Bridgerton EP Breaks Down [Spoiler]’s Introduction in Season 3 Finale — What Does It Mean for Francesca?
The following contains major spoilers from Bridgerton Season 3, Part 2 — including the finale. Proceed accordingly.
Colin and Penelope weren’t the only love match in Bridgerton’s third season.
Francesca (played by Hannah Dodd) found a fitting partner in the reserved but dashing John Sterling, Earl of Kilmartin (Victor Alli). After a season-long courtship, the pair wed with an intimate ceremony at the Bridgerton home in Thursday’s batch of episodes. They planned to live on John’s remote Scotland estate, which offered the peace and quiet they craved. Plus, Eloise would accompany them in the hopes of gaining new life experiences to one day change the world.
But John had invited another to join them: his cousin Michaela (Masali Baduza), whose name should sound familiar to book fans. In When He Was Wicked, Francesca — spoiler alert — fell for John’s rakish cousin Michael following John’s untimely death.
With that in mind, Francesca’s flustered reaction when being introduced to Michaela at the Featherington Ball raised a pressing question: Was this setting up Season 4’s big romance?
Showrunner Jess Brownell tells TVLine, “We’re not saying one way or the other who’s next, but we wanted to introduce that part of Francesca’s story. Her story is one that has more installments than some of the other book stories and so, we’re getting started on it a little more quickly.”
Regarding Michaela’s gender swap, the EP recalls the first time she read Francesca’s book.
“I really related to Francesca’s story as a queer woman,” she shares. “Her book isn’t intended to be a queer story — at least the way Julia Quinn wrote it. But Francesca talks a lot in the book about feeling different and not quite knowing why at times. I think [author] Julia Quinn was really just talking about introversion.
“But that can sometimes be a part of the queer experience, that sense of feeling different,” Brownell adds. “I thought there was fertile ground there to explore for Francesca in a queer story on the show.”
The Bridgerton boss notes that John’s death in the book had no impact on how the show handled his romance with Francesca. Instead, her writing team focused on creating a new kind of love interest for the Netflix drama — someone who complimented Francesca’s soft energy.
“[In the book], you only get a little bit of John before we lose him, and we really thought it was a great opportunity to see a different kind of romantic lead in Bridgerton,” she explains. “So often, especially our men… they’re all rakes, and they’re very extroverted. Francesca is still coming out of her shell, and I think it was only right to give her a match with someone who could understand her quietness.”
What did you think of Bridgerton Season 3, Part 2? Grade the episodes below, and then share your opinions in the comments.
It was a little disappointing. Most of the good Polin stuff was left out. I know they were trying to give Benedict some interest before he meets Sophie, so glad he will be next season. But Michaela? Big hint – many of us watch regency romance for the rakish men. You’ve just lost people who were waiting for the dashing highlander.
Some of the big elements of Francesca’s story are life after loss and her decision of re enter the marriage market specifically because she wants a family. Michael dealing with suddenly inherenting everything and the guilt & grief of that. There’s a lot of really interesting story that’s going to be radically altered with the decision to make Michael Michaela. It will certainly be very different from the book.
This saddens me. I was going through my infertility struggle when I read Francesca’s book and it was nice to see that portrayed. If they’re going the queer route, that gets eliminated. Infertility is experienced by 1/4 couples but not seen enough in television.
You probably don’t intend to be this offensive but queer people deal with infertility issues as well (for example, me). We feel the same heartbreak you do.
Francesca’s story is next, they have been setting it up all season. Plus, they were never going to do three Bridgerton men in a row. Don’t love this as it makes little sense regarding marriage equals children but whatever, it’s years away.
But they mentioned the masquerade ball, and that’s where Benedict meets Sophie. I think it will be his season.
Idk…they mentioned the masquerade ball “next year” so with the fast forward…I’m thinking they could go ahead and do Benedict…it was his book they skipped…because of age and interest (we loose characters after they marry and with the time it takes to film some actors/actress may not want to keep returning to do their story)
I haven’t watched part 2 yet. And regardless of Michael/Michaela, the one thing that stood out to me in her book was how much she loved her husband. It was a love match and he didn’t lack anything. And they changed that crucial part of her love story.
All I can say is how disappointing and sadden in the direction of Michael to Michaela. A huge element to Francesca and Michael’s story was not only about the grief and loss of John but also her struggle of infertility and wanting to have children. Michael also struggled in becoming the Earl. It changes the whole story. How sad.
Well, I guess I just need to go do a re-read of the books then. I don’t want Francesca’s story to be changed that much. Of course, there are changes made for the show. But, that’s a huge change. I understand that the writer felt a connection and could see her own experiences in Francesca’s character. But, that changes so many aspects of her story.
Season 3 is officially my favorite season. It had the right balance of new loves, new discoveries, and lots of drama!
no
needed more Polin
Francesca’s story is the one that really lended itself to an on screen adaptation that they wouldn’t have had to add too much fluff or filler storylines in. I’m HUGELY disappointed they’re taking Francesca’s story in this direction as her book was my favorite and I was beyond excited to see that story be a true adaption. Her struggle with infertility really resonated with me as well and I think they could have done so much with it. Quite frankly I’m heartbroken with this Michaela reveal and I feel robbed.
