**Spoilers For S3 And Beyond** Expanding On This For More Michael-Michaela Parallels

**Spoilers for S3 and beyond** expanding on this for more Michael-Michaela parallels

Original plot: Michael is a rake, and Frannie loves his tales about being wicked

Michael is described as charming and flirtatious before John marries Fran but its afterward that he really starts being seen as a Rake. This is mainly in reaction to him losing Fran to another, and Frannie loves to ask him about a time 'when he was wicked' for him to share these rakish/scandalous exploits with her. Its a big part of their friendship when she's married to John, and does a lot of set up work for Michael's character and his interactions with Fran in the future.

It is also revealed later that some of his exploits are exaggerated and a result of gossip more that action; he has been sleeping around and acting rakish, but not to the extend the gossips claim.

Solution; Michaela can be scandalous too

Firstly, the intention behind Michael being rake-ish during the time Frannie knows him and in then sharing those stories is 1) to show his reaction to the devastation in having lost Fran to another and 2) to share tales which will shock and entertain her, while showing Michael as a passionate person. The intention behind sharing those tales wasn't 'this man loves sex', it was 'this man lives wildly and not by society standards', 'this man does after what he wants', 'this man is an engaging entertaining storyteller, unashamed of the varied life he has lived'. All of these things can be conveyed by Michaela as well, just tweak the tales slightly.

Michael is said to be charming before Johns marriage, but its only after he sees the woman he loves marry another that he starts being described as a 'rake'. In the book its implied that this is mainly due to having no chance to marry Fran, so he becomes more loose with women. Being seen as a Rake was one of the few things a man could do which would be seen as 'scandalous' due to their comparative greater freedom in society; therefore in describing him as one Michael is being shown to be scandalous, or act in a scandalous way.

They can show that Michaela has also been scandalous her whole life; a wild thing as a child, doing unladylike things and not listening to her governess; secretly visiting a card parlor in disguise; travelling to the continent (Mainland Europe) with only a companion and no notice etc...Maybe Michaela reacts to seeing Fran marry John by becoming more wild and scandalous; riding and walking alone and unchaperoned, traveling to other towns with little notice and dancing with anyone at local assemblies, writing to women across the world. There are many ways the writers can convey that Michaela has become more scandalous in her actions post Johns marriage, and that it is a reaction to her loving Fran from afar. These tales don't have to be as explicitly sexual, as the main aim for Michaels was to show his personality not his sexual prowess, but they could easily mix in a few double entendre in there or allusions to past lovers which Fran doesn't pick up on but the audience does.

Original Plot: Michael contracts malaria in India

Michael comes back to England with malaria and tells no one. Early on in their time in London he falls ill with a fever due to this and Fran discovers his condition. While he survives this and is said to be healthy again, later in the book he gets a fever again and is seriously ill. This makes Fran race to his side, worrying that she is going to loose him forever, thinking 'its not fair that I loose 2 husbands so young, when others who don't even love theirs have them live to old age'. Fran needs this moment, thinking he is dying, to realize that she is in love with him and embrace her new feelings.

Solution; There's no reason Michaela can't go to India

Bridgerton The Show has established women can travel internationally, under specific circumstances; Queen Charlotte traveled from Germany to England for her wedding, under heavy guard; The Sharma women literally travelled from India to England in Season 2, we assume with a chaperone but one is never mentioned; Kate's plan was to travel back to India once Edwina married and no one was raising an issue over her going on her own, even if she would have had a chaperone or travelling companion; Kate and Anthony are planning to travel to India after S3 to have their first child there and visit Edwina and no one is raising an issue with a pregnant woman travelling with only her husband.

These examples all show that a women travelling internationally is possible, there just have to be certain conditions in place. Give her a pen pal or friend to visit and boom! You could even make this Edwina; Kate keeps in touch with Edwina but also Eloise and Fran during the time John is alive, through this Michaela comes to know of Edwina and maybe even writs to her herself, when she needs to flee the country to run from her feelings India seems a very long way away, what do you know she knows someone there she could visit.

Michaela just needs a chaperone or travel companion with her and she can run off to wherever; give her a fantastic older lady, who has been with Michaela for years and kind of enables her wildness, who travels with her so that its 'allowed' but in reality is a great friend and confidant. This also allows someone who has supposedly know her for years to reveal to the audience that Michaela is different around Fran, that this friend has known for years of Michaela's feelings and helps her with her guilt etc..

