Dear Streaming Services: What to do after Bridgerton?
The huge ratings and buzz for Netflix’s Bridgerton, coming on the heels of Starz’s success with Outlander, should make it clear to all but the most willfully ignorant producers that viewers are here for historical romance. And if you’re a producer looking for the Next Big Thing, Romancelandia will reciprocate. We’re here for you, with all the info you need to pick your next breakout Brit historical romance hit.
See, just because a book is a beloved historical doesn’t mean it would adapt well. I adore Laura Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm, but it would be extremely hard to capture the Duke’s internal life given the speech loss that results from a stroke, and to replicate the effect of Kinsale’s prose. A director with an eye for gore could turn Carla Kelly’s gentle romances into something unwatchably grim.
Some books, though, are begging for adaptation. If you’re looking to ride the British historicals wave, these are my recommendations for the series that you should snap up.
If you want: To stick with what’s working
Lisa Kleypas’s Wallflowers series has the most overlap with character types, setting, and tone of Bridgerton. Loretta Chase’s Carsington family series (would that name be an advantage or a disadvantage?) is also similar, but would require deep pockets for that Mr. Impossible Egypt shoot. One of the most talked-about Bridgerton points is the racially diverse cast, without which the series would be missing most of its finest performances. Vanessa Riley’s Rogues and Remarkable Women series includes diversity from the get-go. The first book, A Duke, The Lady, and a Baby kicked off the series this year, and book two is due in April).
Riley’s series is brand new, but there’s treasure in Romancelandia’s archives, too. Marion Chesney (M.C. Beaton – whose Hamish Macbeth series of detective novels was adapted to huge success back in the mid-1990s) has several series of historicals which could have been designed for television. In the A House for the Season series (the first book is The Miser of Mayfair), each book features the courtship story of a different set of upper-class tenants, a perfect length for one season. However, the below-stairs staff fall in love, too, and their stories burn over multiple books, giving viewers a reason to keep coming back. Don’t you think people are ready for a happy ending-filled Regency Downton Abbey?
If you want: A different kind of Regency
Focused on rival French and British agents, Joanna Bourne’s action-adventure-romance Spymasters series is set in a Regency worlds away from Bridgerton’s high society. These heroines are more likely to wield a stiletto than a fan (or maybe a fan with a secret stiletto compartment), and some of the physical showdowns with the heroes offer great sexy combat scene potential. Bourne is the queen of simultaneous plot threads, so screenwriters would have a lot of interesting pacing options, and the historical, military, and diplomatic components would add a new dimension to the Regency.
If you want: British accents and fancy dresses, but not necessarily the Regency era
Sherry Thomas and Courtney Milan are prolific authors of romances set in the nineteenth century, and their series include novellas, which could be adapted into secondary plotlines. For Thomas, I’d pick the Fitzhugh Trilogy, three Victorian society romances including Ravishing the Heiress, a marriage-in-trouble relationship different from the courtship stories of Bridgerton. The novella The Bride of Larkspear is an erotic romance, a “book within a book” written by the hero of one of the novels for his heroine, loosely starring themselves, which would offer some spicy material.
The Brothers Sinister series is probably the most beloved of Courtney Milan’s series, and has timely allegories of #MeToo, Men’s Rights Activism, women in politics, reproductive rights, and more. There’s a weight to them that evokes The Handmaid’s Tale. On the other hand, the Turner series has one of my all-time favorite romances, Unclaimed. I’d love watching the story of a courtesan seducing the man who wrote the book on male chastity that now I’m sorry I even mentioned the Brothers Sinister. You can’t buy the kind of advertising that think-pieces on the virginal Sir Mark Turner will provide.
This year’s coming-out trauma storyline in Lifetime’s Christmas film Happiest Season shows that we need more happy LGBTQ+ stories. Look no further than KJ Charles, who offers multiple historical options combining comedic capers, mysteries or heists, and heartfelt love stories with witty dialogue that can go straight into the script. I’d lean towards the Lilywhite Boys duology set in the 1890s (one an m/m romance and the other a m/f romance with a bisexual heroine), because the presence of a m/f romance might give the story broader marketing appeal. There’s also her marvelous Sins of the Cities trilogy, a three volume, multi-plot story in the finest Dickensian tradition, complete with pea-souper fogs, missing heirs and dastardly villains. To be honest though, you won’t go wrong with any Charles story.
