Eloise's season better be f****** fire for the amount of time I have to wait to see her get more shine.
196
idiot9991Mar 24, 2026
+48
They need to come up with the magical concept of shooting seasons back to back and not make us wait until 2030 to see that.
48
OneReportersOpinionMar 24, 2026
+8
Lol yeah, these actors are already in their late 30s in some cases
8
TheGiftOf_JerichoMar 24, 2026
+10
Finding out Penelope's actresses age was crazy.
10
OneReportersOpinionMar 24, 2026
+9
Lol and she was playing a high schooler before this gig. I know she’s really short but dang lol
9
ProtoavisMar 24, 2026
+5
Oh she's 39...I guess that tracks given various things said in her interviews
5
TheGiftOf_JerichoMar 24, 2026
+2
Yeah! Absolutely crazy haha
2
Faithless195Mar 24, 2026
+4
I was not okay with how much to the background she got pushed this season, as well.
4
GamingTatertotMar 24, 2026
+162
Would have thought they'd give Francesca more time to grieve and Eloise would be the next season, but it was always gonna be one of the two
162
why_gajMar 24, 2026
+62
In the books, they basically happen at the same time.
62
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+26
Yeah, in the books Penelope has her romance and Eloise leaves before the final ball (and doesn't learn her friend is Whistledown) and at the same time Francesca is being wooed in Scotland. Hyacanth's story takes place a few years after.
26
fire_and_spice24Mar 24, 2026
+51
They’ve already paid way more attention to her first relationship than the book did. Considering it’s been building for two seasons, I’m not surprised they picked her first.
51
AnAussiebumMar 24, 2026
+22
They could even start the Eloise story this season, too. Wasn't she like a spinster penpal before she moved? They could include some letter writing scenes this season.
22
roastedmarshmellowsMar 24, 2026
+12
I'm sure they will... the past season showed Eloise becoming more receptive to the idea of marriage, but I think it would be weird if she took the plunge immediately afterwards.
12
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+3
In the books she gets lonely because everyone is coupled up, and she's been writing letters to everyone.
3
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+1
I think they didn't want to do a season where she was just away which is what narrative they would have needed to do.
1
ducky7goofyMar 24, 2026
+16
Eloise story has not been set up properly if they are going in the same book direction. Considering there is a character death there too and children involved.
16
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+18
Without spoiling anything, Eloise's romance still needs to finish setting up! It would not surprise me at all if that is her storyline this season, leading right into Eloise taking over for season 6.
18
RobedInFadedSplendorMar 24, 2026
+15
Meh. Isn't it way too early considering her husband just died in the previous season? No grieving?
I feel like it's Eloise's turn. Claudia Jesse is already 36, she's going to be nearly 40 by the time they film her season at this point. No problem with that, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to suspend belief that she's early to mid 20's.
15
barbarkbarkovMar 25, 2026
+1
She’s 36!?!!?
1
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+57
As a fan of the Bridgerton books, with Michael being my favorite love interest, I can still admit the books are mid at best and I f****** love the changes the show is making. I love Michaela! I can't wait for the next season!
(And before anyone can complain about 'historical accuracy' in a show where racism was solved in 17whatever, Queen Charlotte approved a pension for the [Ladies of Llangollen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_of_Llangollen), two upper class Irish women who lived as a popular society couple for over 50 years.)
57
sailtheskyxMar 24, 2026
+26
People can still criticize the show’s approach to same gender relationships because it has already established that same gender relationships are frowned upon. Just look at Benedict, who is bisexual (I'm pretty sure Sophie was the only one he told this to), and how same gender relationships were viewed in seasons 1 and 2. A gay man even had to marry a woman to hide that he was gay.
I’m not against the upcoming season, but people are allowed to be skeptical, especially since some fans love the books as they were written. Which is normal because a lot of adaptations, people prefer the book over adaptations. I haven’t read most of the books and have only read the first one, so I don’t have a stake in this and don't care.
I’m curious how the show will handle this, given that same gender relationships have been portrayed as secretive and kept behind closed doors so far.
26
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+27
Men though. It's always been different for Queer Women. Gay men were given capital punishment at the same time Anne Lister was flouting her relationship.
Women could always be close friends or even more and no one thinks anything of it. They just couldn't fathom that women would want to have sex with eachother.
I can't imagine we'll see a wedding, but we will see them as lifelong companions. The only issue is inheritance, it's not like they can have children (she might be able to inherit the Scottish title).
27
Familiar_Radish_6273Mar 24, 2026
+3
They weren't members of society, though. They lived in rural North Wales and actually threatened to sue people who claimed they had a sexual relationship. They certainly weren't openly lesbian, although rumours obviously abounded and today we'd probably assume they were a couple. They were more bohemian than society members. Being friends with Byron and Caroline Lamb would indicate they were well known but definitely on the outside. They purposely lived outside of society so they could do their own thing.
