Our Bridgerton Brothers reunited! Here is a tease thanks to Netflix UK
Source Netflix UK, full video tomorrow
Source Netflix UK, full video tomorrow
Still surprised they haven’t include a cover.
The likelihood of seeing Phillip in S5 is almost slim to none but I thought it would still be fun to imagine ourselves as the writers/showrunner and how we'd bring Phillip back after his long hiatus post-season 2?
Personally, this is how I'd do it if I was the showrunner and I had the opportunity to set Phillip up to be the next lead in S5:
Part 1:
Part 2:
What do you think?
I know it's unrealistic (even though I don't think it's unrealistic at all in a perfect world) and definitely NOT going to happen. We'd be lucky to even get ONE letter in S5 let alone all of this but this is how I'd set up Philoise's season if I WAS THE SHOWRUNNER. But I'm not so...
I just think this would be a great set up and have the casual fans engaged into seeing where this story will go.
What ideas do you have? What would you do if you were the showrunner? How would you reintroduce Phillip and set up Philoise in season 5?
I must have been living under a rock. I knew Queen Charlotte & King George III existed. But with all the mention regarding costuming and race not being period accurate, I must have assumed the made up storylines were in the made up society.
The neighborhoods, streets and even some businesses are/were real. White's still exists. The Ton actually made up roughly 0.02% of the British population. Less than 3,000 people. I thought the dating rules represented British life from that era but, they were just Ton rules. (Is that accurate?)
What do you know about the Ton? I've been doing some quick reading but curious to hear your knowledge.
There seems to be a somewhat common belief that Eloise, being a woman in the Regency era, needed to marry for financial security, and that Violet's push for Eloise to get married is the case of a pragmatic Violet trying to secure a deluded Eloise's future and ensure she is provided for. The basis for this belief seems to be that single women (or at least, single women from families too high class for women to work) did not have money or property of their own, and that the money put aside for their dowries was intended entirely for their husband's use, not their own, and therefore, if they never got married, no money would go them, even if money had been intended to be for their use.
The dowry's primary purpose, above all things, was to ensure that a woman was provided for. In husband hunting, the larger the dowry, the greater the net you could cast over potential husbands. Once married, there would be marriage settlements, which would determine how much of woman's dowry or "marriage portion" could be accessed by the husband. The marriage contracts were the only way a woman's property would remain her own, and they caused a great deal of debate and haggling between families and lawyers. As a rule of thumb, a lump sum would be put on the woman. It would be invested, and her pin money would likely come from the proceeds (husbands might also contribute to their wives' marriage portion). Pin money was money a woman could access without her husband's say so. Whereas the husband could not access the lump sup of money (which might also be kept protected by trustees, such as male family members of the wife) he could claim interest from it, or money the wife earned or inherited after marriage. If the woman is widowed, that lump sum then ensures she is provided for, as she would live off the interest of that, and any other money her husband leaves her. For a woman whose income depended on her husband's profession, such as clergyman or lawyer etc..., a dowry large enough to live on was essential for her survival.
The point of the dowry wasn't ultimately "marry this woman and get a large chunk of cash as a reward" (although if families were looking for advantageous marriages that was a bonus), it was to ensure a livelihood for the woman, and if she married, making sure that whatever her husband did, whatever he earned, saved, or spent, she would at the end of the day have some financial security.
The dowry was money given to a woman at the point of marriage, but that isn't to say if she never got married, she wouldn't receive any money, or that spinsters had no property rights. I explained roughly how dowries worked in regards to marriage to demonstrate how the intent behind them was to provide for the woman. The point of that money was to ensure a woman was provided for. With such an intent, if a woman had a family who had means to provide for her, they would, whether that be through supplying a large dowry to attract husbands, or leaving her legacies in a will. The money that would go into the dowry did not magically disappear if a woman never married, and the family's desire to see her provided for and safe did not fade away if she became a spinster, unless the family in question was spiteful and dishonourable, or made some stipulation that she must be married in order to receive her inheritance (which was not standard practice, and more the set up for a romance novel than anything else.) If a family had enough money to provide a woman a lump sum to live off, they could, regardless of her marital status. There was no laws preventing them, and the social expectation was that brothers and fathers would ensure the woman's livelihood, as much as they could afford, which in the Bridgertons' case was a lot.
