Bridgerton Season Two: Thoughts?
This week, Netflix announced–woo hoo!–there will be a second season of the wildly popular Bridgerton featuring, as was predicted, Anthony, the hero of The Viscount Who Loved Me.
I confess: I am excited. I enjoyed season one, even with its many flaws, and I celebrate the world’s embrace of romance.
That said, I do have a few notions.
First, I hope whomever they cast as Kate is as strong as Adjoa Andoh as Lady Danbury. (I would watch her in anything.) Daphne’s casting was middling. I want better. I’d like Kate to be transcendently smart, smirky, and vulnerable. (If only Millie Bobby Brown were old enough!) Perhaps Hailee Steinfeld or Zoey Deutch or Constance Wu?
Secondly, mostly ignore Simon and Daphne. They’ve had their season, it’s someone else’s. The Duke and Duchess of Hastings are, one hopes, busy making more alphabetically named Bridgerton spawn.
Third, don’t mock the bee thing. Anthony’s fear of bees is a fear of leaving those who love him–it’s kinda noble, really.
Fourth, abandon Eloise and Philip as a couple. Marina deserves some joy–I’m not interested in seeing her a facile poster child for postpartum depression or, for that matter, any kind of depression. London, in this era, was the largest city in the world. Surely there’s some other progressive partner for Eloise. Or–gasp–she could end up single, studying, and occasionally aunting with love. It could happen….
Fifth, Genevieve Delacroix and Siena Rosso need to have decamped to Paris. It’s bad enough Anthony and Benedict have frittered away the time of these two self-possessed, successful women. And worse that, in his dickish way, Anthony has fallen in love. It will be stupid drama if the savviest modiste and the best opera singer in town wastes our and their time competing with Kate and Sophie for that manly Bridgerton love.
Sixth, leave America out of it. The Regency era mirrored an ugly time in the horror that was slavery in the States. I can’t see any way this reimagined racially integrated England could reflect on an America as it was without managing to enrage the majority of the internet. And while I’m all for reckoning with our history, I doubt Julia Quinn’s novels are the place to do so. (Watch Harriet or Underground instead.)
Seventh, quit teasing us with Benedict as sexually curious unless that aspect of him will have resonance. It’s all very Katy Perry to hint that Benedict might be open to a non-straight life, but it’s cynical to do so if the end game is Sophie and babies.
Eighth: There’s another child named Francesca. Her family loves her. Do not erase her.
Lastly, do not f*ck up Penelope and Colin. I’m already cross Colin is in love with Marina and Pen’s identity is known. I will throw a serious snit if their love story is meh. (Doesn’t Luke Newton’s Colin seem… bland? I have a hard time seeing him being an ass to Penelope about her work or dragging her out of the ballroom.)
How about you? What are you excited about? What concerns do you have? And who do you think they should cast as Kate?
Wow, no discussion?
I just have to say I loved season 2. Much more than season 1 in fact. I thought the less raunchy approach worked super fine, with all the tension between Anthony and Kate and the slow burn. I liked Edwinas extended role and I think the character had a fine arc from innocent sweetheart to standing up for herself and actually encouraging Kate to go after what she wants. Nice empowerment there. JB did a marvelous job as Anthony. I enjoy his range of expression and that you can read his mood just by standing or walking (in some scenes stalking). Simone Ashley is a wonderful Kate. She´s feisty and self-confident and I like that she bests Anthony several times. Also, I love how she usually is the one being a tiny bit more active when it comes to physical approximation. It was wonderful to see all the other characters again, all of them IMO have gotten a bit more dephs in season 2. The Dukes absence was a tiny bit weird, but overall really not a big deal.
I have to say, the more I think about it, the less I like it! So it’s great to hear others loved it–I want the studios to keep making romance mini series!
I felt that everyone was their worst self for too much of the story. I and just loathed the Edwina/Kate rivalry as well as the Pen/Eloise fighting.
Our main discussion thread is HERE, in case you missed it :)
Oh thanks. I obviously did miss it. Sorry, I am not yet good at finding my way around here.:-)
I can’t wait to watch it, the trailer looks amazing! I’m so glad that they’ll be including the Pall Mall scene. From the reviews, it seems like it will be a lot more chaste, and emotionally complex than the first season. Plenty of sexual tension but very few actual sex scenes. I’m not necessarily upset about that to be honest, season 1 did go a little overboard with the sex scenes.
Who plans to watch this?!?
I can’t wait!