If you want: To think outside the box
These are wonderful options. But my absolute, one-hundred-percent top recommendation would be Again by Kathleen Gilles Seidel. If you option this book, every news article will say, “The show takes place on the set of a Regency tv show (think Bridgerton),” thereby allowing you to piggyback off of Bridgerton’s success without having to figure out how to have a completely different spin on the era yourself. Actors would salivate at the chance to play the dual roles of actors and their Regency characters (I would LOVE to see someone take on Alec Cameron, the kind-hearted Canadian who falls in love with the showrunner while playing a frigid villain of a duke). There is literally nothing not perfect about this except that it’s a one-off, but that might just let you get even bigger names on board. God in heaven, someone make this happen.
And now, over to you, readers. Which romance novel series deserve the Bridgerton treatment? Do you agree with my picks, or would you choose something else (or a different work by the authors I listed?) I limited myself here to British settings, but you don’t have to. Let your producer imaginations run free!
~ Caroline Russomanno
I think Milla Vane’s Gathering of Dragon series would be spectacular as a TV series. Her first book, A Heart of Blook and Ashes, has got everything: fight scenes, court intrigue, prophecies, magic, and of course romance.
Anyone see this?
https://ew.com/movies/nora-roberts-defends-alyssa-milano-brazen-virtue-casting/
There are, in my view, six million reasons why we need to disconnect the performer/writer/producer/director’s work from their personal beliefs.
This is one more.
Well said, Dabney. And thanks for the link, Carrie.
If we only watched/read/listened to performers whose views we agreed with, we would severely limit our experiences and create a mental echo chamber rather than challenging ourselves. Certainly in the case of artists, what bearing do their personal/political beliefs have on their talents?
Besides, I’m reminded of that self-proclaimed grump who said something like, “Why does anybody care about what celebrities think about xyz anyway? You do realize these are adults who play pretend for a living, right?” Lol! But I’m sure glad we do have “adults who play pretend for a living,” otherwise, how would we be entertained? (And yes, writers are also a kind of grown-up pretender, which I say with all due respect. ;-))
I guess I feel a bit differently about it. I would never write hate mail or harass anyone over something like this. At the same time I may not decide to spend my time on performers/writers/etc. who I personally dislike due to actions or beliefs. I would probably not go to see a movie with an actor/director/whatever with openly white supremacist views, for examples. But that’s my choice. I wouldn’t try to stop anyone else. It’s not to boycott them, really, just that knowing their beliefs would taint how I see the art.
I completely support everyone’s right to patronage whomever she likes. I do view public shaming with some serious side eye, however.
When it comes to things like the #metoo movement, I’m all about supporting the victims. Powerful people perpetrating injustice need to be called out. I don’t really know where the line is between holding people accountable for their actions and shaming, but hopefully I stay on the right side of it. On the other hand, when I learned that a retail store I frequented was taken over by a manager that fired the minority employees and made racist comments, I stopped shopping there. I didn’t put it on FB or anything, but I did tell friends I thought would like to know. Thankfully the person must have tripped up because they were gone pretty quickly.
I think the person tripped up because not only is it morally wrong to fire someone based solely on their race, it’s illegal. Opening a company to potentially expensive lawsuits based on treatment of a protected class would/should be viewed as grounds for termination of that store manager.
I saw this news floating around yesterday and wondered what all the fuss was about (I recognise the actress’ name, but don’t know anything about her. Has she done something to occasion this outcry?). But wow. People say they’ll BURN NR’s books because of it? (Why should she care anyway – they’re bought and paid for so she’s got her royalties!). Good for her for speaking out against the stupid.
Everyone needs to get a grip. Really.
https://www.today.com/popculture/nora-roberts-criticism-over-alyssa-milano-casting-netflix-movie-t207214
I love this statement by Roberts: “Watch the movie when it comes out, or don’t. But lobbing nastiness at an actress or threatening me doesn’t do anything but illustrate your own limitations,” she wrote.