Provided Eloise's father or Anthony did their socially expected duty to Eloise, Eloise would in many ways be better off financially than her married sisters. Spinsters and widows actually had better property rights than married woman. Apart from whatever lump sum put aside in the marriage contracts, a married woman had no property rights. Everything she earned or inherited became her husband's property. This is because married women were "covered" by their husband's legal identity, and did not exist as their own separate entity. Meanwhile, an unmarried woman could own as much property and have as much wealth as any man.
Wealthy spinsters, living of their own fortunes, could and did exist. There was no law in place, no practise or crushing societal convention, that would place restrictions on what Eloise could inherit, or have settled on her as a single woman. Her family has the money. Her family has the intent to see her provided for. Her family have the means to provide for her, married or unmarried. Therefore, excepting some bizarre plot device to put pressure on Eloise to marry, unfounded by an historical fact, Eloise's financial status is secure.
We know there is money for Eloise's dowry. Therefore there is enough money for Eloise's general livelihood. As Anthony described Daphne's dowry as "ample" (therefore indicating that Eloise's was large as well), her dowry must be enough for her to live on, and live a genteel lifestyle. It would not qualify as "ample" if not.
As the desired "goal" for women was to marry, their fortunes, the money put aside for them, might generally be spoken of in terms of getting them a husband and supporting them after marriage, because the general plans is for them to marry and have the money put aside for them put to use as dowries. But that does not mean the money disappeared if she never married or the desire of Eloise's family to see her provided for, which was the motive for giving her a dowry in the first place, would disappear too.
Now, is Eloise's dowry "her's" at this point in the story? That really depends on whether or not the money intended for her dowry was labelled as such by Edmund in his will. If so, then that money is hers. That's her inheritance, and it became hers when Edmund died. Currently, Eloise is underage, and her money will be protected and controlled by trustees, most likely her male next of kin, in this case Anthony, and perhaps her other brothers as well, (Georgiana Darcy was left under the care of her brother Mr Darcy, and Colonel Fitzwilliam). Once Eloise came of age, the money would be under her control. Now, a father or anyone leaving money to a woman might try to protect the money they leave a woman from fortune hunters by putting additional protections on it, (so if a woman was kidnapped and forced into marriage, or seduced by a fortune hunter and eloped without getting lawyers involved, her money would still have some protection) but this was not a necessity, and a woman could in theory control her finances as much as a man. She could partake in business deals, buy, spend, invest, as much as she liked.
As Edmund was depicted as a loving father and responsible family patriarch, it's highly improbable that he did not oversee the provision of all his children. Therefore, the most likely scenario, the one most in keeping with his reputation as a good man and father, is that since Eloise was born, money was being put aside for her, likely into trusts which would increase through investments, to ensure her future, and yes, be used as a dowry to attract husbands, which was the preferred outcome, but fundamentally, to ensure she had something to live on.
If for some reason Edmund never did put any money aside for Eloise, or specify in his will about what was to be provided for her, then that duty would have fallen onto Anthony. And this would, one hundred percent, no ambiguity, have been his duty. As head of the family, seeing to the security and welfare of his sisters was one of his most important responsibilities, and as we see throughout the series, one he takes extremely seriously. And the way to ensure Eloise was provided for was to have money legally earmarked for her provision. It would either have been dishonourable or a major oversight, and either way extremely out of character, for Anthony not to do so.
So to sum up, does Eloise need to marry for financial reasons? Is Violet's crusade for Eloise to marry a pragmatic endeavour driven by her desire to ensure Eloise is financially provided for? No. Eloise comes from a wealthy family. Eloise's family has a large enough fortune to ensure a lump of it could be put aside to ensure Eloise is provided for throughout her life. The laws of the time allowed money to be settled on women, and for women to inherit land and property. The expectation of the time would have been for the Bridgertons to provide for all the girls' futures, including the unmarried ones. It would only be a financial necessity for Eloise to marry if Edmund failed to make provisions for Eloise in his will, or Anthony failed to do so, which would have been failures on their behalf as heads of the family.
Eloise's family had the money to provide for her, married or unmarried. The laws at the time allowed them to provide for her, married or unmarried. The expectation of the time was for her family to provide for her, married or unmarried.