I just found this interview with Julia Quinn from late December where she says that she made showrunner Chris Van Dusen promise that if there was a season 2, there would be a pall mall scene!
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a35017354/julia-quinn-bridgerton-author-interview/
I tend to hyperfocus on things that matter very little in the scope of a story, ergo I’m a stickler for historical accuracy in historical fiction, no matter how antithetical that sounds. For example, I can’t unsee Daphne wearing gloves at the dinner table and Simon wearing boots to a formal ball; I can’t unhear Violet being refered to as “dowager” countess even as Anthony remains unmarried.
Yet, apparently I’m adaptable, because I 100% applaud Shonda Rhimes for the choice to have a racially diverse cast. I cheered to see Queen Charlotte’s possible North African heritage represented. I like the fantastical element the diversity brought to otherwise predictable plot limitations, and the view of society as it could be, not as it was; I like that the unlikely origin and precarious balance of that diversity is addressed, however parenthetically; and I hope that far more creative minds than mine can apply that egalitarian world view to sexism before we get to Eloise’s story, because Eloise deserves so much more than the real Regency England could ever give her.
I like that phrasing.
Bridgerton is aspirational in that it gives all its characters and the world in which they live more than the real Regency could have ever.
Thanks!
Without the Duke and Duchess no show. Reality if Anthony and family will be a pre era show with no diversity of cast. I personally do not watch pre era shows with no diversity-indeed it is fiction. Want to see people of color in power, control and in the cast. The reason the show was sucessful was the the main character-the duke and duchess made the show tired of all Caucasian cast. If that’s the cast alot people are not going to watch.
The series is called Bridgerton, not “The Duke and Duchess Show”. I’m not sure what a “pre era show is”, but while I applaud the diverse cast of Bridgerton, it is not fiction for the nobility in regency England to be primarily white. People of color did not magically end up in positions of power; it took hard work and sacrifice on the part of many, for a very long time.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a 21st century approach in one’s TV viewing or reading, but different people will have different reasons for finding Bridgerton – or any other form of entertainment – appealing.
Here at AAR, we are all about people seeing things through their own lens!
1/ Have an Indian actress play Kate. There’s tons of talent in Bollywood.
2/ Siena should come back as a cameo, giving Anthony clarity about his feelings
3/ their directors need to do better to show ROMANCE vs Lust/Sex particularly with camera and script. So many missed opportunities
4/ Do away with Queen C – she just takes time away from Lady D and adds nothing of substance to the story
5/ Give Anthony and Kate more together and private screen time (Simon and Daphne got shafted in that respect)
6/ Drop all superfluous references to race. A rom-com is not the vehicle for serious commentary about race.
7/ Francesca’s story is one of my favs, I’m guessing we see at least something of it.
8/ More family bonding with the Bridgertons needed. It is after all BRIDGERTON
The real Queen Charlotte died in 1818, so in the book timeline that would occur between Benedict’s and Colin’s romances. I don’t see a reason for her to be there in future seasons, though I can see them using her to add suspense to outing the identity of Lady Whistledown. I don’t recall her being in the books I read (up to Eloise—still need to read F-H). Did Prinny have any cameos in Season One? It seems like he has a cameo in most Regency romances, though not so much in the Bridgerton books, so if they’re including the usual Regency tropes in their worldbuilding (whether they happened in the books or not) I’d expect a cameo or two at some point.
I don’t recall much of the royal family at all.
But–her wigs! Awe inspiring and must have cost of 1/3 of the production budget, so they can’t get rid of her!
Also, Queen C is a wildcard. You don’t know if she will thrown in her royal hand for the couple or throw a wrench in it for fun.
I have read some articles where the series showrunner Chris Van Dusen commented on further seasons. He said that there were going to be multiple new characters in season 2 and he wasn’t sure how much of Daphne/Simon would be in it. Some quotes were:
“The show was always set out to be primarily one book per season”
“If we’re going to tell Anthony’s story in a later season, I always found it interesting to figure out what would have happened to Anthony before he came in the book. Exploring his background and giving him real texture and backstory.”
Thank you.
It’s clear they have a plan to use the books and add to them. It will be fun to see how they do that!
In the books, Daphne and Simon played in the famous Pall Mall game that included Anthony, Colin, Kate and Edwina. I thought I read somewhere about the actress who played Daphne expressing some concerns about Covid, so it could impact who is in Season 2 and where the filming takes place, etc. I think other siblings could probably sub for them in the game, but I’d love to see that scene brought to life as it was written.