3
cdancer20Mar 24, 2026
+3
Earlier this week, I learned that historically women could inherit titles in Scotland. That leaves space for Michaela to inherit Kilmartin just like Michael did. That makes things better for me since a big part of the story line was Michael's reluctance to just "assume" John's position in title and relationship with Francesca.
3
RefinedBeanMar 24, 2026
+2
I had no idea they genderbent her for the show.
2
Mundane-Bug-4962Mar 25, 2026
+2
You’re hilarious. Nobody is crying about historical accuracy on f****** Bridgerton - put the persecution complex away.
2
prinnydewd6Mar 24, 2026
+47
this is the one character in the entire series that every time she was on screen I was either confused, or bored.
47
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+26
What confused you about her character?
26
idiot9991Mar 24, 2026
+3
Maybe her autistic behavior?
3
Mundane-Bug-4962Mar 25, 2026
Why she was so boring and forgettable?
Next question
0
sailtheskyxMar 24, 2026
+7
Same. I don't really care for her character even though I wished I did. v.v I don't know what it was about her, but I just didn't connect with her like I have with the other characters.
7
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+10
In the books she had a loving sweet relationship with her first husband. It's the new love that she discovers passion. We saw the steps of what she was missing with John even though they loved eachother. But with Michael(a) I'm guessing she'll find that passion. Francescas book is the smuttiest out of the set, he's set on seducing her in every way (also trying to get her pregnant, there's a big infertility subplot which we won't see).
10
kcmart716Mar 24, 2026
+7
Another season of Eloise in the background doing f***-all? Why? This chick’s only been on the show for like two seasons.
7
ssj4majuubMar 24, 2026
+3
Good. Give Eloise all the room to breathe she needs. I can't wait for Francesca and Michaela.
3
sethsom3thingMar 24, 2026
-27
They were really this confident people would like this pairing, huh?
Sucks for them they ruined it
-27
MarvelMindMar 24, 2026
+12
I’m not a big fan but the data shows that it will indeed be very successful.
12
ich_bin_alkoholikerMar 24, 2026
+12
Why wouldn’t they?
12
Otherwise-Weakness21Mar 25, 2026
-3
Ewww NO NO,nos vamos en 2 años, no pienso mirar esta basura
-3
thatshygirl06Mar 24, 2026
-19
No, for f*** sakes. It's too early for them. They keep f****** everything up when it comes to them
-19
Ill_GottenGainsMar 24, 2026
-19
For the husbands: Married With Children is coming to Prime 3/25.
-19
Al89nutMar 24, 2026
-52
Is this the show that ignores slavery?
-52
meatball77Mar 24, 2026
+13
It also ignores child labor and the horse shit that was everywhere.
It takes place in romancelandia. Where every rich man is s*** and kind.
13
Dodo_BaronMar 24, 2026
+33
I'm sorry you think the fantasy show is racist for showing black people in power instead of as slaves?
33
AncientOneAureliusMar 24, 2026
+1
I don't have a dog in this fight, but is Bridgerton really a fantasy show? I suppose you can say it's historical fantasy but it isn't just a historical show that ignores racism and classism so it can give the viewers what they want, ethnic women being paired with white men.
1
Dodo_BaronMar 24, 2026
+5
It ignores racism, clacism, historical events, world conflicts, etc.
It has pretty much no allusion to the real world. And goes out of its way to have contemporary music as it's sound track.
The only thing mention of history is it's costumes, set design and names of real countries.
5
Al89nutMar 25, 2026
But that's the entire point. You are ignoring the historical reality of black people's lives (and the history of Wilberforce and British abolitionism) in favour of what? A fantasy of how you wish things had been? Absurd.
0
Dodo_BaronMar 25, 2026
+1
Why are you spamming me with replies to a comment you already replied to yesterday?
1
Al89nutMar 25, 2026
Because I thought you'd like to engage in discussion more. But ok. Over and out.
0
Al89nutMar 24, 2026
-23
You do know slavery was legal at the time? The depiction of black people in the positions they are shown is the fantasy. Gone with the Wind, with Scarlett O'Hara as black - would you see a problem there?
-23
Dodo_BaronMar 24, 2026
+21
At what time? This show isn't set in history, it's a fantasy show. What's wrong with showing black people in power?
Why do you believe we can only depict them as slaves.
