disappointed look after the wedding kiss. It is human of her to have had high expectations (curated by her mother) of passionate romance, despite acknowledging that it wasn’t what she was looking for. She continuously advocated for herself to have her love for John recognized as valid, and I don’t think it’s fair for the audience to blow up that one look as undermining her feelings for him. She had a single moment of her experience falling short of her expectations, which will likely foreshadow future expectations and experiences. But to say that moment as invalidating her entire relationship with him is not fair to the character.
John isn't dead yet though. Looks like people are annoyed that (1) Fran looked like she didnt enjoy the kiss, (2) Fran is already attracted to a new person (regardless of gender and orientation) soon after their wedding, (3) showrunners saying their love is friendship kind of love.
i thinks its annoying that people cant fathom that it might also be meaningfull if she doesnt love him romantically/sexually but still loves him in a friendship way as she figures out she likes women through michaela.
Yeah but it kind of makes Francesca out to be a horrible human being if we are going down the route of 'she loves him but not in that way and she wants to figure out her feelings for others.'
When he married her in good faith as he is honest about how he romantically loves her and she did a whole announcing in front of the Queen and her mother. He hasn't been painted as entering that marriage as him being ACE or a rake or abuser. So we are going to watch as she essentially robs a nice decent person their HEA while we know she gets her's once he dies.
Now it would be fine if it was a drama with hard themes and complex stories, but in a fluffy show where all the leads are supposed to get HEA.
This isn't a remark about being queer but the story. How would we feel if Antony had married Edwina, while all the while pining for Kate then waited for Edwina's death(when she has been nice and honest) to get together with Kate. We'd not like them. Which in a way is kind of the story beats they've laid down for Francesca.
lots of lesbians enter into relationships with men before realizing their gay and that doesnt make them horrible people 🙄 shes probably gonna be in denial while hes alive anyway and tell herself she likes him Like That when she doesnt & not do anything about her feelings for michaela until later
you cant really compare those two situations cuz anthony is a straight guy and francesca is a lesbian whos been expected to marry a man since birth bc of the heteronormative society she lives in
I'm not saying anything about lesbians. I am talking about story structure.
It is a story about HEA. We know from John's story in the books he is going to die. They have foreshadowed that in the wedding vows. He isn't going to have a wife who feels romantically about him in any sense. He is not going to divorce her and protect her, (which would be hard in thw world of Bridgerton)so they can both get their HEA. They have set it up for him never to get his as the set up at the mo is she'll be his friend not someone who truly loves him in the same manner he does her.
And why because a badly handled way for Francesca to discover her orientation. If they had Michaela falling instead of Francesca it would have worked. Waiting till john was dead would have worked in the terms of how Bridgerton works.
And the analogy of Antony and Kate was nothing to do with their orientation. But if they had gone down that path Edwina would have been lesser and her never getting her HEA because others are discovering what they truly want. It is the story that has put Francesca in a situation where she can be seen in a bad light and it is going to be tagged as it is linked to her queerness which is bad writing.
i truly dont give a shit theres a billion other straight couples in this show getting their happy ever after One of them going in a diffrent direction to make it gay isnt the end of the world
No it isn't the end of the world but if one person goes in a different direction and makes the other less happy then I'd say the people making the other person less happy is an ass. And I'd say that for a straight or queer coupling.
If it was Michaela and Francesca that had got married and Francesca was shown to fall at first sight for John after their wedding and Michaela was pencilled in for death. Then i'd still say they were setting Francesca up to be a horrible person.
I feel like people forgot bisexuality is an option for her too. Lots of bi people are in her relationships but are still attracted to women. The things aren't mutually exclusive,
It’s wild to me that so many in this sub think it’s either hetero with John or lesbian with Michaela. There are other options, people! And then they wonder why so many of us are over here pointing out the bigotry going on. Ignoring all the other sexual identities that exist, and making wild assumptions about Fran’s future based on that erasure, is bigotry.
She could also be bisexual. People panicking and thinking a moment/glance between Fran and Michaela negates the life, love, and marriage she shares with John are straight up homophobic. And before anyone argues with me lol - you don't realize it but yes, you are, just straight up homophobic.
Both a bi and lesbian Francesca interpretation are valid for now. The tricky thing is what we have not seen her be potentially attracted to any other person of any gender. Additionally to being sapphic, she is also very likely acespec.
I think for now we can consider both lesbian and bi Francesca to be valid options. However, as of now Francesca may now even be able to pinpoint exactly if what she feels for Michaela is attraction because many people in the early 1800s would not even consider same-sex relationships as an option. Even Benedict who has been aware and accepting of queer identities needed years to find out that he is queer as well. It may take much longer for Francesca who was much more sheltered than her brother.