I think this is the one scene in book 2 that everyone agrees is a must!
I’m trying to keep my memories of the books from interfering with my enjoyment of the tv series. As far as I’m concerned, the series uses the names and some plot similarities, but so much is changed that I don’t really think of them as the same thing.
Still, I am hoping for the Mallet of Death!
Hmmmm I’m not in favor of having Eloise give up having a romance to be seen as “strong” or “independent”. She’s got ten years of growing in the timeline from season one until she gets her own romance. That’s plenty of time for her to study or grow or do whatever she wants before she settles down with a partner.
It can be Sir Phillip she ends up with – if they changed so much of the story already why not just have Marina and Phillip divorce? Marina can find true love with someone else. Or they could keep the storyline from the book and just change his name. He doesn’t have to be the guy that Marina married. They have changed so much already that’s hardly an earth shaking deviation from the books. I really liked Eloise’s book so I would enjoy seeing that storyline (if they ever get to it- this is Netflix so this show will be lucky if they get three seasons no matter how successful it is).
I suspect Daphne and Simon will play a role in season two as the actor is a huge hit and they aren’t going to want to give up his crowd drawing star power, plus Simon likely has a role to play in helping out his friends who are likely mixed up with the mob thanks to Lord Featherington.
I think they already showed that Benedict isn’t open to a non-straight life by his reaction to the other artist. That was the TV version of click bait by prominently including a tiny clip from the show of a same sex couple and acting like it was part of a big plot. Bridgerton needs to figure out if they want to really include same sex pairings or not -but it seems pretty clear if they do, it won’t be with a Bridgerton.
I’m also not a fan of the actor cast as Colin, I just don’t see him in the part at all. Anthony the actor is fine, I just hated the role they gave him to play and I really like the actor cast as Benedict. He seems cute and charming.
I’m hoping they cast someone unknown to me as Kate or someone like the actress cast as Pen, who isn’t a huge “star”. I’ve love to see them really dazzle us with an amazing discovery as they did with the casting of Simon. I also feel sure it will be a person of color if they want to keep up the diversity of the first season. As I said elsewhere I would love to see them embrace other ethnicities as well, including South Asian, Asian amongst others in leading roles.
It wasn’t easy to get a divorce back then, and it would have ruined Marina socially. Given the show’s regard for historical accuracy it could still happen. But if they do want to keep Sir Phillip as Eloise’s love interest, and make it (sadly) realistic, they could have Marina die in childbirth at some point.
I expect to see an actress of color as Kate, and hope they’ll cast someone who is South Asian. I’ve seen both Constance Wu and Gemma Chan mentioned by fans (people really loved Crazy Rich Asians, I guess?) but while both are lovely, they’re old enough to play Mary. Given that Mary and Kate are related by love, not blood, there are some interesting casting opportunities to be sure!
Should there end up being any LGBTQ characters in major roles, I hope the show won’t gloss over what that would have meant back then.
Maybe I just need a KJ Charles adaptation rather than Bridgerton :D
Yes, divorces were almost impossible to obtain, particular for women, but as this is Bridgerton and they already gave up on almost any realism with Marina’s storyline anyway I figured they wouldn’t bother worrying about the realities.
I think it would be worse to have one of the few roles played by a woman of color to end up in suicide though. Or even to die in some way. Not when all the other Bridgerton ladies and their friends get all happy endings. I know it’s only been one season so far but between Simon’s mother’s suffering and Marina it just seems really lopsided.
I think Bridgerton is in the same territory as Downton Abbey in that they are going to have to gloss over a lot of stuff if they want to show any main LGBTQ characters. In Downton Abbey they show that Thomas Barrow is in danger from the laws at the time but everyone in the family is very accepting of him which, let’s face it, was not a widespread attitude. Not in the 1920’s and not even recently, sadly.
I think if any of us are looking for very authentic depictions of well, anything, Bridgerton probably isn’t the place to look for it. As you say, it may well mean looking to other adaptions that hopefully will come along as a result of this series.
Definitely not supposed to be accurate and that’s fine.
Yes, and it’s also fine to dislike its lack of accuracy. We all have such different views on art! Just based on all the comments I have skimmed through about The Bridgertons, I can say it’s going to be a total skip for me. I’m glad you have maintained your stance on allowing differences of opinion on The Bridgertons tab as with the rest of AAR. :-)
I could never watch “Reign” because it was purporting to be the life of Mary Queen Of Scots and the plot bore almost no resemblance to her life, was full of made up characters and had the women running around dressed like they were going to attend a cross between a renaissance fair and a music festival.