RE: The Show's accuracy. All the above is based on historical fact. Bridgerton has been drifting away from anything historical the longer the series went on, and it's reached the point where the writers are just saying whatever, and sometimes present circumstances as being the exact opposite of what was the case. For example, Benedict said that whereas it was improper for men and women to dance more than once together, but he points out a married couple who are getting away with it because they're married. This wasn't the case. It was a faux pas for husbands and wives to priorities each other's company too much when in a setting like a ball or a dinner party. This is because this was the time they were meant to spend entertaining and being gracious to their neighbours and society, they already had time to spend on each other at home. Another case, and this one so wrong it was laughable, was the seating chart lesson. According to Hyacinth, married couples were sat near each other, spinsters and old people were shoved off to the side, and debutantes and suitors were sat together to encourage courtship. No. This was just...no. Again, husbands and wives were always sat separately, because they were meant to be socialising. The host and hostess would be seated at the opposite ends of the table, and the most important guests would be sat beside the hosts. The less important the guest, the further they sat from the hosts. This was determined by social hierarchies (rank, title, lineage, social standing, profession) although if the dinner was held in honour of one particular person, perhaps a new bride being welcomed into the neighbourhood, they might receive preferential treatment. So yeah, Bridgerton has a habit of twisting things around and saying whatever, and I would only be half surprised if next season they announce that single women couldn't own property, but married women could, just to give Eloise a motive to get married, but this would be total bollocks.
With a little tease about Sophie’s wardrobe in Season 5 in this video as well
Thank you Shondaland for introducing many non book readers like me to Benedict and Sophie's world. Which has indeed made us go back to books as well.
Happy june 05th, Benophie day🪁💕🥰
Like Luke told Yerin, they'll always be Benedict and Sophie. It really is the beginning. Even after 200+ years of their meet cute timeline at the masquerade ball🎭
Can't wait for future seasons, until then here's a pouty Benedict yearnington in the last 2 slides representing all of Benophie fans🫠
I'm so happy that I came across the Benophie world via Lukerin❤️ here are some pics I absolutely 🥰 (dammit there's a limit only to 20 photos, when I have a whole gallery)
To me, that interpretation ignores a lot of what season 3 actually showed us.
Penelope wanted a marriage built on love, and Debling was very clear that he would never be able to offer her that. He planned to spend long periods away from home, leaving her to manage everything on her own. While she may have enjoyed the freedom that came with his absence and found it easier to continue as Lady Whistledown, I don't think that would have made her truly happy. It would have left her lonely.
By contrast, Colin loved her. The season makes it clear that his feelings were always there, even if he didn't fully understand them until later. More importantly, he was able to give Penelope what she had always wanted: a partner who genuinely loved and chose her.
That's why I struggle with the idea that Penelope would have been better off with Debling when she is clearly happy with Colin. It's perfectly fine to prefer different ships, but I don't think wanting Penelope to settle for a loveless marriage is somehow a better outcome for her character.
What also surprises me is how much criticism Penelope receives despite being one of the most compassionate and complex characters in the series. As Lady Whistledown, she has certainly made mistakes, but she has also helped countless people throughout the ton, including members of the Bridgerton family. Whether people like her or not, I think her character deserves a lot more credit than she often gets.
Today, June 4th, is corgi appreciation day. I only think it is best that we use our time and efforts to pay homage to Newton and Austin, who portrayed him.
Anyways, much love and please remember what would Newton do.
After watching several recent and recent-ish interviews with the cast I am irritated by the obvious lack of effort in them. Yes they are cute and light, but I have a feeling I haven't heard a single sentence that was an interesting thought. Claudia saves them with her charm, but my god, can't the show runners stop treating the viewers like one-cell organisms with no brain?
Everything I've watched looked like this:
Interviewer:
- Ohh so nice to have you here, lovely lovely, wow
Actor:
-Yes I'm so excited, grateful to be a part of such a great project, great team
Interviewer:
-Can't wait for more spicy scenes. And love, so much love. Your character navigates this X relationship, it's new and challenging, whatcha think?
Actor:
-Yes definitely, a new turn, she/her explores herself in this new situation, can't wait
Interviewer:
-Amazing, you are all amazing, love you, thank you, bye.
Are we supposed to enjoy it? It is just boring, a toddler can write a better interview.
sometimes I wonder, what do you think would have happened if Daphne had chosen Prince Friedrich instead of Simon? Would she have been happier, or was Simon always the right choice for her?
imo , The prince would have been a better choice according to daphne's personality.
[ SHOW DISCUSSION]
It's a long shot but I'm willing to try, so here's all the things I remember:
- It's on a03 ( unless it's been deleted 💀)
-It begins Post garden scene/horse fall
- Kate is in a coma and unfortunately Anthony's swimmers were a tad too productive so she is in a coma AND pregnant
-I believe the Queen is called upon to help them with concealing the scandal by arranging a wedding by proxy since Kate can't say "I do" in person
- Kate does wake up post borth, like ....2 to 3 years later?