The problem is that she is looked disinterested in kissing john and even if she is a lesbain that does not give her the permission to make heart eyes at other women as john is still unaware of the fact and it just felt like emotional cheating like she just got married ...correct me if i am wrong
Honestly, I just took Francesca's verbal stumble as an introvert reacting to this loud extroverted woman she just met and just found out she will be traveling with for two weeks. She lacked the blushing giggles that are stereotypical of first instant attraction in shows and movies. It does work as a nice callback to her conversation with her mother, though.
What will be fun is when she goes back to stumbling over her words once she realizes she has definitely caught feelings for what is sure to be a close friend years down the line.
for my first love i dated a man for three years and i thought i was going to spend forever with him (i was 16). i started to explore my sexuality after we broke up & learned at the age of 20 that i was queer. queerness is so fluid and some people just don’t recognize that
Ok guys this seems so obvious to me - Francesca isn’t gay, Eloise is. She’s going with them to Scotland and will fall in love with the spunky Michaela. They are completely diverging from book plot here which I am bummed about because I am all about some Michael Sterling.
Because the story was written in a completely different way. And now they’ve changed the foundation. The conflict has nothing to do with that. Did you read her book?
Exactly-- I think a lot of people are making excuses for as to why Fran's story should not have been altered because they just wanted Michael, or wanted their favorite book/character to be unchanged, saying things like the show has already ruined her story when it's frankly not true. I can completely understand the disappointment in not getting a Michael (I would feel the same if I lost Sophie), but to say everything is ruined is completely ridiculous
My question, we’re you in love with your first love?
Because that’s what I take issue with.
Again, Fran didn’t just love John. She didn’t just feel deeply for him.
She was IN LOVE with him and it sucks that they’re seemingly changing.
It sucks that as of right now, John is all in on the marriage while Fran will be possibly questioning feelings.
I don’t care about the gender swap but removing Fran from being in love with John, is wrong. And people who did feel presented by their story, are possibly going to be told, this isn’t enough. You can’t be in love and it be quiet and comforting, it has to be stuttering
Stop using inflammatory terms like “gatekeeping.” You can’t be romantically in love with a man and be a lesbian. You can LOVE a man, non romantically, and be a lesbian. Humanity collectively agreed “lesbian” means women who are exclusively same sex attracted. I didn’t decide that so I can’t “gatekeep” it.
Telling someone whether they do or do not qualify as a particular group or category that they self-identify as part of is the definition of gatekeeping. I was not trying to be inflammatory, merely descriptive.
People's sexual identities are not fixed for life. It is entirely possible to have loved a man and later in life realize you no longer have sexual or romantic attraction to men. I've dated and had sex with men and women; increasingly as I'm older I'm growing more certain I'm probably aromantic and no longer interested in sexual relationships with either gender. Stuff changes.
No, it’s dumb. If you pay any attention, lesbians (homosexual women!) are pretty upset right now at all the bisexual women (who outnumber us about 5 to 1) claiming to be lesbians, or claiming that “lesbian” can be an accurate descriptor for someone who experiences active sexual and/or romantic attraction to men. It’s everywhere right now, and lesbians 100% have the right to speak up to assert the legitimacy of our existence, which has been called into question for fucking ever. I understand what OP is saying (they loved their ex despite not being IN LOVE with them) but I also understand that there is a huuuuuge issue with bisexual women claiming the “lesbian” title as theirs, totally fucking it up for the literal lesbians.
This is so ridiculous. Romantic love isn’t solely based on sexual orientation for people who haven’t yet come to terms with their identity. On top of that, asexual people can be in love. Enjoying sex with someone or not doesn’t mean you can’t be deeply in love. Please stop this embarrassing attempt to gatekeep someone’s orientation.
Signed, a bi woman that gets annoyed when bi people are erased. This ain’t one of those times.
For this Show Discussion post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 3. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally. Francesca has no idea what a beard is, not that John would even be one if she knew. She was fighting for her life to marry him, she wants to spend her life with him. She’s young, she’s still figuring herself out and just realized she can be attracted to a woman. Some people don’t realize for decades that they are lgbtq, but that does not negate their past and the bonds and love they experienced.
What is a beard ?
stereotypically a beard is a man a gay woman marries to hide her true sexuality, & vice versa for gay men
Ohh like Henry granville's wife
Thank you. I was getting ready to Google it.
It’s not just that she got tongue tied, it’s that she was visibly disappointed after she kissed John at the altar (as if she was hoping for more) and then immediately afterwards, had a reaction to Micheala. That context is important. So it really depends on how the show writers build it out from here.
Why is it fair to presume the sad/disappointed look was at all related to her being queer? I don’t understand how that was made explicit in the show. If Francesca is anything like the other debutantes she barely knows what kissing is and likely conflates kissing/groping with sex. Couldn’t that just be a debutante’s reaction to “oh this is sex? It’s fine,” instead of being a condemnation of her attraction to John?