Bridgerton is all made up and kind of exists in a fairytale land of Regency England the way a lot of steampunk books do, so as long as it’s entertaining me I will roll with it.
I’m definitely with you about having less tolerance for fictionalized versions of real historical figures and accounts. Victoria started off pretty good- and I was impressed they dug up some real life juicy topics such as her brother-in-law contracting syphilis, her rescuing her husband from drowning when he fell through the ice, an African princess who stayed in the palace temporarily after surviving a massacre, etc. Wow! But then they just went straight-up fiction near the end of the second season, so I couldn’t enjoy it anymore. All I could think was, “Come on! There are so many interesting lesser known facts you dug up, and now you’re suddenly deciding to go full-on fiction? Uh uh. I’m done.”
As for The Bridgertons, I totally get that these are fictional characters. But since the series is being touted as historical fiction/HR, it annoys me a little that they are just completely throwing out history in favor of what is trendy or 21st century PC. If they took more of an official stance of being HR-lite or historical fantasy, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I still wouldn’t watch it, but at least the show wouldn’t be misleading. My concern is that people totally unfamiliar with romance- but maybe familiar with history- might look at something like The Bridgertons and say, “Wow, the HR crowd obviously doesn’t care about historical accuracy at all. Romance really does suck as a genre.” And considering The Bridgertons is really the first major example of a mainstream adaptation of HR, doesn’t this reflect badly on the genre? Even if it doesn’t reflect badly, will the success of The Bridgertons encourage more of the same HR-lite programming instead of solid historical fiction?
I think these are interesting topics to consider, both in media and in books. It’s kind of like how Caz and I lament the number of totally fudged wallpaper historicals getting “oohed” and “awwed” over, which encourages publishers to produce more of the same instead of favoring work that is better grounded in historical fact. Like I’ve said in other posts, I totally get that HR contains a fanciful element. Romances generally don’t need to dwell on chamber pot use. But, at the same time, I’m not looking for a pie in the sky fairy tale either. HR contains the word historical. I would really like to see more of a separation between HR and what I’ve dubbed HR-lite because there’s definitely an audience for both. And I’m not knocking either one as long as everybody is clear about the differences. But just like Victorian-era historical fiction and steampunk, there needs to be clearer marketing and labeling.
Yes, as I have said before about books I have a sliding scale I use depending on how accurate a work is trying to be.
I love Lisa Kleypas and she certainly does her research but I accept that I want a fantasy version of events when I enjoy her books. I know there was little chance the nobility of the 19th century was so forward thinking about The Romany and countless other things let alone female doctors and everything else. Those noblemen weren’t out tanning and developing physiques like stevedores.
Bridgerton made it clear with modern cover songs, costumes and a thousand other things it was a fantasy version of The Regency and that’s fine. They’re not trying to pass themselves off as a PBS documentary. That’s why I wouldn’t bat an eye if Marina ended up divorcing or a thousand other plot points happened.
I just watched and adored The Queen’s Gambit–Anna-Taylor Joy deserves ALL the awards–and was struck by how historically inaccurate it was and how that made it a better show.
It’s set in the late 50s to late 60s and, in that realm, there is no soul crushing poverty, no sexual assault, no cancer–all of the bad things that happen to all the characters never come close to destroying them. It is a show without cynicism and one that shows that all of us are pretty damn good people. There’s really only one villain and he’s more pathetic than evil.
It’s a show in which alcoholism and drug use are portrayed as metaphor more than horror and the male gaze is sexy rather than demeaning.
Did this make it a lesser show? No. It made for superb entertainment in a year when we needed all the joy we could get.
I think a Sir Phillip/Marina divorce is a non-starter. Per the UK Parliament website: Before the mid-19th century the only way to obtain a full divorce which allowed re-marriage was by a Private Act of Parliament. Between 1700 and 1857 there were 314 such Acts, most of them initiated by husbands.
June, if you want to see an excellent historical queer movie that doesn’t gloss over the harsh realities of being gay in 1920s-1940s England without being depressing, I highly recommend The Naked Civil Servant starring John Hurt as Quentin Crisp. It was made for TV, but the production values are stellar as is the writing, acting, and history. The fact Quentin Crisp himself called the film “amazing” is the highest praise any biopic can possibly get. Definitely check it out if you haven’t seen it already. I cannot recommend this film enough. The sequel, An Englishman in New York, is also worth watching.