Thee no reason Michaela can't go to India during those 4 years (of however long the show wants to make this) and contract malaria, to follow the book plot of her illness.

But if that would be jumping the shark, she can always have gone to somewhere else for those 4 years and contracted another potentially deadly disease which will allow the plot to work in the same way; at that time there's a plethora of illnesses to choose from, so send her to Spain and have her contract Yellow Fever, it doesn't really matter as long as she has a way of potentially being on deaths door to scare Fran into realizing her love.

Original Plot: tension on being the heir between Michael and John

There is (apparently) some small tension between the two, from Michaels side, over John being the heir to the Earldom and Michael having nothing to his name. Their fathers were twins, and Johns father being born 7 min earlier means he inherited and John after him, while Michael inherits nothing and has little money himself.

Michael struggles with this, especially after Johns death; part of him has been angry about this accident of birth meaning he misses out on the Earldom, and now he has everything he sometimes wished for but he has lost John for it. Michael is horrified he might have spoken this into existence and that what he once wanted has cost him so much.

Solution; I work twice as hard, for half the pay

Dissatisfaction with the accident of birth making one cousin the heir and the other penniless? Of course this could still happen for a women, and even more so due to her gender.

Michaela is not only frustrated that her fathers later birth meant he wasn't the heir, but now she is also frustrated that her gender makes her doubly ineligible. Combine this with her attraction to women in a time it wasn't possible to have a relationship, and you can have some great angst around 'if only my father has been born first', 'if only I had been born a man', 'the accident of birth and gender has screwed me over in life'. None of this tension and underlying resentment in her relationship with John (though very small and nothing that would ever impact their relationship) has to be lost, and actually will be enhanced by Michaela's gender and sexuality.

This would add to the horror after Johns death, and anger as society's reaction; a woman becoming heir to the Earldom would be an even greater improvement in circumstances than a penniless cousin inheriting it, so society would be saying Michaela is the luckiest women who ever lived to gain this. Completely disregarding that she only has this due to her beloved cousin dying tragically and unexpectedly young. If John is the one to specify this in his will that only make it worse; literally everything she now has is because of John, and because he has died, so her self hatred and anger will be enormous.

TL;DR Michaela can still be 'wicked' in her scandalous actions (sexual elements optional), there is no reason she can't travel overseas when she runs from her feelings, and men don't have a monopoly on 'I'm angst ridden over loosing out over the inheritance' feelings.

**Speculation for Francesca's Season plotline** Sorry this is so freaking long and spoilers for the show and books ahead ....

Francesca's love story can still retain the key emotional beats, motivations and character growth from her book even with Michaela Stirling in place of Michael, so no one should panic regarding that. Here's how...

Original plot: Inheritance and titles

Michael is torn up that he inherits the Earldom, estate and money when John dies; he feels that he has gotten everything at the expense of a man he saw as his brother. The idea of also ‘inheriting’ his brother’s wife (whom he is secretly in love with) horrifies him and so he flees the country for 4 years. This absence allows Francesca time and space to grieve John and for her to continue acting as the Countess, living in comfort and peace while she rebuilds her life.

Solution: Ally John to the rescue!

The writers should clarify that there is literally no one still living who could inherit the title and estate. Only child of an only child for the last 100 years kind of thing, and all possible cousins by marriage etc are also dead. Have the estate guy from Season 3 come in and inform Fran that he has conducted extensive interviews and there is literally no one living who could inherit the estate, so they will have to honor John's very strange provision in his will. John has specified in his will that the title will pass to whomever Michaela marries, as his cousin and the last of the Kilmartin’s - her father was his fathers younger twin bother. Bridgerton the show has established that women cannot inherit but they can manage an estate (Lord Deblings wife will act for him as he travels, the Mondridge's son inherits not his mother, one of the female Featherington's will inherit the estate once they have a son and act as 'the mother of the lord') so John cannot pass the title to Francesca upon his death but he can pass to to Michaela's possibly future spouse.

