Bridgerton is finally celebrating a lesbian romance – the homophobic reactions are gutting
Bridgerton is finally celebrating a lesbian romance – the homophobic reactions are gutting
Upon learning that Francesca (Hannah Dodd) and Michaela (Masali Baduza) would lead season five of Bridgerton, I was thrilled. Yet, the rest of the so-called fandom swiftly dampened my enthusiasm.
Scanning social media platforms reveals a flood of dismay from fans, divided into two groups: those upset about Eloise’s narrative being delayed and homophobes threatening to discontinue watching the series for daring to feature a sapphic romance. The focus of much disappointment centers on Claudia Jessie’s character, Eloise, who has long resisted societal expectations of marriage. Though her love story was expected to unfold next, I believe the emotional response might be exaggerated.
Francesca’s journey, including her marriage to John and the development of her bond with Michaela, was already explored across two seasons. Her romance’s foundation is well-established, making the extension feel unnecessary. While some fans claimed Francesca needed more time to grieve John’s death, the two-year time jump already allows for sufficient reflection. Eloise, however, still has ample room to evolve in season five, even if her recent arc has felt repetitive in pushing back against her mother’s marital ambitions.
Character reworkings and narrative shifts
It’s not the first time the show has altered the timeline from the source material. Colin and Benedict’s storyline swap, for instance, enriched Benedict’s character and resolved Colin’s tension with Penelope, much like the dynamic between Francesca and Michaela. This change was met with positive feedback, yet the current backlash against their romance seems sharper and more intense.
Among the critics, there was a recurring argument that pairing Francesca with a female love interest would diminish the infertility plotline from the book, When He Was Wicked. This critique feels shallow, as the struggle with infertility is a universal issue, regardless of sexual orientation. In the 1800s setting, the challenges of a same-sex couple navigating societal norms and limited medical resources add depth to the narrative, offering broader representation.
“Why can’t they just stick to the ‘tradition’ of relationships in that period?” “We do not have to make everything we watch gay.”
These comments reflect a broader frustration, fueled by a blend of misogyny and homophobia. Eloise’s storyline, which could have been a pivotal moment for LGBTQ+ visibility, now faces disproportionate outrage. Some fans even questioned whether a female lead should be given space to explore her love for another woman, casting doubt on the show’s commitment to inclusivity.
Yet, the decision to center Francesca and Michaela’s romance opens new possibilities for character development. Eloise’s arc could still gain momentum, as her love interest and future husband in the books, Sir Phillip Crane, remains a compelling figure. While I’d personally prefer to see Eloise take on a more active role in challenging societal norms, her storyline is far from lost.
For me, the backlash against the pairing is unnecessary. Fans of Eloise should temper their frustration and acknowledge the significance of this milestone. After all, Hannah Dodd and Masali Baduza are already carrying the weight of a traditional narrative, and their journey deserves support. The future of Bridgerton remains bright, with room for both classic and progressive storytelling to coexist.
Subscribe to Metro’s TV Newsletter to stay updated on your favorite shows, including Bridgerton. Simply follow the link we send to customize your news feed. To view this video, enable JavaScript and ensure your browser supports HTML5 video.