- there is some angst/miscommunication once Kate awake and has to keep up with all that happened
I see myself in her so much. Her getting annoyed with other women who just talk about marriage and traditional feminine activities is a realistic outlook of how radical young feminists feel at that age. I also felt the same way when I was Eloise’ age. I was annoyed at my fellow women for catering to the patriarchy and giving into the sexism of society instead of seeing it for what it was. I couldn’t understand how they were participating in a system that was meant to oppress them. Society is unfair and so many double standards exist and instead of challenging them a lot of women adapt or even uphold them. It’s not a bad thing, but it’s because of the loud obnoxious women who rebelled against this that we even have rights today. I did grow from this, but I thought I had solidarity with one of my friends until she herself got married to a guy who was the completely opposite of the feminist ideals she held. It’s why when she found out about Pen and Colin I related to how she felt.
It’s why I can understand why Eloise is so mad and upset all the time. SHE IS THE ONLY ONE on the entire show who sees how unfair society is and is the only one challenging the oppression placed upon women. Imagine being surrounded by people who talk about marriage all day long and nothing else. 99% of all the women gossip and talk about marriage or things related to marriage. I hate how the show portrays her in the wrong like she shouldn’t criticize and has all the characters surrounding her talk down to her and act like she’s crazy for not wanting to get married. Eloise has to be understanding of every woman on the show or else she’s not a feminist but none of the women have ever understood her or tried to see where she’s coming from. This is why she’s angry because she just can’t comprehend that other women don’t see the oppression.
Eloise is frustrated because she’s all alone in her beliefs and her constantly challenging societal norms is her trying to get the women to open their eyes about their own oppression but instead of challenging society, the women actively participate in the very traditions that oppress them.
Even all the hobbies that the women in the ton have are influenced by patriarchy and the marriage mart. Do they really want to sow and do embroidery or is that what was taught to them? Choice feminism is popular in 2026 but back then there was no choice. Women had to survive and were taught at a young age to do housework, how to crochet, knit etc.
Eloise’ view on marriage and her being the ONLY women in the ton to see through the facade and the patriarchal aspect of society is realistic and her being hostile and against “feminine” interests of other women is realistic tbh. I had the same thoughts.
I did grow out of it and I have more nuanced views but I relate so much to her. At her age my feminism was the same. I was angry because I was the ONLY one who saw how unfair my culture was.
Original source is here and the cosplayers are cissysnow_ + jackofgraves <3
When you are not in a “who piss further” contest within your own show
Happy Pride Month! 🌈
Since it's Pride Month, I wanted to make a few discussion posts looking back at some of Bridgerton's most prominent queer characters and the conversations surrounding them.
The goal isn't to accuse anyone of homophobia, biphobia, or bad intentions, nor is it to claim that every criticism of a character is rooted in bias.
Instead, I'd like to look at some of the most common debates in the fandom, compare them to what we actually saw on screen, and discuss whether certain reactions might have been influenced by factors beyond writing alone.
I thought Benedict would be a good place to start, as he's arguably one of the most discussed and divisive queer characters in the fandom so far.
A quick warning before I start:
This post ended up being much longer than I originally intended. 😅
So if you make it all the way to the end, thank you! And if not, I completely understand.
With that said, let's talk about Benedict.
One of the most common criticisms I saw during Season 3 was that Benedict received "too much screentime" despite it not being his season.
What makes me curious about this criticism is that when fans calculated screentime for Season 3, Benedict was not actually one of the most prominent characters. Depending on the calculation, he ranked below characters such as Eloise, Portia, and even Cressida.
At the same time, many other Bridgerton characters have received substantial screentime outside of their own seasons:
Anthony had major storylines before Season 2.
Penelope had important storylines throughout Seasons 1, 2, and 3.
Eloise has consistently received significant development every season.
So I wonder:
Was the issue really the amount of screentime Benedict received?
Or was the issue the specific story being told during that screentime?
I've also seen some fans argue that Colin deserved as much screentime in Benedict's season as Benedict had in Colin's season.
Looking at the actual numbers, does that argument still hold up?
Because looking at fan screentime calculations, Colin actually had more screentime than Benedict in both Seasons 1 and 2. Then, of course, Season 3 was Colin's own season, making the gap even larger overall.