And, holy fruitcakes, Nora Roberts is THE BOMB.
https://www.facebook.com/250494657154/posts/10157584821942155/?d=n
Is there any way for those of us not on Facebook to see this?
I’ve mentioned Nora and I approach things from different directions – which makes for a balanced partnership. She writes the books, I post on social media. We stick to our strengths.
In a week like this one, we join those strengths to create a united stronghold in terms of the vision for this Facebook page.
And again we come at it from different angles. Here’s an imaginary transcript of my thoughts reading this statement from Nora. PLEASE NOTE – These are Nora’s exact words, I’ve just inserted my reactions.
Nora: I’d like to make a statement about this week. I’ve got a vision for it.
[Laura (takes a breath, lets it out): says cautiously, oooookay]
Over the past few days there have been far too many people who feel they have the right to come on this page and hurl accusations, threaten, bully, rage, smear and insult. I’ve been called a Marxist, a communist, a supporter of pedophilia, compared to Joseph McCarthy. That’s just a sampling. I’ve had people demand–demand–I do their bidding. A somewhat amusing one claimed she knew I’d cast (just fyi, the producers do the casting) Alyssa Milano because she’s a liberal and I wanted to say screw you to my Republican readers–readers, she went on, who have spent money so I can have my million dollar mansions (plural!) and live my hoity-toity lifestyle.
This would have made me laugh if it wasn’t all so tiresome. As would the poster who accused me of being Hollyweird elite.
[Laura: OK, I agree absolutely. The unhinged comments have made for an unsettling, in many ways a downright scary 72 hours.]
I live in rural Maryland, for Christ’s sake, live in the ONE home I own where I’ve lived in for decades. This morning as COVID means I no longer have a weekly housekeeper, I cleaned two bathrooms–including scrubbing toilets. That’s pretty hoity, I guess.
But if I had a string of mansions and a staff of fifty, so what? It’s my business, my life, and I work hard at my craft every damn day.
[Laura (nods): This is absolutely true. Plus I’ve seen her work pjs]
Plenty have come on trying to both-sides this. Bullshit. This is my page, and no one has a right to come on it and say what’s been said because they don’t like what someone else said elsewhere.
And on the Great Tree of Irony, many have shouted from its branches they have the right to attack, state their opinions, and Milano should shut the hell up. Actors have no business in politics!
So, they can speak, but those who disagree can’t because of their chosen profession? I’d also point out we’ve had two Republican presidents who were entertainers–an actor and a reality TV star. But I guess they don’t count.
I tried, and Laura tried, to make it clear this page wasn’t the place for all this, but those determined to object, attack, vilify or somehow excuse those who do, keep coming.
Many have been banned from the page. I suspect more will be.
So to them I’m going to say this:
[Laura: waits, works on her deep breathing]
Before you post your accusations, insults, before you come on to say: She did it first! I invite you to do this.
Imagine a field in the near distance. A quiet field under a blue sky where puffy white clouds calmly sail. Perhaps you hear birdsong, or the echoing bark of a happy dog. This is my field, and in seasons past, this is where I grew my fucks. Now this field is fallow. Ergo, I have no more fucks to give.
So go somewhere else to sow your hate and outrage over the casting of an actor in an adaptation of a novel. I will not allow it to root here.
[Laura: (head hits her desk, then she lifts it back up) OK, let me find a photo of a field.]
Perfect! Thanks for posting that.
This is my new life motto.
I’d happily see a screen adaptation of any of the books suggested so far – great ideas everyone!
One the first things that came to my mind was Pennyroyal Green series by Julie Anne Long, which Evelyn North already suggested. What I don’t think has been suggested yet:
The New York Trilogy by Ruthie Knox (contemporary)
The Cowboys of Colorado series by Jo Goodman (historical western)
Ravenswood series by Thalia Hibbert (contemporary)
Sugar Sun series by Jennifer Hallock (historical) Perhaps this could be done cooperatively with a Philippine film studio.