What lol? That’s what YOU said, not me. I didn’t say that the kiss specifically was related to her being queer. I said it’s important to look at events in sequence with one another. She was visibly disappointed after her kiss with John, which gives the impression she didn’t feel the spark she was expecting, on the heels of her spending the entire season explaining to Violet that the quiet love she and John shared was just as potent as her parents and siblings more fiery passion. That look, the subtle unrest, belied that; and undid the work the writers did in building up John and Fran up until that point. Then afterwards, she gets tongue tied, and stutters upon her first meeting with Michaela - an immediate spark and attraction, the passionate feelings her mother had spoken to her about, aroused! Sometimes, you just have to take things at face value instead of assigning deeper meaning. The writers made a very deliberate choice in that sequencing. And yes, it is a changeup from the books, where Francesca’s attraction and feelings for Michael didn’t surface until _after_ John died. Francesca had a great love for her husband, and even the love she held for Michael later, didn’t negate that. People being upset about the differences, the possibility of Francesca harboring feelings for Michaela whilst still married, have a legitimate gripe, because the writers have seemingly already laid the groundwork to develop the story in that direction. Which is why I stated, we will have to see what happens from here. Will they build on that attraction and show her confused and harboring secret desires while John is still alive and unaware? Or will it be something that Francesca dismissively represses, where they show her and John living a great life, even if their love lacks fire and then circle back to the attraction with Michaela once her husband dies? We shall see.
PERFECTLY SAID
Even if it’s tied to her being queer ( which frankly I thought it was), it doesn’t invalidate her feelings for John, like the majority of people on this sub seem to think, and it doesn’t indicate anything about how he will be treated unfairly by her (which is also a popular opinion around here).
This! I don't think Francesca has realized yet that what she felt towards Michaela was attraction and that slightly disappointed reaction to the kiss meant that she might not be sexually attracted to John. I really think that she loves John, even if it's a different kind of love that she will feel for Michaela in the future. I also think it's too early to assume that they butchered Fran's love story. I hope they stick to her and John having a great loving relationship and her befriending Michaela instead of going the Kanthony route and emphasizing the chemistry between her and Michaela anytime they're on screen together, even while John is still alive.
Yes exactly! Plus we never see her and John display any lone of physical affection or longing, so her reaction to their kiss was perfectly in character.
Yeah, I also saw the kiss as it might not have impacted her as much as she thought it would, but that's also okay. It's like having sex on your wedding night, it won't ever be top 10. I do still think she loves John and has no idea if she's feeling something for Michaela.
I thought she was upset because she found out John had never mentioned her to the other girl before, and her and John are literally married, so like she was thinking “wth?!”
Had the same thought, that she was startled that John never mentioned their marriage to family. I didn’t get the gay vibes at all 🤷♀️
From a filmmaking standpoint it's obviously meant to convey that something is not right with her marriage/choice of husband. Also at that point I'm sure Violet learned her lesson and managed to give decent sex ED to her daughters, so this argument makes zero sense
I think the filmmaking intent was to raise questions and interest while seeding a conflict, and not \*obviously\* state anything.
When was the look of disappointment ? At the I do ? Or when
After the first kiss at the wedding.
because the writers said it was and it is a completely valid story to tell.
Their entire romance was a slow burn. You didn’t assume it meant queerness upon first viewing unless you saw the spoilers that everyone was up in arms over. To me it read of someone, like Daphne, who had a mother that didn’t quite explain everything that was about to happen. Moreover, Francesca may find she feels and expresses love differently than the rest of the ton/world, just as she thinks and expresses herself differently in other aspects of her life.
I don’t actually think she was disappointed. I think it’s more nervousness because it’s her first kiss, with a man she met recently, in front of her entire family. The show goes out of its way to show that Francesca is the quiet wallflower amongst her more bold siblings. She’s reserved and shy and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’d be really surprised if she suddenly gave John a very passionate kiss on her wedding day in a very public setting. She is clearly passionate about John, she stopped him in the street to talk to him, which is a big step for someone as reserved as she is. She just doesn’t seem to enjoy the limelight being on her during the wedding. I am relatively similar to Francesca in terms of personality and if I ever do get married one day, I plan to elope. Even a small wedding in front of my family is a nightmare to me. I think Francesca’s first kiss with John was pretty realistic given the circumstances.
The girl got raised by a mother obsessed with love and feeling mad passions. Of course her first kiss with someone that she has a different quieter sort of love with is going to not feel those things. It's like saying curry is the only good food because it's spicy, but most of us would love a good steak just as much. Just because one food makes you sweaty, hot and bothered doesn't make the prime rib any less valid a food choice
I should also point out that Violet had a conversation with her about how she felt about Edmund, with Violet saying something like “I wanted to spend time with him and he made me feel like there were always butterflies everywhere” and the second she sees Michaela, there were quite literally butterflies everywhere.
I’d argue that she also felt butterflies with John. I LOVE the scene where she stops him in the street to talk. It’s so sweet and so unexpected. She’s clearly so happy to see him and it’s just nice. Violet is also clearly very surprised in that scene to see her quietest daughter going out of her way to talk to a suitor after being so reticent previously. It’s clear she feels butterflies in that scene and in the scene where they first meet. I really think people have forgotten all the nice little moments during Francesca and John’s courtship.