(He could also have put in a provision like the Featherington's that Fran would act as the Earl until their child reaches their majority, but as he dies childless this isn't an issue)

This way Michaela will still feel the guilt for inheriting everything from John, plus the men who will pursue her for the title will make her flee the country to escape marriage. In her mind she can not only escape marriage to someone who wants the title, but in practice it will allow Francesca to remain acting as the Countess. As Michaela is in love with Fran already this is a kind gesture of ‘the least I can do is not take all that away from her after she just lost John’ plus she just cant be around her as she mourns John and turns to Michaela for comfort.

Bonus plot point; Michaela is a lesbian and she confessed this to John when they were children as they grew up together as siblings! Therefore in passing the estate to her John in practice gives her the title. He knew she would never marry a man, or be able to marry a woman and so this is his way of passing the title to her. This gives Michaela the same guilt at inheriting everything (everyone is claiming my life is in many way better off after my cousin died but I would give it all up for John being alive again) and allows her journey during Fran's season to be to focus on accepting what John has done for her.

Original plot: Infertility and motherhood

Francesca deeply loved John and mourned him for years. She struggled with infertility while they were married, thought she was pregnant after he died and then lost their child soon after. As she is now a widow she mourns the loss of the only piece of John she had left, and the idea of being a mother. She eventually decided to try and remarry specifically because she wanted to be a mother.

Solution: Accepting the loss of biological motherhood

Francesca still struggles with infertility throughout her marriage with John and loses her baby just after John’s death. She decides to remarry to become a mother, and part of her growth is allowing herself to want this and take steps to become a mother. However part of her struggle as she falls in love with Michaela is the idea of never having biological children of her own. Through Michaela and coming to terms with the reality of loving a woman, Fran comes to embrace motherhood by another route: adoption, wardship, sponsoring etc.. Infertility is still a huge part of Frans character arc and journey, but this version tells the story of people who are truly never able to have their own children, whether by personal infertility or the constraints of biology. But Fran and Michaela (and people like them) can still be parents, they can still build families, and sometimes even loosing out on something you love is worth it when you find true happiness with another.

Frans season could end with her and Michaela taking in a baby or young child of a friend as their ward, and becoming mothers together.

Original plot: More than one great love

John and Francesca were deeply in love; Fran's journey in her book is unique in the Bridgerton siblings in that she gets two great loves. She has to come to terms with loving again, not only allowing herself to look for passion and love but to accept it when she does find it.

Solution: Bisexuality vs Lesbianism

Completely ignore that little moment at their wedding where the writers and directors implied that she didn’t like the kiss with John and was later instantly attracted to Michaela. Francesca's journey is the struggle of allowing herself to love again, ergo she must have a first love to compare against. Fran should be written as Bisexual not as a Lesbian - she had true and deep love with John, and her journey with Michaela is to 1) discover that she is also attracted to and able to fall in love with women, and 2) that she is allowed to fall in love again. Francesca needs to come to the realization that this second love shouldn't be compared to the first and that it doesn't diminish it; she did love John and she can love Michaela, and one doesn't invalidate the other.

This would also touch on such great points about bisexual awareness and erasure; people truly can be attracted to both genders, and it doesn't have to be an either-or decision. These loves can and often are equally rewarding and true across genders and shouldn't be seen as one being 'experimenting' or a 'mistake' until you settle down with the other. Also it would solve the issue that the writers have (hopefully) inadvertently created; by making Francesca have a moment of attraction for Michaela at her wedding to John; if they write her as bisexual and having been attracted to Michaela throughout her marriage then it reinforces the harmful stereotype of 'bisexuals are never faithful because they are attracted to everyone'. Removing this and making no further mention of it would be in everyone's best interests.

This will allow great Mother-Daughter bonding between Violet and Fran. Violet struggled to initially understand Fran and John as a couple, but came to accept and champion their love. As Violet is being set up for a great '2nd act' love of her own, by the time Fran starts to struggle with allowing herself to want her new partner Violet will be able to provide real advice and support for her in that regard. How a second great love can be different but only because you yourself are different and one can't truly be compared to the other. It will also allow a degree of healing from Violet's handling of Fran+John, as she is perhaps the only person who will understand Fran continuing to mourn John long after his death.

Original plot: Michael's return and Francesca's future

In the book Michael returns to 'do his duty' and marry, and its only when he comes back after 4 years of little to no contact that he realizes he is still in love with Francesca. Fran also realizes she dearly wishes to be a mother and won't give up on that dream, so is looking for a husband to enable this to happen.