I agree, Francesca’s was also my favorite book. I was looking forward to the adaption. Not so much now. I don’t know why the ‘powers that be’ just couldn’t do an offshoot again and told a queer story in the same universe.
Will we spend some time in the Highlands at least?
I hate to lose a storyline as meaningful as one that addresses infertility. I would have my tissues ready.
If they wanted a great queer romance, it makes far more sense for Benedict.
Season 4 is obviously Benedict. Gave that away with the nod to the upcoming masquerade ball
WHY???? Why would they do that???? I am hugely disappointed with that direction. Francesca’s story is a great story.
I really saw Francesca as neurodivergent-coded and not queer-coded, and I’m sad about the change of Michael to Michaela, especially reading the comments here about how this change is likely to erase her infertility storyline. The show had already set things up so Cressida could have a female love interest, if they wanted more queer storylines. If I was Julia Quinn, I’d be furious about a showrunner reinventing my books, especially the core storylines, to fit her own life experience. Hopefully we get a new showrunner ahead of Francesca’s season who wants to remain more faithful to the books, and John just happens to have two cousins with similar names, Michael and Michaela.
I’m really saddened by all of these grief-stricken comments about the gender-swap of Michael to Michaela, which are shot through with strains of… if not straight-up homophobia, then a real obsession with heteronormativity and ignorance.
My heart goes out to all the women on here sharing that book-Francesca’s story provided some catharsis around their own infertility struggles. Truly. But I don’t know if any of these women realize that queer couples can experience grief and feelings of insecurity around not being able to conceive “naturally.” I’ve watched many lesbian couples suffer through rounds and rounds of IVF as they struggled to bring their dreams of having a family to life. And sometimes it didn’t work out at all. Gay men who want kids (especially those who don’t have money) can experience heartbreak around their inability to conceive as well. I was one of them. It tortured me for many years.
If I’m to be a pessimist, these comments just confirm how much many straight people don’t want to make space for queer folks, and don’t want their stories impinging on their right to be at the center of everything. They’re fine with us as long as we’re over in our little corner, minding our business and not asking for attention that might pull focus.
If I’m to be an optimist, these comments actually show how much commonality there can be between the life experiences of straight and queer folks. That maybe we’re not as different as a lot of straight people seem to think. That their heartbreaks can find parallels in our heartbreaks.
All of this to say, screen-Francesca can still agonize about not being able to have children, maybe just in a different way than heterosexual book readers would like.
You do realize that we are taking about a story set in Regency England, right? While they never claimed to be historically accurate and have taken a lot of liberties, there is still much that simply wasn’t possible back then.
For one, you couldn’t openly live in a gay relationship back then. They have pretty much kept the bit in, as of Queen Charlotte with the two servants. Secondly, things such as IVF, sperm donor, surrogacy and even adoption were all not a thing back then. You can’t compare modern day dating to a show set in the Regency era.
.
Even amongst hetero couples, fertility issues don’t get shown on screen that much either. Nobody really talks about that, even to this day. They are relevant for many of us.
.
Look, just because someone doesn’t like the gender swapping on this couple doesn’t mean they are homophobic. This claim always comes up in such situations and I think it’s ridiculous. I have read dozens of comments by gay people hating this one too. I understand your want to see more representation! But Regency England just was very “heteronormative”, it’s the setting they chose.
.
I am not even against an lgbtq main romance on Bridgerton whatsoever, even if this really is a huge, huge stretch. I just think out of all the siblings, Francesca is one where it doesn’t feel right and totally forced. Francesca is absolutely “traditional”, wanting to marry and having children. Some of her other siblings haven’t been portraied this way and it would feel WAY more coherent to give them an lgbtq love interest, not Francesca. Benedict for example is confirmed bi, and also portraied to be a “free spirit”. It would absolutely match his character and his story. Same for Eloise. She has been shown to be totally anti marriage, and even making fun of her sister for wanting those things. It’s not a stretch imo to make her end up a spinster living with her “very good friend” or something. They have already layed the groundwork for so much lgtbq stuff that it just feels like a “I do this because I am the showrunner and I can” with Francesca.
It’s not homophobic to want to see the story from the books. If it were reversed and Francesca had a relationship with her late husband’s female cousin in the book and they changed it to his male cousin for the show, you’d be annoyed as well. I love Francesca’s story in the books and am sad it may be totally different in the show. They can and have already added queen storylines that were great. They don’t need to change Francesca’s whole story.
*queer storylines*
Bottom line is we read a beloved book and we wanted the story depiction of Francesca and Michael as is in the book.
I do not negate your points that queer couples handle infertility, partner loss and many other things as humans we all share. All my life I have never understood and dont stand by why people are so hateful and forceful with their opinions against same sex couples. So I totally sympathize at how maddening and saddening it is to see those people get filtered out.