I LOVE you all. When I was working on AGAIN, I knew I wanted to set it on a soap opera. The best I was coming up with was to set on a college campus. I knew that that was not a great idea (let’s start with the fashion…). Then suddenly out of the blue, the kind of moment that makes you believe in the Muses pulling strings, I got the idea of a Regency. My imagination seemed like a being separate from me, and I have never been so grateful to have it as my companion.
I truly believe “money talks” and the huge success of “Bridgerton” will have studios running for lists in an area they never knew existed. And we’re here waiting to help them in the door. This is a great invitation to our party, Caroline.
I’d love to see some of Simone St. James’ books as movies or miniseries. I’d also love to see Beverly Jenkins’ books adapted, especially the Western trilogy that began with Forbidden.
I want to see St. James’ SUN DOWN MOTEL adapted so, so badly. There’s definitely a built-in audience base in a couple of areas (true crime aficionados and fans of ‘Stranger Things’ are two that spring to mind…)
I would love to see a series based on Deanna Raybourn’s Lady Julia Grey mysteries or Amelia Peabody mysteries. Just think of the opportunities for casting, location…..
The NY Times had an article by Alexis Soloski on exactly this topic on the web on 28 Dec (tried to copy a link but couldn’t) and print edition on 3 January. Referenced are series such as Bridgerton, Outlander, and romance adjacent stories such as Poldark.
The author discusses the financial and narrative issues that make filming romance hard. Many romances are historical and therefore more expensive. In addition, “a novel’s focus on the emotional lives of characters doesn’t always translate easily to the screen. “I always say to our writers and our directors, we can’t film a thought,” said Matthew B. Roberts, who was a showrunner for “Outlander.” He found that voice-over sequences left actors standing around with nothing to play against. Interior monologue has to become exterior dialogue. “That’s our biggest challenge always,” he said.”
I thought the article was good and brings up points made at AAR and other romance blogs/websites as to why we don’t see more romance on screens large and small.
I’m sure a lot of people SAY that’s why, but I’m pretty sure a lot of what’s REALLY why is misogyny. Romances are women’s stories and women make too few programming decisions. I mean, you can’t convince me it’s too expensive to make a romance when sci-fi shows drown in special effects. The books I picked here are ones which would work without voice over (it’s one of the things I looked for). Outlander may have had that problem, but it has a first person narrator, which is rare in historicals.
Nah, they’re just not trying.
I think success breeds copycats so I am hoping Bridgerton causes a series of high end copycats who will adapt romances.
Like it took “Black Panther” for some people to see that yes, a movie with cast of 99% black actors (and specifically chosen not to highlight lighter skinned actors) can be wildly successful. Or how Wonder Woman made female heroes and directors “marketable”, people will see there is money to be made and jump on the bandwagon.
I suspect that it will make colorblind/diverse casting something that seems normal.
It will certainly help, and I think people see it as a continuation of what Hamilton has done in many ways. I expect that next season there will be more Asian actors and actresses as well.
And diverse producers! Jenny Cotton is the showrunner heroine of Again, and she is explicitly white in the book (she grew up poor white in Oklahoma) – but it would be more realistic for her to look like Shonda Rhimes!
Hmm… I think it’s a combination of both logistical issues and stories that favor a male viewership.
On the logistical side, I think it’s 100% correct that you can’t convincingly film a thought. Romance books can dwell on the characters’ inner monologue and emotions, but when you do it on film, it can get boring really fast. As I made clear on another thread, I’m getting tired of seeing inordinate amounts of screen time wasted on characters staring out of windows, into fields, into mirrors, etc. just emoting rather than doing. And no, doing doesn’t have to mean blowing stuff up every other second. But good character/emotional-driven pieces require tight pacing and well-written dialogue in order to avoid the “staring and thinking” problem.
As for the cost of historically accurate costumes, that could definitely be an issue. Special effects, in contrast, have come down significantly in price. I remember a few years ago some top dogs in the military were irritated that just about any punk with a camera could now make shoot-em-up films without having to seek military money and content approval. The prices have really dropped that much. But costumes? We’re not at a point yet where we can dress actors digitally. I’m not privy to the inner workings and actual costs, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it costs more than making a planet look like it’s exploding.