This is part of why I find the "Benedict takes up too much screentime" criticism interesting.
If Benedict consistently had less screentime than Colin before either of them became leads, why did Benedict's presence become such a frequent topic of discussion?
And if Benedict was only around the eighth most prominent character in Season 3, why did the perception develop that he was dominating the season?
Another comparison I find interesting is Eloise.
Eloise has been one of the most prominent Bridgerton siblings since Season 1, despite her own season still being years away. Looking at overall screentime rankings after Seasons 1-3, she is significantly higher than Benedict and has consistently received major storylines each season.
Yet I don't remember seeing nearly the same level of discussion about Eloise having "too much screentime" or "taking attention away from the main couple."
To be clear, I'm not saying Eloise receives too much screentime. I actually think her continued development makes sense for her character.
What I find interesting is the difference in fandom perception.
Why does significant screentime for some supporting Bridgertons feel natural to viewers, while significant screentime for others becomes controversial?
Is it about the character themselves? The story being told? Audience expectations? Or something else entirely?
(Screenshot of a fan on reddit putting the time of each characters are above. It doesn't count S4 because I didn't find anything beyond S3 time screen)
Another thing that stood out to me was how frequently people brought up STIs when discussing Benedict and Sophie.
Bridgerton has featured several rakes:
Yet I don't remember seeing the same volume of discussion about STIs when people talked about Daphne, Kate, or Penelope ending up with those characters.
Why do you think this conversation became so prominent with Benedict?
Is it because audiences have become more aware of historical realities?
Or is there something different about the way viewers perceive a bisexual male character compared to heterosexual male characters?
A reaction I saw surprisingly often after Season 3 was:
"I thought Benedict was gay. And will end up with a man"
Wanting more gay representation is completely valid.
But Benedict's storyline explicitly showed attraction to women as well as attraction to a man.
So I'm curious:
Why do you think so many viewers interpreted him as exclusively gay?
At what point does disappointment that a character isn't gay become bisexual erasure?
And how do fandom spaces generally handle bisexual representation compared to gay or lesbian representation?
Benedict has always been portrayed as unconventional, artistic, and resistant to traditional expectations.
Those traits existed long before Season 3.
Yet it feels like criticism of Benedict as immature, directionless, or unable to commit became much louder once his sexuality became a larger part of his storyline.
Do you think that's true? If so, why?
And if not, can you remember seeing these same criticisms at the same level before Season 3?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives. Please keep the discussion respectful.
Edit:
So good news i managed to find the first one!!
It’s called tempting scandal in case someone else was wondering
So there are two polin fanfics i’ve recently been searching for. I’m hoping if i describe wtv i remember of both, maybe someone who has also read them can help me find what they were called.
It’s all very sexual content, i’m hoping that’s ok to post on here coz i mean all of bridgerton is very sexual lol.
The first one (i definitely read this on ao3):
•Pen admits to theo she’s embarrassed that she is unmarried and yet craves to understand “intimacy”.
•They eventually find themselves in some hotel room type place. But don’t go very far coz they get interrupted by colin.
•Colin is very angry at pen for doing anything with theo.
•Eventually after some back and forth, Colin offers to teach her about the things she curious about. this ends up becoming essentially the plot of the entire fanfic.
•During each chapter, colin covers one aspect of sex or intimacy.
•eventually, like many many chapters later, penelope is set to marry some other man and colin is super depressed but for some reason won’t tell pen he has feelings for her.
•She ends up getting very close to actually marrying that other dude, but obv we get a happy ending, and eventually colin tells penelope and they get married.
I hope this was enough detail for the first one.
The second one (also i think on ao3):
•So i’m a bit more lost on this one. in fact there may even be a teensy chance that this isn’t even a separate fic, and that it’s just one of the chapters of the first one. I suspect that coz this one is also about colin teaching penelope.
•However in the case that it is a separate fic, i do think it’s one shot
•In this fic, Colin explains about different parts of penelope’s body. He singles each part one by one.
•So for example, i guess he touches her breasts, and like tells her what he’d do with them, then he moves to tummy, then thighs, yada yada.
•for some reason a dialogue i very clearly remember is where he describes her vagina as “cunny”. she seems a bit embarrassed and asks if that’s what it’s called, to which he responds something like “in polite company, no. but with just me alone, yes, this is your cunny”
I hope someone knows what they were called.