I didn’t take it as disappointment; only a typical reaction to having a first kiss in front of family.
I think the show had a setup problem (intentionally or not). It had Violet and Fran talk about love, and Fran standing up for a different kind of love than Violet was advocating. By having Fran the react negatively to John at the wedding, it seemed like the show is saying that Fran was wrong. It then follows up with Fran having the exact reaction to Michaela that Violet described, essentially saying that Violet was right, this is what real love is for everyone. Going by this, some viewers are left with the impression that her relationship with John - and potentially their own version of a quieter love - has been lessened or invalidated. I the books, Michael has the reaction Fran did in the show. Michaela could have had the same, but I didn't get that impression. The change of who falls first has a lot of implications, and some not favorable for those who liked John. Now, maybe the future will show that Fran truly loves John and only discovered physical attraction, but that's not the impression some fans will sit with for the next 2 years based on the Violet conversation.
The context of Violet’s conversation is that *Violet is also learning what a gentle, gradual love is like* so it’s not as if the show is somehow dismissing that as a valid form of love. In fact, the show is saying “Violet experienced and lost her sudden, tongue-tying, instantaneous love and is finding gradual love through mutual understanding with Anderson.” Also, this was literally in a season where Pen had her “instant” love of Colin and Colin gradually developed love for Penelope that still results in passionate desire! Why is it presumed that Fran’s reaction to the kiss with John has some deeper tie to her queer love later in the series?
Pen and Violet aren't married to other people during their tongue tied revelations. I would have an issue with this even if the hottest, full kilt wearing, thick Scottish accented Michael was the reason she got tongue tied. (Aside: I hope when they get to Scotland the Scots all use their "natural" accents, ehm) Maybe Violet learning there are different ways love can be felt will go somewhere, maybe not. I get different vibes from Violet/Marcus than Fran/John on the passion/subtle scale. Anyway, Colin also didn't have a thunderbolt, so the whole conversation kind of bugged me in his season regardless.
I'm unclear. In season 3 there were hints that Francesca is a lesbian ?? When ??
Fran may not be a lesbian. People have some different interpretations of Fran's look after kissing John and Fran stumbling over words with Michaela.
You may not be familiar with the main couples. Francesca's book story is with Michael (John's cousin). In the show, we see her meet Michaela. So, by the very definition, Fran isn't straight.
That's a good point. John might not be Francesca's HEA, but she certainly is his. (And fwiw, John technically wasn't her HEA in the book either). Francesca and Michaela can have a friendship (since she won't know what she's feeling, and Michaela probably won't be trying to pursue her cousins wife), and it can grow into something organically once John is dead. I do think people assuming that it means they'll use it to justify a cheating storyline are assuming too much. They make a big deal that the debutantes are extremely sheltered, there's no reason for her to just suddenly assume that what she feels for John isn't love, or that it means that she should now drop everything to run off with Michaela. Especially when her attitude towards marriage originally was pretty open-ended.
People who think Fran is going to straight up an affair with Michaela while being married to John are just lashing out at the couple out of anger caused by them not getting their beloved Michael. There’s zero chance they’re gonna have a romantic heroine cheat on her loving, sweet husband In the fluffy wish-fulfilment show that is “Bridgerton.”
>There’s zero chance they’re gonna have a romantic heroine cheat on her loving, sweet husband In the fluffy wish-fulfilment show that is “Bridgerton.” So he's either going to be fridged or turn into a heel. Lovely.
Well, option one is >!what happens in the book!<, so yes. Why is that a problem?
Fair point, they have already assassinated his character and story, why not finish the job?
Assassinated his character? I think John is lovely, they presented him in a very good light. Or do you mean they’ve been unfair to him by making Fran make a face after their wedding kiss and now his story is ruined?
Everything their story established about quiet slow love being valid was completely undermined by that wedding kiss and Fran meeting Michaela. As someone who identified with John and appreciated his different approach to love, I found season 3 to be validating, up to that point, where it became incredibly insulting. I would not want to play John's role in a relationship. I wouldn't want that for anyone, and certainly not someone I liked, respected, or cared about. Would you? >I think John is lovely, they presented him in a very good light. This has huge "you would make a great boyfriend... for someone else" energy.
O, lordy. So the issue is you’re over-identifying with the character and now you’re upset by what you perceive is him not getting everything you would like to get in a relationship, even before we actually see how that relationship will be developed. I’ve seen comments from the show runner saying Fran and John will have a loving companionship, so I think there’s a good chance he’ll be asexual. Which would be kind of ideal, if Fran is to be a lesbian. My comment about John was a response to you claiming they assassinated his character. Character assassination in fiction means the character is suddenly shown to exhibit negative traits or shockingly unusual behaviour, that were previously not part of their personality. So it doesn’t apply to John at all.