On the “misogyny” side, I think you have a point. But I don’t think it’s that studios hate women so much as bottom line considerations. I’ve heard the argument that women, in general, are more likely to let themselves be dragged into an explosion fest than men will let themselves be dragged into a romance. I.e. A woman is more likely to be grudgingly good-natured about the affair and go along with it to not rock the boat, whereas a guy will say, “Screw that. I’m not watching a boring kissing movie.” Studios know that and, if you will, prey on that.
Also, I remember a Hollywood screenwriter lamenting that laziness and proven cashflow is behind a lot of the poor, unoriginal writing. Specifically, he said it’s pretty well known in the industry that if you make a movie with scantily clad women and lots of explosions, teenage boys will throw down money to see it almost without fail- even if the movie sucks. He said, in this regard, Hollywood is far more insulting to teenage boys- who should also be allowed to expect high-quality stories- than women.
Having said all this, I want to see far more variety than what’s available now.
Historically men have run the studios and men tell the stories that typically interest them. More women in high places in the industry will mean more romances.
I have a hard time buying this as the real reason. It is true that period pieces are expensive however tons are made every year and they are nowhere nearly as expensive as sophisticated special effect.
It seems more likely to me that the studios don’t really believe they can make money with romances. One reason there are very few movies romances is because they don’t play well in the international market which prefers explosions and dead hos. The explosion of romance on the screen is occurring on TV because that’s not, in the same way, an international market.
The NY Times article actually talks about some of this (the misogyny, etc) and doesn’t condone it. The international vs domestic market is, as you note, also a big part of the explanation – you don’t need to translate explosions, while dialogue and relationships may be more culturally specific so the market may be narrower. As you note, it may be that TV works better for romances.
The movie industry has, since the 50s, been so male dominated–TV appears to have far more room for differing perspectives.
Historical pieces do tend to cost more (the show Rome on HBO was a big hit but the cost to recreate Rome and the ancient world plus clothe an army of extras sealed its fate).
I do think Bridgerton is different because it’s like a Regency “Dynasty”. They claim every single costume was created for the show and none were rented. (Which is very unusual and why you can see the same costumes show up in film after film and TV shows.)
A big part of their idea was to be trend setters and influencers with the costume design. I’d be shocked if you didn’t see all kinds of endorsements and deals arise as a result.
They also don’t care about real authenticity so any big manor, set or house can be used. They aren’t trying to recreate the Tower of London or Windsor Castle. I saw in a behind the scenes feature that Daphne alone had 105 separate outfits in it. Basically they are kind of positioning themselves to be a Gossip Girl of the early 19th century.
I’m in!
Although I’m watching it for the second time and, this go round, see way more somewhat baffling things, many of which feel as though they just weren’t thought through.
I think the point of the costume investment was to build up their own stock. They will use it going toward for more Bridgerton and for more adaptations. To me it’s the clearest sign that they are ready to do more period romance.
They don’t make money like blockbusters -but studio heads who claim you can’t sell historical dramas to a second language audience are simply ignoring the massive success of Indian and K-dramas around the world, or Japanese anime fansubs cranked out when the market refuses to supply.
If only one book could be filmed (and I just bought “Always” – thanks!), I’d also go with “One Week With Lady X’ by Eloisa James. Yes, it’s part of the “Desperate Duchesses” but IMO it’s the best and it’s really funny with lots of possible cast choices.
I ADORE that book. I’d love to see that banter on the screen!
Did you mean “Again” by Seidel? I bought it a few months ago after it was recommended here at AAR, and I loved it. Seidel did a great job in both the contemporary and Regency timelines and showed how the actors’ insights into their roles helped provide insights into their offscreen lives. I finished the book and wished I could then turn on the TV to watch “My Lady’s Chamber” and was so disappointed that I couldn’t.
Susan/DC, Thanks! and whoops. Yes, “Again” Can’t fix with an edit button. Just raced to check title of book I bought.
Every time somebody tries “Again” for the first time, an angel gets its wings. :)
Susan/DC I’m THRILLED you tried and liked it, and Trish, I hope you love it too!
Friends, I just told Caroline that I am in love with her and want to have her babies. My child-bearing years didn’t make it to the 21st century, and she and I are both girls, but a romance writer can make anything happen.