Solution; Michaela is chasing Fran

Francesca and Michaela have been in loose contact the whole time, mainly regarding the estate but also helping one another deal with he loss of John. One huge advantage is that women are able to write to one another freely with no worry of scandal, and so they become distant pen pals through the years. When Francesca decides that motherhood is important to her and she is going to find a husband so she can become one, Michaela rushes back home to England. She has no interest in marrying but she will be there for Fran.

Michaela knows she is still deeply in love with Fran but 1) there is no indication that Fran would or could ever feels the same and 2) Fran desperately wants children, which is something Michaela can never give her. Kind of like Simon from S1 only this time it wont be overcome by talking about your trauma. So Michaela comes back to England to truly hep Fran find a husband, justifying this as due to being in love with Fran and will never marry, its likely Michaela will leave the estate to Fran's child. So she should at least see who is a contender and help Fran choose the father of her child.

Original Plot: Michael's devotion while refusing to act on his love

Michael has been in love with Francesca for 6-ish years by the start of their story; 2 while she was married to John and the 4 years since his death. Not only has he not acted on that love since his cousins death, he doesn't even when Fran decides she wants to remarry for children. This is due to his loyalty to John and his guilt over loving his wife and now widow; even when they reconnect and he worships and adores her, he is not going to properly 'act' upon this love by proposing marriage as that would feel like a betrayal to John.

Solution; Daphne to the rescue

We still have the guilt and loyalty to John and Michaela not feeling comfortable pursuing the woman she loves because of it. However later on, once an attraction has been first stablished maybe, this can be expanded to Michaela feeling guilt that being with her will not give Francesca what she was claimed she dearly wants; children. Michaela will not properly act on their feeling's for one another, and maybe when Francesca is starting to embrace there romance Michaela can be the on to pull back and tell Fran she should still look for a husband. Fran would have to convince her that this is what she wants and that Michaela can make her happy.

This would also be a great way to bring in Daphne for a quick scene in Season 6(?), as she added so much to S2! Daphne could discover this struggle and share her own issues with having children with Fran; how she initially thought she wouldn't be able to have children with Simon and even after realizing they were both deeply in love she had to come to terms with never being a mother. This would also be a fantastic opportunity to address Daphne's awful actions in S1; She could reveal that she did not handle to loss well, and that in truth she had not properly accepted a life without children and so when the possibility of them was there she acted cruelly, something she regrets to this day. She took her pain and anger at having to give up children because of Simon out on him once it was revealed they were still possible. So her advice to Fran is totally be sure biological children are something she could live without. Because resenting the person who made you give up a dream will quickly poison your love and it is hard to come back from that. But she does also understand loving someone enough to give up on a dream.

Original Plot: Seduced into marriage, not realizing you're in love

Michael follows Francesca back to Scotland and proposes a business marriage so she can have a child and remain the Countess. After getting lost in a storm they start an intimate affair for several weeks while Fran thinks over his offer of marriage; she is torn over her attraction to Michael as this was never supposed to be part of her 2nd marriage and it feels like a betrayal of her first love. Eventually Michael cracks and tells Fran if she won't marry him then she must leave as he can't watch her marry another. He confesses his love and Fran agrees to marry him because she likes him and he's her friend and she enjoys sleeping with him. Its only after he suddenly falls ill after their marriage that she realizes she has fallen in love again, and truly embraces that risk for the reward of being with him.

Solution: M won't be a side piece and F needs to make a decision

As there is no need to rush to Scotland to tell Fran about Colins wedding this can al take place in London during the season. Michaela proposes a relationship while Fran looks for a husband; they can have fun together but when Fran wants to marry Michaela will stand back. Fran is the one who starts to think she doesn't want this arrangement to end and that she has proper feelings for Michaela, which still feels like a betrayal to Johns memory. She doesn't think there are romantic feelings from Michaela, just passion, and so she isn't realizing that she herself is falling in love.

This would also give great opportunities for double jealously for both women, as both are being actively pursued.