I had a great deal of sympathy for Marina. She was very young and alone in the world, and I could understand why she acted as she did even if it wasn’t always completely admirable. I think Pen’s revelation of Marina’s pregnancy was itself rather reprehensible, considering how this knowledge would affect not only Marina but her baby. Sir Philip had inherited his older brother’s title and fiancé (Marina). He was honorable enough to marry her, so I don’t see it as being in character for him to put her through a divorce. As shown in “Bridgerton”, the implication is that Sir Philip’s children are actually his niece and nephew unless Marina had a miscarriage and later got pregnant with the twins. The irony is that if she had a miscarriage she wouldn’t have needed to get married except for the fact that Lady Whistledown (Pen) had ruined her reputation.
I read on another site that they are looking for a South Asian actress to play Kate. No names announced yet, however.
I had that same thought–if she miscarries and dies, Pen’s actions look pretty awful.
I don’t see them changing the couples. I expect Benedict will end up with Sophie, Eloise with Philip, and so on. For all of the details the show added, Daphne and Simon’s storyline was almost identical to the books. They haven’t yet committed to making any significant changes to the characters (such as making a Bridgerton gay), and I just don’t see that happening in the future. I’m not against a change like that, but I think it would be extremely hard to give the character a HEA, as the Graville storyline makes it clear that LGBTQ relationships are not accepted in this society.
I hope Kate is played by a WOC. I’d also like to see Anthony eventually come to a realization about his relationship with Sienna and how it was unfairly balanced in his favor. He had all the power, and Sienna had very little. That was hard to watch and made me dislike him in Season 1.
Otherwise, we’ll see what comes. I’m really looking forward to seeing Pen come into her own more and stop fixating so much on Colin.
Agree with much of what you wrote. Anthony has to end up with Kate. I think they can get away with all the changes they made in book one but that serious Bridgerton books fans will be miffed if they mess with Anthony and Kate.
You hit SO MANY of my points. Yes, cast a good Kate. Daphne was killer in the sex scenes and bland everywhere else. As for Philip and Eloise – I had no idea they eventually got together. They’re not going to do what I REALLY want, which is throw out Colin altogether and hook up Penelope and Eloise (these two have SO much more chemistry than Colin and Pen ever did) and set them up as lesbian Regency crime solvers. But at least let Marina have a happy ending.
And I would love to see a bisexual Benedict. Speaking of accidental chemistry – he and Hugh threw off more sparks than anybody in the series.
I think if they went down the queer path, they’d have to relabel the series as inspired by Julia Quinn’s Bridgerton books.
I definitely felt a vibe on Eloise’s side but not on Pen’s. It’s a love triangle that I can’t see making anyone happy were it pursued on the show.
You’ve touched on a lot of things that bothered me about season 1. We definitely need a Kate who can go toe to toe with Anthony without being annoying or unreasonable, Anthony was annoying for much of season 1 with his back and forth with sienna; here’s hoping season 2 redeems him. I hated everything about the marina storyline, I didn’t feel sorry for her or for her situation and I was definitely annoyed that they had her almost marry Colin whilst carrying another man’s child; I have no idea why they had to introduce her character at all, all it served to do was mess with the Colin and Pen storyline and potentially ruin Eloise’s happy ending with Phillip (to sir Phillip with love is one out of my four favourite bridgerton stories, so I’m still hopeful that they end up together, perhaps with a different person cast as Phillip) Daphne and Simon need to appear on screen once and then be mentioned along with their increasing brood off screen for the rest of the season. I love (lust after) Rege-Jean Page but this is Anthony’s time to (hopefully) shine. Mesdames Delacroix and Russo need never be mentioned again or even alluded to, when it comes to them I say out with the old and in with new. Yeah, Colin seems bland, hopefully season 2 begins to put his character on the right track with regards to him and Penelope. As much as this is Anthony and Kate’s season, I think that they can also start to put the rest of the characters on the path to their HEA including Francesca. The whole she’s here one minute, gone the next was just weird. America!!? What was that about? I haven’t read the books in sometime, I’m just now re-reading the duke and I to see where and what changes the show made. I think Benedict might be better served as being a bisexual character or completely changing his and Sophie’s story because the book was definitely boring. Finally while it’s nice to see more male chests and bottoms on TV (for a change), I’m all for female pleasure. I hope season 2 makes a better effort of showing women realistically expressing and receiving pleasure and not just the ‘phallic jackhammer in action’
So agree about the sex scenes.