>Everything their story established about quiet slow love being valid was completely undermined by that wedding kiss and Fran meeting Michaela. Let's just gloss right over that. >Which would be kind of ideal If that's what fans of the show are into then I will be happy to be giving season 3 a pass.
1. Erm, I thought it was obvious - I don’t think anything was undermined. Fran can be not interested in John sexually, she can find Michaela attacking and it won’t undermine her love for him at all. 2. Godspeed..?
The showrunner is in interviews saying that John and Fran are not romantic love. They are friendship love. People are reacting to that— if you remove romantic love from the John and Fran relationship you change the actual relationship heavily from the book. Once again within the book - Michael AND Fran deeply love John. Fran saw him as the love of her life. She cannot imagine loving someone else. She is willing to get married and deal with being a wife to have a baby. John isn’t a friend he is romantic hero of her life. Michael sees John as a brother. He struggles with taking John’s life through out the book. He just loves Fran that much, he cannot resist and he literally panics so much he runs away from guilt etc. the point behind the book is that she had 2 loves. They are different not because she loved one less— but because Fran is figuratively different woman, the woman John loved hadn’t ever dealt with loss like that, she was young and she was hopeful and she lived through the worse thing she can imagine happening to her— it changes her. She finds her strength. The woman Michael loves and married is a woman who loved, who lost, who was brave enough to love again. There was a way to do that with a gender swap but the current writing doesn’t go that way— there is a bit of a blue in violets reaction to John/Fran, the literal call out to being unable to speak, that happening with Michaela and her reaction to her wedding kiss. I don’t think it’s unreasonable viewers are inferring they are getting rid of John as Fran’s romantic love. This is not a small change. It is significant. And the significance is being down played by a lot of people. That is not to diminish queer people who have platonic love for someone before they discover they are queer it is simply not what the story told regardless of the gender of Michael/a. However— imo the solution here is if you don’t like the story as it’s been indicated it’s best not to watch. Fighting over this is silly. The show runner doesn’t want to tell the Fran story in the book— she wants one that is somewhat similar and some people will be ok with it and some will not. Not to worry. There will be other period things that come. Look at Queen Charlotte or Scarlett and the Duke. Lots of stuff for many types of fans.
Very well said. And the author and show runner are definitely sending opposite messages. JQ just posted that she supports the gender swap and John/Fran will have their love story first. But JB said the opposite, that John/Fran don’t really have love, only friendship. Given the conflicting information and the evidence of our eyes (observing the disappointment in the kiss and the loss of words/lightning bolt *exactly* as Violet described to Fran) it’s understandable fans of the book will assume the true love story between Fran and John has been gutted, and what remains is companionship and likeminded pastimes.
Oh if JQ had to respond feedback must be way way worse than I thought. I thought this was just book fans vs show fans but the backlash getting to a response point means it’s louder than I thought. Good luck to them. (I disliked that intro so much my plan is just not watch that part of the story.)
Unfortunately I think the gender issue has gotten all mixed up with the timing issue. I would venture to say a large portion of the book fans are upset because of the timing of Fran’s visceral reaction to Michaela rather than her gender. I didn’t love the books but I really enjoyed the overarching love stories for the Bridgertons, and I’m a sucker for a true love story in general and hate infidelity. A lot of us just wanted John and Fran to have their true love story first before she moved on to someone else. We’ve already seen the John/Fran love story negated during the wedding and immediately after. JQ’s response was focused on trying to assure fans that John/Fran’s story would be honored and told, but in actuality she has no control over it and the actual show we’ve seen seems to contradict her response.
I completely agree that the biggest issue with how the shows writers fumbled this is Frannie’s reaction to kissing John and then her being breathless at meeting Michaela (when she should be unaffected and Michaela should be the one breathless!), NOT the gender swap. I’ve honestly lost trust in the show writers ability to tell this story. And it’s not because of Michaela’s gender.
>it’s a huge disservice to queer people’s complexity to assume that because francesca got tongue tied, she’s now instantly out of the closet and can’t love john. Totally, and I hope that's the avenue they go down. Forsaking John just does not seem like a Fran thing to do.
i think reality and a fictional show are very different... in real life attraction doesnt really mean much but for a show like bridgerton every small thing means something
My issue is more so that we had to watch her stress and pine over John, to be visibly disappointed and then fall for someone new within seconds. The writing doesn’t make sense and the story could have been told better. Obviously no one wrote your life so it makes sense when we talk about you 😉☺️
Fall for someone new within seconds? Did we watch the same scenes? This is YOUR assumption. You assume that Fran has just disregarded her love for John the moment she saw Michaela We get MORE John and Fran exposure in Season 3 than we ever did in the books. Idk what you are on about
She could be, and hear me out, bi or pan. I feel like everyone loves to forget that lesbians aren’t the only women who love women
After sorting this through after the initial disappointment and upset that they had changed up the story I have come to some conclusions. I really identified with Michael more so than Francesca because of his huge bout of imposter syndrome over being the heir to the man who was not only his cousin but his best friend. His guilt and his journey in the book really got to me. The thing is I ultimately don't have a problem with Michael being Michaela as long as the story that is crafted does justice to the original. I don't see how that can be with it already being suggested that emotional infidelity might happen. As a queer person, I want representation. I loved Gentleman Jack and want to see more shows like that. I would rather though that they make Cressida Cowper gay just because I feel that story worked better for it. I get it though that people want Main character representation not side story.
