By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Sorry, Bridgerton Won't Be Adding LGBTQ+ Romance Any Time Soon
The showrunner dismissed discussion of LGBTQ+ rep in a recent interview.
Bridgerton fans hoping for some LGBTQ+ inclusivity are going to have to keep holding their breaths, according to a recent interview with the new showrunner.
Jess Brownell spoke with Variety about taking charge of the popular Netflix show following Chris Van Dusen’s departure, and where the story will be headed for season three. The series is skipping over the next book for the time being and focusing instead on the relationship between Colin Bridgerton and Penelope Featherington, which is already shaping up to be a controversial move.
But drumming up more drama was Browell’s response to the question of whether there would ever be LGBTQ+ relationships coming to the steamy series, with interviewer Emily Longeretta specifically pointing out that focusing on keeping endgames the same for adaptations has a tendency to lock LGBTQ+ rep out of the equation.
“Right now, I really am so focused on Pen and Colin and how we’re rolling them out that my head’s really in that in the day to day, but maybe at a later date that’s something we can talk about,” Browell replied.
\u201c\u2639\ufe0f https://t.co/ERdGiUDvcZ\u201d— Adam B. Vary (@Adam B. Vary) 1652726825
The lack of queer rep has been painfully obvious in Bridgerton, especially considering the show has gone out of its way to be inclusive in terms of race despite being a period piece.
While on the one hand, it’s understandable that a showrunner might not want to theorize about things they haven’t planned out or gotten approved yet, the fact that we’re heading into season three and LGBTQ+ characters are still, at best, an afterthought getting tossed down the line is deeply disappointing.
\u201c@LouisPeitzman @adambvary @emilylongeretta \u201cI\u2019m so glad you asked and let me just start by saying look over there!\u201d\u201d— Adam B. Vary (@Adam B. Vary) 1652726825
\u201cLike seriously y\u2019all can\u2019t take five minutes with the show runners & writers to talk about how to include queer people in the show. That\u2019s the answer we\u2019re going with here. \u201cMaybe we\u2019ll talk about it later\u201d with queer rep is always code for \u201cwe will not be talking about it later\u201d— laynie rose \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08\ud83d\ude80 (@laynie rose \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08\ud83d\ude80) 1652744480
\u201c@thelaynierose I mean, the author of the book series said she didn't write about queer or nonwhite characters, because she wrote happy stories, and she did not believe those people historically were happy, so it was better for them to just not be in the original Bridgerton at all.\u201d— laynie rose \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08\ud83d\ude80 (@laynie rose \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08\ud83d\ude80) 1652744480
\u201cI will never NOT be shocked at how dismissive Bridgerton is of lgbtq representation. It\u2019s not like you have to make a Bridgerton gay, but is there really no way to have gay side characters that don\u2019t completely disappear between seasons?\u201d— frannie\u2019s debut era (@frannie\u2019s debut era) 1652799718
\u201ci love how the bridgerton writers are like "yeah we are changing the order of the books it's no big deal" and then say "you want queer representation? idk about that ask me again after next season"\u201d— love, sophie\u00b2\u2078 \ud83c\udf42 \ud83d\udce8 (@love, sophie\u00b2\u2078 \ud83c\udf42 \ud83d\udce8) 1652789526
It really shouldn't be this complicated to make things inclusive. And if it's something the people making the show cared about, it wouldn't be.
Rachel Kiley is presumably a writer and definitely not a terminator. She can usually be found crying over queerbaiting in the Pitch Perfect franchise or on Twitter, if not both.
Rachel Kiley is presumably a writer and definitely not a terminator. She can usually be found crying over queerbaiting in the Pitch Perfect franchise or on Twitter, if not both.