21
Familiar_Radish_6273Mar 24, 2026
+5
It is set in Regency London, and slavery has never been legal here. So in that sense it's perfectly reasonable for it not to be mentioned. Black people wouldn't have been members of high society but they would have been free to work and own their own business. Will Mondrich is based on a real life Black Regency boxer who built up his own business running a boxing salon, just as he did in S1. Called Bill Richmond.
5
Dodo_BaronMar 24, 2026
+10
It's set in a fictional regency London, nowhere does the show suggest otherwise. It mentions no historical events outside of Queen Charlotte sharing the same name.
It mentions no wars, famines, etc. They should be complaining they aren't at war during the time period, because the Napoleonic wars would be raging. And affect everyone in the show.
But for some reason their issue is focused on slavery
10
aarongodgersMar 24, 2026
+1
"It mentions no wars"
I thought a character died in the Napoleonic wars
1
Dodo_BaronMar 24, 2026
+1
Nah the only death in the show is a man who died by bee sting and another who was murdered for gambling
1
Familiar_Radish_6273Mar 24, 2026
+2
Slavery has never been legal in Britain. And people in Regency London would have mostly ignored slavery as it wouldn't have been on their radar. Sad but true.
2
ButDidYouCryMar 24, 2026
+2
>And people in Regency London would have mostly ignored slavery as it wouldn't have been on their radar.
Slavery was absolutely on their radar, even if people didn't speak so openly about it. Jane Austen mentions sugar plantations in her novels during the period. People weren't entirely ignorant about the colonies or by what method certain families became rich. Slavery was a huge part of the British economy and the financial system.
2
Familiar_Radish_6273Mar 24, 2026
It wasn't being mentioned by anyone in the ton. Jane Austen wasn't a Londoner or a member of society, she was the daughter of a vicar. From what I've read the ton would have avoided talking about anything "difficult" like that. They were benefiting remotely but wouldn't have been "aware aware", much as most of us today aren't "aware aware" of the fact that many of our clothes and plenty of our electronic goods and consumables come from either child labour or exploited people paid barely enough to survive.
0
ButDidYouCryMar 25, 2026
+1
That’s still missing how deeply this was baked into the system.
It’s not just that individuals benefited “remotely.” The entire financial structure Britain was operating under was tied to plantation economies. Sugar in particular wasn’t a side industry; it was one of the central drivers of wealth, credit, and trade, and it shaped how money moved through the empire.
Plantation output fed directly into credit and investment systems, insurance markets expanded around slaving voyages and colonial shipping, and long-distance finance developed to support exactly this kind of trade. These weren’t fringe activities. They were core to how the economy functioned, and people in elite circles understood that on a practical level, even if they didn’t dwell on the brutality behind it.
That’s also why the modern comparison doesn’t really work. Today’s supply chains are complex and often intentionally opaque in a way that creates distance between consumers and production. The Atlantic system wasn’t hidden like that. It was a central, visible part of Britain’s economic life, even if polite society avoided talking about it in human terms.
Writers like Jane Austen were absolutely educated enough to be aware of this, and we can see that in the texts themselves. She references plantations and colonial wealth directly. That’s not really up for debate; it’s in the novels.
She wasn’t ignorant, and you didn’t need to be a London socialite to understand how the empire functioned. Information about the colonies, trade, and wealth was widespread, especially among the literate classes. The idea that someone in her position wouldn’t grasp where money and status were coming from just doesn’t hold up.
More broadly, people didn’t need constant explicit discussion to understand something that was economically embedded in their world. Awareness doesn’t require open conversation at every dinner table. It just requires exposure to the systems that were shaping people’s lives, and those systems were visible enough.
So no, this isn’t a question of whether people like Austen “knew” or not. They did. The more accurate question is how openly that knowledge was acknowledged, and that’s a very different argument.
1
Familiar_Radish_6273Mar 25, 2026
That's literally my point and why I mentioned Jane A was a vicar's child. Ministers were learned and expected to be compassionate about the unfortunate people in the world. It didn't always happen but clearly in Austens case it did as she was very well educated and socially and politically aware.
Ton society people would have been too wrapped up in the latest scandal or plans for the next ball to give a damn
0
ButDidYouCryMar 25, 2026
+1
No, that’s not what you originally said.
>They were benefiting remotely but wouldn't have been "aware aware"
The idea that people were only “aware in a vague, distant way” doesn’t hold up when you look at the research. Works like *Accounting for Slavery* show just how directly British financial life was tied into plantation economies, credit systems, and slave-produced goods.
This wasn’t some abstract, far-off system. It was built into investments, inheritance, trade, and everyday consumption. People didn’t need to see plantations firsthand to understand where wealth was coming from, especially in literate and economically engaged circles.
My point was that it wasn’t completely off their radar and that people weren’t entirely ignorant of it, especially given how tied it was to wealth and the broader economy.