As Fran falls more in love though she starts to think about staying with Michaela, how they could run the Earldom together and live as if they were married. She will just take a husband but have a lover on the side as many men do. Michaela is the one who pushes Fran away, as she is focused on giving Fran her dream of children and marriage, neither of which are an option with her. Eventually, during an argument over one of Francesca's suitors Michaela confesses to loving Fran since the moment they met; not only is she feeling guilty about this due to John's memory but she couldn't forgive herself if she was the reason Fran gave up on her dream of motherhood. Michaela tells Fran she should leave her and go find a husband as Michaela can't give her the life she wants. Then when Fran proposes the secret lover route Michaela is devastated, as she will not be a mistress, even for the woman she loves. It would be agony to see Fran with another so Fran can't have her cake and eat it too; if she marries, their relationship will be over.

This could be when Fran has to truly think about what she should be giving up with this relationship and to have those heart to hearts with Daphne and Violet. Can she embrace a second great love and risk her heart again, and can she make pace with never having biological children?

In the time she has been thinking this over Michaela has fallen seriously ill; learning that she is close to death Fran races to her and realizes she does love Michaela. This is how she felt abut John and she is already mourning losing another great love; if that's how she feels, shouldn't she do anything to keep it?

Upon reaching Michaela it becomes clear she isn't as seriously ill as reported but there is no going back for Fran now. She confesses her love too and convinces Michaela that there are other forms of motherhood that will satisfy her. She won't regret loving her and can make her peace with everything she will have to give up for this relationship as long as she gets to be with Michaela.

So most of the main themes and character journeys which Francesca and Michael(a) go on throughout their love story are still open to being portrayed. Most of these plots are ready to go, just needing some adapted structure to make them work. Though it came out of left field and with no warning, that doesn't mean its not going to work.

This can still be a gorgeous story of longing and loss, and finding love where you least expect it.

Daemon Targaryen's Potential (1/2)

I think I can see what they're trying to do with Daemons character of HOTD but there are such better vessels for self exploration and character development that have been squandered.

Season 1 Daemon is (in hindsight) trying to find himself; he's lashing out and fighting wars, he's trying to force Viserys and the world to give him what he wants, he's trying on being a husband and father while being half a world from the rest of his family, and he's finally basking in marrying the woman he loves and creating a family with her. He's a bit all over the place but we can trace the character growth through his actions and decisions.

But in the Season Finale we finally see the cracks in Daemon as a person, and in his relationship with Rhaenyra. These are areas where no pressure has been placed yet and so they didn't realize that when they were tested they would buckle slightly. Its great and engaging TV, and understandable with Daemon's character progression that these areas had not been explored or challenged until that time. And it adds further worries to Rhaenyra's faction as a ruler and a wife that one of her supposed strongest supporters and source of strength isn't actually as secure as previously thought.

Firstly, Daemons sense of self is challenged when he realizes his brother never viewed him as his heir or a legitimate successor to the Iron Throne. Daemon has stated time and again he doesn't want the throne and the narrative supports that, but its likely a small part of him cherished that for a time he was the heir and his brothers successor. To learn that Viserys never thought of him in that way was devastating, and we know this Daemons physically chokes his wife as he learns it. This is the first distance of violence we have seen towards Rhaenyra personally and towards a wife he cares about (he did kill his first wife Rhea but he made it clear he didn't respect or care for her at all, so in Daemons mind this wouldn't have been a shocking action). This reaction, of violence towards someone he has shown in word and deed that he values and loves, is actually quite out of character and emphasizes how shocked and distraught he is at learning of his brothers 'betrayal' of him.

Secondly his sense of self as a husband is challenged when Rhaenyra is laboring to deliver their daughter Visenya. The narrative implies that this is an unexpected and early birth, so no one is expecting it to end well even putting aside the baby's deformities, but Daemon chooses to prioritize the political and logistical aspects of his role as King-Consort and not the personal one. Even when his wife is crying out for him, when his step-son pleads with him to go to her, he still prioritizes the 'duty' of being a leader and husband of the Queen over that of a husband to a wife. We are shown Daemon as a devoted father to Baela and Rhaena, and as a husband to Leana he prioritized her choice and care over that of medical professionals. This change in behavior when a position of leadership or power was included in the mix is an intriguing development in Daemon's attitude as a father and husband.