Hahahaha! You are always a delight!
I did love it. I actually re-read it immediately after finishing. What wonderful characters.
Well, this was fun. :-) Bought two books off your list above!
Am about to start reading the Spymasters books, and I think I would watch the hell out of that. Brothers Sinister? Yes. Sins of the City? Definitely yes. (Now I get to play ‘who would I cast.’)
Nan mentioned an anthology series. I think much could be made of a series based on the Signet Regencies. But another historical series I would love to see would be based on Stella Riley’s Rockliffe romances (Georgian).
I hope you like the new books!
Tessa Dare’s Spindle Cove series, please.
more than the wallflowers, i’d love for an adaptation of the hathaways: the series has two heroes that are POC, and deals with some relatively heavier issues like alcoholism, PTSD etc. it still has the characteristic charm of other kleypas novels, along with moments of lightness and levity-imo it strikes a balance that some of her work misses.
would love to see an adaptation of Meredith Duran’s work, especially The Duke of Shadows. there are some great Indian/South Asian actors who’d be perfect for such a role, and its unique setting would make for a change from the usual British historicals.
The Duke of Shadows is at the top of my list.
I second that. It would be a great series because here work takes place all over the world.
And it’s a way to show the perils of colonialism, sectarianism, sexism, and racism.
I would love to see the Hathaways series adapted as its one of my absolute favorites. Or anything by Duran.
As you say, with all the many Bollywood productions I just know there are some amazing Indian/South Asian actors that aren’t known in Hollywood films or TV that would hit it big if they were given a starring role.
I remember being disappointed when I first read Penny Reid’s “Love Hacked” because the hero is a waiter at an Indian restaurant so I read the first part of the book picturing him as a tall handsome Indian guy and thinking “well this is a nice change” then finding out part way through he was a young guy that looked James Dean. (Sorry that’s boring to me). I still liked the book, but it was more interesting to me when I thought the main couple was a little more diverse.
If I were proposing a romance series to a streaming service, I would suggest a standalone anthology program akin to The Twilight Zone only with romance stories. Cast a bunch of unknowns with maybe side characters appearances from “bankable” actors for variety and financial sustainability. Think of adapting Harlequin Historicals or Carina Press titles or something. Have something new for the audience every week to match the voracious reading habits of romance readers. I’m thinking along the lines of Hallmark or Lifetime movies but with better variety, more genres, more pairings, and better production values.
Why would I make this suggestion? Because there are so many standalone romance books that are really good and deserve adaptations. And frankly, I have to agree with Bill Maher who said that one of the problems with today’s entertainment is that everything is either too short or too long. On the one hand, you’ve got TikTok and these 6 minute internet episodes, and on the other hand, you have these miniseries that drag on and on and on. Whatever happened to standalone movies of about two hours- give or take- that move at a brisk pace? Or episodic half-hour or one hour TV series you could just drop in and watch when you felt like it without worrying about what happened last week?
So, just as an example, why not have a Harlequin Intrigue show where each episode is a standalone two hour movie that is based on a different book in the line? Something like that would appeal to me a lot more than one elongated story with huge casts and having to watch every episode in order. I’m not someone who binge watches series. I’m definitely more of a channel surfer who will settle on a standalone episode of Star Trek, Seinfeld, or Bonanza than having to make a series-long commitment. Unfortunately, these episodic formats have become passé. And the ones that do exist aren’t really interesting to me.
My point is, I think there’s an underserved market for more anthology-type programming. Or maybe I’m in a tiny minority of viewership… Anyone else agree?
Does anyone remember those Harlequin TV movies they did back in the 80’s or 90’s? Sharon Stone even starred in one before she made it big. They were cheesy but fun. I remember liking one with Emma Samms and Bruce Greenwood about horses and another called “Diamond Girl” where there is a big clothes shopping/makeover scene.
Haven’t heard of Harlequin TV movies. But I did read Michael York was in some Barbara Cartland film.
He was in a few! He played Charles II in one of them and a dastardly villain in another. Not, you know that I watch those kind of things……
Your secret is safe with me… ;-)
I think this is a great idea! In fact, I think that many, perhaps even most romance novels – and novels in general, really – would probably work better as movies than series.