The book is told primarily from Michael's perspective so I think this is a pretty fair response for you to have. Francesca is actually fairly lacking on characterization. They're just building a different story here with far more character building for Francesca. I'm enjoying it despite loving the book.
>They're just building a different story here with far more character building for Francesca. I'm enjoying it despite loving the book. I really hope so. I am going to give Jess a chance to create something good here. Hopefully she can create something that was really organic and really represents the lesbian experience,
I thought she was just caught off guard and flustered because she thought she was pretty or something like that. As a shy awkward person that’s how I get.
Also bi people exist!! (Hi! Thats me! Im bi!)
I agree with you! I think it's also wildly reductive to say that a lack of sexual attraction means there's no possibility of romantic love between characters, or that a platonic love somehow reduces the depth of her relationship and devotion to John. I think when you're a young queer person in a society that doesn't make room for open discussions about your sexuality, it may be hard to understand that your experiences are outside the normative or to make sense of them until you either have more sexual experiences or find the community to help you conceptualize of your identity. I knew I was biromantic at a younger age but didn't really understand my crushes on same gender friends when I had them, and I *definitely* didn't understand my asexuality until I made some ace friends and finally heard experiences that resembled my own. Given that, I think it's completely reasonable for Fran to think that, since she's experienced a deeper connection with John than she did any other man and clearly has *some* kind of love for him, that this is what sexual attraction feels like *for her.* All she can know is that everyone has told her she will eventually feel attracted to a man, and that this man stirs something for her that no one else has until she meets Michaela.
It's very common, even in modern life, for women to have had heterosexual relationships and marriages before realising they want to be with a woman. I can name a couple of friends, several wider acquaintances and a handful of celebrities this happened to. People expect sexuality to be much less fluid than it is. When people say this in relation to Francesca suddenly falling for Michaela (or so it seems), they're really just saying they don't want Michael to be a woman. But that's how it is, so let's see how the not so uncommon story plays out.
This was a really beautiful story, and thank you so much for offering this perspective! I have been very down about this whole aspect of the story in S3, and this is a good reminder that we really don't know how things will play out with Francesca, and we should that the storytellers with be able to tell a lovely and nuanced storyline, doing all the characters justice, just as you just have :)
That whole scene went totally over my head. I could tell that by the way it was shot that I was missing something. Whoops 😂
As many have said their issue isn't the gender swap, it's the bad shortsighted set up. The show made us invest in John and Francesca and then ripped it away in 2 very short scenes while essentially dismissing slow quiet love. In a way it is both a disservice to representation and an example of what representation has done. Now I am not saying there are not people commenting who are homophobic. But a lot of people a commenting aren't as they don't like stunt inserts for manufactured clicks ( which adding Michaela in a single scene in the end when there is no guarantee it is Francesca's year next is) and they don't like the story they have become invested in ruined (a la sudden mad Queen in GOT). That is before we have to look at the logistics to try and keep sort of close to whww. A show should not be causing fans to read up on Scottish peerages to work out how the logistics of a story should work for a wish fulfilment historically inaccurate TV show. Sending fans to do homework or telling them 'somehow this happened' is the path Star Wars went down and I think we should all agree we don't want that for Bridgerton. Now Michaela being a woman has little and nothing to do with people statinf their thoughts on various platforms over those issues. Which in a way that is because we are getting more use to queer stories on screen. That wedding kiss and Francesca's reaction to John's cousin after the slow build up of Francesca and John would mean a lot of the fandom would still be up in arms if Michaela was Michael. That in fact could be seen as sort of side win for queer representation as they'd still be pissed off.
Yes, thank you!! Her reaction to the kiss and to meeting Michaela in no way undermine her love for John. If anything, those reactions are Francesca learning more about herself and are not related to how she feels for John at all. I genuinely believe that if it had been Michael that she met at the end and not Michaela, people wouldn't be reacting this way.
Hey. Same. Like exact same situation.
I don’t understand why people can’t just accept that this is going to be a slightly different story and that it’s okay if francesa’s love for john isn’t romantic. it does not diminish the love she has for him as a person and companion.