You’ve shifted that into a claim about whether it was talked about at dinner tables or whether Austen personally moved in certain circles, which isn’t the same thing. Something can be widely understood in a general sense without being a frequent topic of polite conversation.
So the disagreement isn’t about whether slavery was discussed constantly. It’s about whether people had some level of awareness versus none at all. And they did know. They knew a lot, in fact. Nothing about slavery was opaque.
I’m going to leave it here because I don’t like your glibness.
1
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+19
....Please tell me how you would have a regency romance storyline address slavery. I'm so curious.
19
UnknowableDuckMar 24, 2026
+6
Didn't they address it the first season as well? Been a bit since I watched it, but wasn't his Grandfather a slave? That's why his Father (The Duke) was pushing so hard for him to have a kid to make the great experiment work or am I dreaming.
6
Al89nutMar 24, 2026
-34
Question answered, though I'm sure you didn't mean to.
-34
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+11
Why does Pride and Prejudice ignore slavery? Someone should cancel Jane Austen.
11
Al89nutMar 24, 2026
-13
Actually it doesn't. There's quite an academic debate about it. Have a link [https://www.brlsi.org/talk/jane-austen-and-the-slavetrade/](https://www.brlsi.org/talk/jane-austen-and-the-slavetrade/)
-13
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+10
If Lizzie Bennet doesn't dismantle the East India Trading Company what is the point!!!
10
AMonitorDarklyMar 24, 2026
+18
They’re not depicting things as they were, they’re depicting things as they should’ve been.
It’s a fictional TV show, not a documentary.
18
thatshygirl06Mar 24, 2026
+21
As a black person myself, youre not the ally that you think you are
21
Al89nutMar 24, 2026
-20
I'm not an ally. don't want to be. I prefer truth, that's all.
-20
thatshygirl06Mar 24, 2026
+17
It's a fantasy show. Maybe stick to documentaries and non-fiction
17
ButDidYouCryMar 24, 2026
-1
You're just gonna get downvoted. Let people like their soap.
-1
weinerfishMar 24, 2026
+2
Exhausting.
2
Mundane-Bug-4962Mar 25, 2026
+2
It also pretends that there was a significant population of non European people in 19th century England including aristocrats. Ignoring slavery isn’t really the worst of the inaccuracies…
2
Al89nutMar 25, 2026
+1
Indeed, but it is the one typical of these nonsense dramas (see The Other Miss Bennet for instance.) It's annoying to see the reality of black people's lives at the time (and abolitionism) erased if favour of frothy contemporary feel good sensibilities. Nonsense and Sensibility.
1
[deleted]Mar 24, 2026
-53
[deleted]
-53
fire_and_spice24Mar 24, 2026
+30
Each season has tropes but the fact they’re interracial is not a trope.
Trope would be like last season having the Cinderella/Fairy tales trope.
30
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+33
Different people existing is not a 'trope', at least be honest in your bigotry
33
ich_bin_alkoholikerMar 24, 2026
+14
Funny that each and every season all have the common denominator of majority white people but somehow people like you are always complaining about “woke” shit because one character isn’t white or straight.
14
AMonitorDarklyMar 24, 2026
+5
Oh my goodness, not every couple are blonde hair, blue eyed heterosexuals!!!! Whatever shall we do!!!!
I’ll just clutch my pearls tighter and hope it goes away.
5
shekyMar 24, 2026
-29
You can down vote this guy but these romantic interest choices are very clearly a decision by the show runners.
-29
ich_bin_alkoholikerMar 24, 2026
+25
Literally everything in the show is a decision by the showrunners.
25
shekyMar 24, 2026
-19
Exactly my point. It's not a negative thing but OPs observation isn't some radical thought these were conscious choices. What're people upset over?
-19
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+15
'What're people upset over?'
Probably the blatant implication that having anyone not white and not skinny on screen is somehow a negative thing.
15
ich_bin_alkoholikerMar 24, 2026
+12
Because people frame it as pandering to “wokeness” when it’s just ordinary representation.
12
iwatchalotoftv22Mar 24, 2026
+9
Also it’s never a focal point. Penelope being “fat” or Kate being Indian aren’t even relevant to the actual story.
9
ich_bin_alkoholikerMar 24, 2026
+5
Even if it were, having people who look like you on screen is very important.
5
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+9
Why is it bad to have love interests represented by people that aren't exclusively white and skinny?
9
shekyMar 24, 2026
-23
I never said it was bad. But those are clearly the major topics of each season
-23
allison-vunderlandMar 24, 2026
+12
No, those are simple extremely minimized descriptions of characters in each season.
90 Comments