Stella Riley’s Rockliffe series would be a fantastic departure from Regency, while having all the intrigue, drama, witty conversations, and beautiful clothes. For something grittier, her Cavaliers and Roundheads series about the English Civil War would be fabulous.
I agree with the KJ Charles recommendations,but personally would include The Charm of Magpies as a great paranormal, gothic horror twist. It’s a marvelous series, and if they don’t go too far into the horror elements (which are not emphasized in the books-I don’t do horror and was fine with these), it could be very entertaining.
I haven’t read many of the book, but the premise of Laura Willig’s Pink Carnation series with it’s dual timeline seems to be tailor made for adaptation.
I would add Julie Anne Long’s Pennyroyal Green series. I would love to see those characters come to life – especially the Duke of Falconbridge!
An adaptation of the Society of Gentlemen books by KJ Charles – assuming it stays true to the source material – would be awesome.
Likewise the Fitzhugh trilogy, especially if they also throw in some characters from her other books. And speaking of Thomas, The Hidden Blade/My Beautiful Enemy would be amazing.
Miranda Neville’s books would be very welcome as well.
Oh yes – the Fitzhugh books would be an excellent choice!
I would gladly see any of the series you propose. They would be great! Love nearly all of them. I have not seen the Bridgertons or the Outlanders TV series, as I don’t particularly like neither Gabaldon’s nor Quinn’s books.
I have the following suggestions. First of all, why not Elizabeth Peters wonderful series with Amelia Peabody and her beloved Prof Radcliffe Emerson? Not quite Regency-set (Victorian) but incredibly funny, set in an exotic location and a series with great characters and stories.
Second, I would suggest that, if you like comedy of manners with witty dialogue, fun secondary characters, crazy animals and charming stories, then Barbara Metzger’s Regency-set stories are light, comic and very amusing and could be easily adapted.
But, third, the best of all, IMO, would be bringing the mistress of it all to the screen: the incomparable Georgette Heyer. My list for the small screen would be as follows:
1 – The series starting with These Old Shades, on to Regency Buck and finishing with An Infamous Army. Set over a longer timeframe from Georgian to Waterloo with a wonder set of family-linked stories.
2 – Any and all of the following all of which have some of the wittiest dialogue ever written in the Regency canon and have memorable characters who charm, amuse and are unforgettable. Wonderful adult characters who live with you forever more: Venetia; Frederica; The Grand Sophy; The Black Sheep; The Nonesuch. Venetia has the ultimate Regency Rake; Frederica a wonderful family whose adventures are the near undoing of the Marquess of Alverstoke; The Grand Sophy with her brilliant mount, Salamanca and her direct challenge to her stuffy family; The Black Sheep with nearly the co-equal of Venetia’s Lord Damerel, the fabulously sardonic and slightly naughty Miles Calverleigh; and The Nonesuch with Waldo Hawkridge, fabulously rich sportsman idolised by all of the silly young men he meets but with a heart of gold.
Any and all of the above and probably many others of her books would translate to the small screen beautifully. No one else did witty dialogue like GH. No one else has created heroes and heroines whose names I remember after more than 50 years since first encountering them. All are set in Austenian parameters in the main – the drawing room, the country house, etc. and so are perfect for small screen adaptations. Right, off the hobby horse now and await what others suggest on this interesting challenge.
I was thinking about the Amelia Peabody series as well. Talk about great dialogue and location! The first book “Crocodile On The Sandbank” would practically write the screenplay itself.
I’d love to see Heyer’s worked done for TV! They would work every bit as well as Elizabeth Gaskell’s books did.
I 100% agree that Bourne’s Spymasters would be amazing as a series…as well as Thomas’ Fitzhugh’s series!!
And even though I have only read My Lady Notorious so far…I suspect Jo Beverley’s Malloren’s series is ripe for the picking as well with a gorgeous Georgian era setting!!
Oh how I would love to see Bourne’s series and Beverley’s Malloren books. Also Miranda Neville’s Burgundy Club series.
And if you want something as light as the Bridgertons, how about Eloisa James’ Desperate Duchesses?