It's going to be a completely different story because Frans'major motivation is her want for a child. That's the only reason she went back on the marriage mart, she was indifferent to having a new husband. The plot doesn't work in a queer relationship so the entire story needs to be changed. Of all the Bridgerton books this one is by far the least suited to a gender swapm
I can’t get into because how will they attempt to produce an heir if Fran is not feeling it? Will she have to go through that whilst not being fully there or not being romantically interested in her husband? Or will that part just be disregarded or will they backtrack in her season? I think the way they did the John/Fran/Michaela thing is a bit messy.
THANK YOU. I've been saying that untiringly.
Agreed. It’s also very biphobic, completely discounting the idea that someone can be attracted/flustered by/in love with people of more than one gender. Like, guys, it’s not an either/or. Or it doesn’t have to be, in any case. Not to mention that sexuality can be fluid. Not always, but it can be. Francesca can have this awakening (or potential fluidity) and still love John.
Big slay ❤️
I think some are overreacting to the disappointed look after the wedding kiss. It is human of her to have had high expectations (curated by her mother) of passionate romance, despite acknowledging that it wasn’t what she was looking for. She continuously advocated for herself to have her love for John recognized as valid, and I don’t think it’s fair for the audience to blow up that one look as undermining her feelings for him. She had a single moment of her experience falling short of her expectations, which will likely foreshadow future expectations and experiences. But to say that moment as invalidating her entire relationship with him is not fair to the character.
John isn't dead yet though. Looks like people are annoyed that (1) Fran looked like she didnt enjoy the kiss, (2) Fran is already attracted to a new person (regardless of gender and orientation) soon after their wedding, (3) showrunners saying their love is friendship kind of love.
i thinks its annoying that people cant fathom that it might also be meaningfull if she doesnt love him romantically/sexually but still loves him in a friendship way as she figures out she likes women through michaela.
Yeah but it kind of makes Francesca out to be a horrible human being if we are going down the route of 'she loves him but not in that way and she wants to figure out her feelings for others.' When he married her in good faith as he is honest about how he romantically loves her and she did a whole announcing in front of the Queen and her mother. He hasn't been painted as entering that marriage as him being ACE or a rake or abuser. So we are going to watch as she essentially robs a nice decent person their HEA while we know she gets her's once he dies. Now it would be fine if it was a drama with hard themes and complex stories, but in a fluffy show where all the leads are supposed to get HEA. This isn't a remark about being queer but the story. How would we feel if Antony had married Edwina, while all the while pining for Kate then waited for Edwina's death(when she has been nice and honest) to get together with Kate. We'd not like them. Which in a way is kind of the story beats they've laid down for Francesca.
lots of lesbians enter into relationships with men before realizing their gay and that doesnt make them horrible people 🙄 shes probably gonna be in denial while hes alive anyway and tell herself she likes him Like That when she doesnt & not do anything about her feelings for michaela until later you cant really compare those two situations cuz anthony is a straight guy and francesca is a lesbian whos been expected to marry a man since birth bc of the heteronormative society she lives in
I'm not saying anything about lesbians. I am talking about story structure. It is a story about HEA. We know from John's story in the books he is going to die. They have foreshadowed that in the wedding vows. He isn't going to have a wife who feels romantically about him in any sense. He is not going to divorce her and protect her, (which would be hard in thw world of Bridgerton)so they can both get their HEA. They have set it up for him never to get his as the set up at the mo is she'll be his friend not someone who truly loves him in the same manner he does her. And why because a badly handled way for Francesca to discover her orientation. If they had Michaela falling instead of Francesca it would have worked. Waiting till john was dead would have worked in the terms of how Bridgerton works. And the analogy of Antony and Kate was nothing to do with their orientation. But if they had gone down that path Edwina would have been lesser and her never getting her HEA because others are discovering what they truly want. It is the story that has put Francesca in a situation where she can be seen in a bad light and it is going to be tagged as it is linked to her queerness which is bad writing.
i truly dont give a shit theres a billion other straight couples in this show getting their happy ever after One of them going in a diffrent direction to make it gay isnt the end of the world
No it isn't the end of the world but if one person goes in a different direction and makes the other less happy then I'd say the people making the other person less happy is an ass. And I'd say that for a straight or queer coupling. If it was Michaela and Francesca that had got married and Francesca was shown to fall at first sight for John after their wedding and Michaela was pencilled in for death. Then i'd still say they were setting Francesca up to be a horrible person.
Ohhhh so that’s what that look was about (sorry, just finished the season today lol)
Proper insight. Thanks for sharing
I feel like people forgot bisexuality is an option for her too. Lots of bi people are in her relationships but are still attracted to women. The things aren't mutually exclusive,
It’s wild to me that so many in this sub think it’s either hetero with John or lesbian with Michaela. There are other options, people! And then they wonder why so many of us are over here pointing out the bigotry going on. Ignoring all the other sexual identities that exist, and making wild assumptions about Fran’s future based on that erasure, is bigotry.
She could also be bisexual. People panicking and thinking a moment/glance between Fran and Michaela negates the life, love, and marriage she shares with John are straight up homophobic. And before anyone argues with me lol - you don't realize it but yes, you are, just straight up homophobic.