And about how dull Benedict and Sophie were in the books. I do like this version of Benedict better!
It would be awesome if Benedict’s story could be altered to make it actually interesting! I can’t see him ending up with a bloke because it would mean throwing out the entire book, but it would be excellent if the showrunners decided to take it in that direction.
I think the most we can hope for is a bi-curious Benedict.
Bi-curious rather than bisexual was how I interpreted the show-Benedict. I think show Benedict is more likable and relatable for a contemporary audience than book Benedict. However, I want there to be a Sophie. Hers was the Cinderella story of the series. I actually didn’t find that book boring. Upon first reading, I rated it higher than The Duke and I but lower than The Viscount Who Loved Me. Violet also really stands out in Benedict’s book, so hopefully the show will realign her character back to being more like the book Violet. I’m also hoping they include the caretakers of My Cottage. They were a fun source of humor in his book. I also see an opportunity for the show to expand the role of Phillip Cavender (who had the house party where Benedict rescues Sophie) as a more fleshed out bad guy / nemesis / suitor for other secondary characters as well. Based on the show I think we’re going to see a lot more new story about the salons and artist world, etc.
Some other predictions for future seasons:
*Kate’s backstory will get expanded to incorporate more about her parents that will flesh out more her fear of electrical storms.
*The Featherington heir will be someone we know from the books (maybe even someone like Phillip Cavender) and an entire new subplot will be invented but likely dovetail with other subplots in the books.
*Cressida Trombley’s role will be expanded as she becomes Penelope’s antagonist and a real threat to outing her as Lady Whistledown.
*Penelope has been earning money from her writing as Lady Whistledown. That money could end up being important in saving her family.
And Sophie’s terrible family will be expanded upon too I bet.
I agree — it would be so much more interesting if they made Benedict bisexual.
Anthony Bridgerton was so unlikeable that the only way that he will be palatable to me as a hero is if he is not just metaphorically a new person, but a totally different actor. :-)
Colin and Benedict were just so bland in the series and in the books (I barely remember Colin even though Penelope was one of my favorite characters in the books).
I would not mind if they replaced all 3 actors in season 2 — maybe Regé-Jean Page has brothers / cousins who act???
Although Queen Charlotte was not a central character in the books, I hope that they don’t get rid of her — her wigs alone merit screen time.
Part of Bridgerton’s series appeal is the frothy, sumptuous visual fantasy.
“laughs”
Most people are focused on the the bedroom scene, and take it as a signal for Benedict’s sexuality. To me, the more important scene was Granville explaining about Love (and the perils of loving someone of the same sex in the 19th C) to Benedict. This is the Focal Point and the purpose of the scene. Benedict needs to assess what love is. Benedict raking is what was needed in Season 1. Careless, couldn’t-care-less who he’s sleeping with, but this scene is thought-provoking for him. It’s his privilege – being straight – that he has the freedom to love whomever he wants without society accusing him of being unnatural. That’s the meaning behind those two scenes.
And for that reason, Granville’s scenes are more relevant in Season 2. They dragged it into Season 1 for ratings (I’m cynical). Again, a superfluous use of a scene that could have had more impact later.
Totally agree on the purpose of Granville’s talk with Benedict.
I completely agree.
“And I would love to see a bisexual Benedict. Speaking of accidental chemistry – he and Hugh threw off more sparks than anybody in the series.”
I agree with that, Caroline! Finished Episodes 7 and 8 last night with my husband who, I think, actually enjoyed Bridgerton more than I did. But then he adored Game of Thrones which I could not deal with in any size, shape or form. I made him laugh, though, when Simon was under Daphne’s skirts on the stairwell having a bit of 69 by yelling out “Jamie, Jamie, Jamie, ahhhhh!!!!” (That’s Jamie Fraser, folks!). Anyway, as the whole of Bridgerton is a fantasy, sometimes funny and sometimes just farcical, I would like to see Benedict and Hugh find each other and have a really lush and torrid affair, shock the Ton and annoy Him With A Stick Up His Arse Anthony! The rest of it? Meh. A lot of sex, a lot of silliness, a good laugh at times and loads of historical errors that I eventually was able to overlook and stop letting them annoy the hell out of me. But I will stick around for Series 2, especially if Benedict gets laid both ways!
Except Hugh is in love with that nice young man…..