And finally his self of self as a leader or ruler of men is challenged when it is made clear that while he is valued for his ideas and input, the final decision will rest with his wife as she is Queen. This is both a change of Daemon personally, as at least since their marriage he and Rhaenyra are shown to either be in agreement on all fronts or to make decisions jointly, and also the same situation he was in when Viserys was king; every decision had to be run through his brother. This is a stark wake up call for Daemon that he will not be able to make decisions independently and unilaterally on his own, and his power once again comes as an extension of someone else. Its likely that even if he knew this academically, it is another thing to be living it and especially at a time of crisis.

Daemon then encounters a crisis of faith in Season 2 Ep 1 in that his view of Rhaenyra is fundamentally challenged, both as a ruler and as a person. Rhaenyra's reaction to her sons death is fundamentally different to how Daemon would react if he were in her position, or so he believes, and he thinks less of her as a result of this. Daemon, as a father, would react more violently to his son being killed and when Rhaenyra doesn't he thinks less of her as a parent; in his view this is the wrong way to grieve the loss of a child. Daemon, as a ruler, would react more vindictively and in a retaliatory fashion against those who had taken his child from him and Rhaenyra isn't doing so; in his view this makes her look weak as a ruler, and undermines her ability to rule and so is again the wrong way to be acting. His faith in her as a Queen is crumbling every time she doesn't do as he would if he were in the chair, especially as he views them as so alike and as 'twin flames'; his frustration grows as he is not allowed to act and the one who is allowed isn't doing what he thinks they should.

This isn't to say that Daemon is right or that Rhaenyra is wrong in this; Daemon thinks the way he would react is just 'the right way' to do so and Rhaeny's is the one who councils him that not only is Rhaenyra's reaction to everything both understandable and acceptable (and that she grieved in the same way herself) but that at the end of the day it doesn't matter if Daemon feels he would act differently; he is not the King and never will be so it is pointless to speculate. Rhaenyra is the Queen and so their role is not to try and make her grieve or act differently but to support her actions in that grief.

Daemons actions with Blood and Cheese are a reaction to all of these criseis, of self and of faith, and is Daemon once again acting selfishly and lashing out; only this time the consequences of his actions will be direct and damaging. In reaction to not being able to act without his wife's oversight, in reaction to him feeling Rhaenyra is not acting violently and decisively enough as a ruler and as a mother, Daemon acts both independently and violently, and it immediately backfires. The Greens fumble the bag a bit with the PR opportunity he gives them but his actions could have cost Rhaenyra allies, support, and even eventually the war itself. His selfish actions hurt and undermine Rhaenyra as a ruler, and their relationships is shown to be weaker and more flawed than either of them had thought it to be.

And in that final scene of confrontation it shows that Daemons own actions have always been his downfall, and that again none of his struggles are new information; Rhaenyra was always going to be Queen, Daemon was always going to act as the support to her rule, and yet everything he is doing is eroding her trust and reliance upon him. Time away for him to realize his flaws and re-commit to the life and position that he knowingly chose will make their partnership strong enough to survive the imminent tragedies looming on the (metaphorical) horizon, and make their love feel doomed enough when The Dance reaches it conclusion. That final arc will not hit hard enough if half of the people watching don't truly believe Daemon supports his wife 100% so now is the time to put in the character work and exorcise those doubts.

Can Stray Kids fit a smooth jazz album I somewhere in their schedule?

Between hearing Binnie and Han sing ‘All That Jazz’ on SKZ talker, to Seungmin on Stray Kids radio saying he listens to Swing Jazz as he gets ready in the morning, and Chan telling Teen Vogue that jazz is his current ‘weird’ genre to listen to… *please* can they release a crooners album?

Seungmin was just begging to be part of 3Racha, so let’s make it happen!

The Elephant and the Chisel

For my whole life I've thought of myself as a statue, but I didn't know it until today. Until someone made a comment about a skinny girl inside who'll never arrive and I thought wait, I've thought that before.

I realized that is how I've been viewing myself and my body. That inside of me there is a more beautiful version of myself just waiting to be free, and if I can only chip away enough I can free her. If I can find the right creams and gels, the right clothes and poses, stop eating the wrong foods, if I can find the right exercises and do them for long enough, no longer, longer still...eventually this inner me, the beautiful woman who I'm waiting to be, will be revealed.

All I must do is chip away at the extraneous. Remove those parts society tells me I shouldn't have or don't need. That let me down or spoil the whole. My uneven skin tone. My heavy frame. My poor posture. My bad dress sense. My buck teeth. My frizzy hair.