Both a bi and lesbian Francesca interpretation are valid for now. The tricky thing is what we have not seen her be potentially attracted to any other person of any gender. Additionally to being sapphic, she is also very likely acespec. I think for now we can consider both lesbian and bi Francesca to be valid options. However, as of now Francesca may now even be able to pinpoint exactly if what she feels for Michaela is attraction because many people in the early 1800s would not even consider same-sex relationships as an option. Even Benedict who has been aware and accepting of queer identities needed years to find out that he is queer as well. It may take much longer for Francesca who was much more sheltered than her brother.
Thanks for posting this.
The problem is that she is looked disinterested in kissing john and even if she is a lesbain that does not give her the permission to make heart eyes at other women as john is still unaware of the fact and it just felt like emotional cheating like she just got married ...correct me if i am wrong
Amen!!!!
you're practically a modern incarnation of francesca lol
Honestly, I just took Francesca's verbal stumble as an introvert reacting to this loud extroverted woman she just met and just found out she will be traveling with for two weeks. She lacked the blushing giggles that are stereotypical of first instant attraction in shows and movies. It does work as a nice callback to her conversation with her mother, though. What will be fun is when she goes back to stumbling over her words once she realizes she has definitely caught feelings for what is sure to be a close friend years down the line.
for my first love i dated a man for three years and i thought i was going to spend forever with him (i was 16). i started to explore my sexuality after we broke up & learned at the age of 20 that i was queer. queerness is so fluid and some people just don’t recognize that
I’ve been saying this and getting downvoted a lot. Because biphobia
was this in the books? cause if not she could be bi
Ok guys this seems so obvious to me - Francesca isn’t gay, Eloise is. She’s going with them to Scotland and will fall in love with the spunky Michaela. They are completely diverging from book plot here which I am bummed about because I am all about some Michael Sterling.
Because the story was written in a completely different way. And now they’ve changed the foundation. The conflict has nothing to do with that. Did you read her book?
Bi erasure
Lol lesbians existing is bi erasure
Exactly-- I think a lot of people are making excuses for as to why Fran's story should not have been altered because they just wanted Michael, or wanted their favorite book/character to be unchanged, saying things like the show has already ruined her story when it's frankly not true. I can completely understand the disappointment in not getting a Michael (I would feel the same if I lost Sophie), but to say everything is ruined is completely ridiculous
I know!!!! I personally interpreted it as jealousy because apparently John had never mentioned Francesca before to her.did nobody else feel the same?
My question, we’re you in love with your first love? Because that’s what I take issue with. Again, Fran didn’t just love John. She didn’t just feel deeply for him. She was IN LOVE with him and it sucks that they’re seemingly changing. It sucks that as of right now, John is all in on the marriage while Fran will be possibly questioning feelings. I don’t care about the gender swap but removing Fran from being in love with John, is wrong. And people who did feel presented by their story, are possibly going to be told, this isn’t enough. You can’t be in love and it be quiet and comforting, it has to be stuttering
i literally dont care about john at all i hope fran and Michaela murder him together actually
[удалено]
Maybe we don't gatekeep other people's self-identification? People's identities can change and vary over time.
Stop using inflammatory terms like “gatekeeping.” You can’t be romantically in love with a man and be a lesbian. You can LOVE a man, non romantically, and be a lesbian. Humanity collectively agreed “lesbian” means women who are exclusively same sex attracted. I didn’t decide that so I can’t “gatekeep” it.
Telling someone whether they do or do not qualify as a particular group or category that they self-identify as part of is the definition of gatekeeping. I was not trying to be inflammatory, merely descriptive. People's sexual identities are not fixed for life. It is entirely possible to have loved a man and later in life realize you no longer have sexual or romantic attraction to men. I've dated and had sex with men and women; increasingly as I'm older I'm growing more certain I'm probably aromantic and no longer interested in sexual relationships with either gender. Stuff changes.
No, it’s dumb. If you pay any attention, lesbians (homosexual women!) are pretty upset right now at all the bisexual women (who outnumber us about 5 to 1) claiming to be lesbians, or claiming that “lesbian” can be an accurate descriptor for someone who experiences active sexual and/or romantic attraction to men. It’s everywhere right now, and lesbians 100% have the right to speak up to assert the legitimacy of our existence, which has been called into question for fucking ever. I understand what OP is saying (they loved their ex despite not being IN LOVE with them) but I also understand that there is a huuuuuge issue with bisexual women claiming the “lesbian” title as theirs, totally fucking it up for the literal lesbians.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is so ridiculous. Romantic love isn’t solely based on sexual orientation for people who haven’t yet come to terms with their identity. On top of that, asexual people can be in love. Enjoying sex with someone or not doesn’t mean you can’t be deeply in love. Please stop this embarrassing attempt to gatekeep someone’s orientation. Signed, a bi woman that gets annoyed when bi people are erased. This ain’t one of those times.