I just wanted to watch what I read it is not more serious than that. To me it’s how I expected a scene by scene retelling of the live action Disney classic films. I just want a literal play by play of what I read and imagined in my head. That’s all it is to me. Also 3 seasons in it made more sense for Benedict to be queer which wouldve so good to see.
Im sorry that you feel that there are people in the population that are not open to queer storylines. That is probably true but know that I am not one of them. I enjoy all love stories. For me it does not go much deeper than what I said above I just wanted to see Francesca and Michael.
Lord, I do not understand all the handwringing about stories that haven’t even been told yet. It is still possible to do all the storylines from the books, but just on a little more of a meandering path.
.
If Michaela is completely gender-swapped Michael and is ultimately the heir to the estate, then she could still struggle with the inheritance, title, etc. and bond with Francesca as they both grieve. There could even be a new dimension added because there would, of course, be extra hurdles for Michaela to contend with as a woman left such an enormous estate.
.
And there’s absolutely no reason that Francesca’s infertility doesn’t eventually come into play. It could even add a new wrinkle as she makes the difficult decision to leave Michaela and pursue marriage with a new man instead of quietly living the life of super close widow/spinster with Michaela. How much would that struggle be enhanced knowing she left a loving relationship to pursue a dream that doesn’t seem to even be in the cards for her? In short, stop prejudging the work.
She can’t be the heir to an earldom, that’s not how it works
If there are no male heirs, it has happened. It’s up to the royalty. Thus the reason the lawyer told Lady Featherington that he’d be recommended to their majesties that the Featherington line go to someone more worthy. Why would this show have Charlotte, who is running the kingdom essentially, say it was impossible when they’re already taking 1,000 liberties?
Or, we will continue to express our opinions even though not everyone agrees with them. This is a quaint concept called a discussion. Welcome to the discussion.
Yes, except their terrible opinions based on nothing but speculation. That is what I’m criticizing. Valid opinions based on fact, fine. Carry on. But this, “They can’t possibly do this or that storyline now!” is absolute rubbish. It’s making endless assumptions about what is and is not possible in a fictional world that does not play by the same rules as our real historical world.
.
From what I’ve seen reading this story and other similar ones teasing Francesca’s story, the sense I’m getting is that John will not die as suddenly as he did in the books. He will still die far too soon and suddenly, but maybe more like 3 years later rather than 3 months later. I think that’s what the point of the final paragraph here is. He brings a great new dynamic and type of character to the story, plus the suggestion seems to be that he was lost too quickly in the books. So that small change could easily allow them to still explore her infertility storyline that everyone’s in a tizzy about. It just happens with John instead. But, regardless, the point is that it doesn’t take a ton of imagination to find ways to deal with the stories people are demanding to see. So I don’t understand the pessimism at all.
Again, it’s called a difference of opinion and a discussion. You don’t have to like or agree with the opinions. Believe it or not, people can disagree with you.
I am really sad about that change. Since I read the books after season 1 dropped, I was looking soooo forward to see Michael. Francesca’s book was by far my favourite :(. It’s also the book that can resonate the most with “modern woman” and that would have had a lot of powerful storylines that are now mostly all not going to be as impactful anymore.
I get that they want to be inclusive, it’s fine usually, but doing it with Francesca is just the wrong decision. It comes out of the blue and feels really forced. They already have layed so much groundwork for two other siblings to be gay… It would have felt much more natural if Benedict was the one getting the gay romance (though yes, there would’ve been an outcry too). Also the way Eloise is portraied, it doesn’t feel like her book ending would be a fit for her series counterpart AT ALL. Even though Sir Philipp was already introduced, it feels like Eloise could become a lesbian spinster with Cressida or something.
I really enjoyed Francesca’s story from the book but I am still excited with the change. Some of the elements of the book that I enjoyed can still be there even if it is a lesbian story. Can’t wait for her turn in the series.
I don’t really mind the switch from Michael to Micheala, but the way they highlighted Francesca’s reaction to meeting her… basically, after a season of her showing to everyone that the quiet love she found with John was authentic and fulfilling and just as beautiful as something loud and dramatic, they completely invalidated that point.
That’s a good point. I liked that Violet recognized that her love for John could be just as special. If that reaction does indeed prove to be that she had a “love at first sight” moment with John’s cousin, they just undid an entire season’s worth of character development.
I thought that the agreement with Julia Quinn stated that all characters ended up with the same characters as from the book. Besides having a similar name, this would not be the same character. Maybe this is just a misdirection and there is another cousin named Michael to be introduced later?
Why do shows adapted from books have to gay up stories that weren’t gay in the book? If it was gay in the book, fine. But they try to gay stuff up when that wasn’t the author’s original story.
I do not care about Francesca second relationship and think it may be good storyline, but I hate how they had her disappointed in John’s kiss. In the book, his death is portrayed as the loss of a great love. I hope the writers will be able to pull that off, because so far it doesn’t look like it, yet it should be possible.
In other words: Yes, one person can have two great loves in their lifetime. You don’t have to cheapen one just to make a point about the other.