Don't worry there's a cream for that. What's your skin care routine? You should add this one, once a month, it helps tighten your face. And this one, once a week to make it plump. And this one, everyday to smooth the tone.

And your hair. Have you tried this brush or that shampoo? No? But it can fix that issue, so and so swears by it, honestly look at the reviews.

Where do you work out? Do you work out? How do you work out? Oh you haven't tried this, you simply must, its essential to tone your arms. You should add that to your leg day, it really helps with you butt. Add this, stop that, change everything.

Have I chipped enough away yet? Can you see her, the beauty stuck within me? I know she's there. The world has told me she will come if I just do this right. If I do all the right things, in the right way, then eventually that striking, beautiful woman will be set free. Finally.

And that is what I've been told I should dedicate my life to, all of my precious and limited spare time, removing parts of myself. Chipping and cutting and picking and prying until finally someone will say 'voila! There she is. We always knew you could be beautiful!'

'There was always an elephant inside the rock, I just removed the parts that weren't'. How did those parts feel, to be torn from their whole? Told they were getting in the way. Told they spoilt the view?

I’m seeing a lot of discourse about Bridgeton Season 3 and the recasting of certain characters and people keep talking about it being unfair to the original actors, or that they shouldn’t have jumped to other projects (Francesca’s season 1 actor was cast as the lead in Lockwood and Co, which was then unfortunately cancelled…) and instead they should have stayed around to be avalible etc.. and I think we’re missing an obvious point:

People don’t want to watch the kids that grew up on their Tv have s*x.

Bridgerton by definition is a s*xual show, with explicit scenes and n*dity from its leads. When it gets around to the younger kids stories (if the show’s renewed enough) no one will be 100% comfortable watching s*x scenes when they remember that actor as a child.

Game of Thrones ran into this issue too. We all watched Maisie Williams grow up on screen, watched as her characters story grew and she had to handle tougher subject matter and scenes. No one wrote into complaint when we watched her pretend to kill a child at 14 (playing an 11 yr old Arya Stark), when she blinded and killed a p*edophile at as an actor of 18 (15 for Arya) or watched what was essentially torture p*rn of a blind 19 year old being beaten relentlessly every week for a month.

But when it came time to do an intimate scene… suddenly the audience felt awkward. Something about s*xual intimacy crossed some internal boundary for a large portion of the audience and suddenly the voyeuristic nature of being an audience in those scenes was driven home. It was okay being a viewer to explicit scenes if they were violent or gory, but explicit scenes of romance… nope that somehow feels indecent.

It was a tasteful scene, only partial n*dity, nothing full frontal, and the blocking and writing made it clear it was consensual and enjoyable. In every way possible this was a positive thing for Arya as a character and as both the character and actor were adults there was no concern about appropriate story lines.

And yet.

People wrote in. People switched off, fast forwarded, talked about it at work on Monday. Articles were written, and it became a discussion piece around the TV; even knowing all the above people still felt wrong watching an actor they first knew as a child and who they ‘watched grow up on screen’ perform a s*x scene.

So I think a big part of Bridgerton’s casting choices around the younger children is to head this off at the pass and to not invite the discussion. Why risk even a percentage of your audience not watching the intimate scenes that season (or god forbit not streaming the season at all!) when you can just recast and remove the problem? Why borrow trouble or controversy, especially when other plot points in future stories will likely do that all on their own?

This way we get to have a child character played by a child actor, who the audience can find cute and precocious, who they can feel parental and familial toward with complete peace of mind. And then when the season comes for that siblings love story, ‘oh would you look at that puberty made them look all grown up and completely different’! A new adult actor is playing the adult version and the audience can watch them enjoy their love affair with no guilt, unease, or annoyance.

So yes it’s probably sad for the actors who first played these characters or are playing them now to know that they won’t get to be the one to act out their characters ‘main character moment’ season. But they were hired on in that capacity, they knew what they signed up for, and at the end of the day no one is ‘entitled’ to anything in Showbusiness.

The whole show’s already a guilty pleasure, so let’s not tip the balance too far!

Article in 'Film Threat' mag from the early 90s. We're either looking at a cool movie which went into production but never released, or Goncharov 2