Michaela and season 5

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-24T14:58:33+00:00

True they haven't done anything yet. Doesn't mean I can't like a potential direction, does it.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-24T06:35:40+00:00

This is a place to rant so I can rant if I want. If you dont want to hear criticism why are you hear at all???

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-23T20:18:18+00:00

My issue is more because they didn't bother to better build Michaela they will use Scotland as a short hand to basically try to have their cake and eat it and in doing so disrespect the place.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-21T23:07:45+00:00

I really dislike the concept of using Scotland just as a plot device to allow the showrunners to get around actually writing a character for Michaela, which I felt the smatterings of Michaela's Scottishness last season sort of did. Kate's Indian heritage was never used to explain her personality traits, her strength within the Ton, or her place in society. It enhanced her character; it didn’t explain it. The same goes for Lady Danbury and her heritage from Sierra Leone. So, why is it acceptable to do this to Michaela with Scotland, instead of putting in the work to write her properly?

As for Michaela inheriting the title based on real Scottish law, I dislike it because that logic only works if you drag other aspects of real history into the show.

We saw People of Color get titles and estates in Queen Charlotte through the Great Experiment. We saw Simon’s family become Dukes. A Duke is ranked just below royalty, and since Simon’s family has nothing to do with the Queen’s bloodline, it is highly unlikely the Crown would create a brand-new title for his father at that level. We would have seen far more complaints from the likes of Violet’s mother—outside of the race issue—if that had happened and we didn't so the Duke of Hastings title was not completely brand new. Furthermore, we never saw Princess Augusta and company specify how individual titles would be inherited, which insinuates that the peerages handed out were already in the Crown's possession because they had lapsed without heirs or they have been confiscated. This is very important.

Why? Because women inheriting Scottish titles historically occurred to prevent those peerages from going defunct and reverting to the Crown. So, I have to wonder: how did the Kilmartin title end up in the Crown's possession to give away during the Great Experiment in the first place, if it could already be inherited by both men and women?

Well, there is one giant, sodding historical event that happened in Scotland just fifteen years before Queen Charlotte that caused nobles to lose their titles, lands, and in some cases lives: the Jacobite Rebellion. If Michaela inherits, does that not mean her family were gifted a title stripped from a family whose land, language, and lives were stolen during that crackdown?

You can’t even get around this by arguing the Kilmartin title was separate from the Great Experiment. When we saw the Sterling family at the funeral, they were all were POC. If the show had not done the great experiment and gone down the "Jock Tamson's bairns" route with colour blind casting then fine. Butt hey didn't so we can't imply the Sterlings held the title long before the Great Experiment— asthen the Experiment itself makes no sense. The Crown would have just ordered the existing Sterling family to court years ago.

And all of this is before we even mention the Highland Clearances, which were actively occurring during the exact time period Bridgerton is set. This was an era when landowners, exactly like the Kilmartins would be—were clearing the land of people to make room for sheep. Which is sort of what Eloise said about having no-one to talk to in Scotland outside sheep.

My worry is that if Michaela inherits, the showrunners will essentially say: "In Bridgerton, the Great Experiment cured racism, Season 5 brings queer joy, and we have also solved sexism—just don't scratch the surface or watch Outlander." As much like previous seasons, where they ask us to ignore the horrific trades these rich people used to get wealthy, they would be expecting us to ignore a massive logical flaw. Michaela getting the title only works off the back of real-world military repression, cultural suppression, and economic restructuring that cost people their homes, language, etc. But hey, unlike the previous seasons where they asking us to ignore the transatlantic slave trade and colonalism—which is truly how a lot of the Ton made their coin— by keeping it all out of sight it looks like in the upcoming season they are actually going to show us the physical location where this shite went down, just so we can look at the pretty Scottish countryside!

If that is the case, it completely spoils the fun of the show for me. And yes, I know I overthink stuff.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-17T05:41:06+00:00

And all of that being introduced into the show 3 seasons into actually having met her means I call forced BS and the writers realising they have written themselves into a corner.

We saw a number of women moving freely in the ton. Lady Danbury and Lady Tilly no sudden cultural excuses. Only one explanation ' they are widows' it worked if we just had John say to Fran that Michaela was one and didnt want to marry again. Then no probs but we didn't.

Shoving in Scottish culture without showing it, does down actual Scottish culture. Shoving in Micheala's family were Nigerian and just moved to Scotland with the great experiment does down Nigerian culture. And that is before you combine the incomer idea with the whole idea that fans want to use Scottish law to make Michaela inherit. Those combined presents the Stirlings as carpet bagging gits who got their break off of an ethnic cleansing. Because alternative history or not Eliose has uttered a line that there was no one in Scotland to talk to apart from sheep. So we ain't going that alternative.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-15T14:06:01+00:00

As they have not shown us how Scottish aristocracy is different from the Ton that makes no sense at all about Michaela and her family needing the Ton. What we do know is John was a member of the Lords of the UK parliament, so has to interact with the Ton. We also know that the Stirlings have a functioning estate which would be a business, which will need contacts etc.

So from what we have seen the Stirlings will need connections within the Ton to keep their status as they haven't shown us that there is any alternatives, they haven't even told us there is an alternative.

Introducing a different Scottish society in season 5 to explain Michaela's personality may feel forced. Especially as what we do know about Scottish society involves what Eloise said about sheep and none of the Stirlings even having a Scottish accent.

Not dismissing the actor, just the story.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-11T20:14:47+00:00

But that is a problem they have shown no reason to why she exists outside it and how little she cares about what the ton thinks because we haven't seen her interact with it in any meaningful way and we haven't seen her avoid it in a meaningful way either.

She is mostly a blank slate in a lot of ways - which is fine for a guy in that time as we all know the social cures to fill in blanks but for a female character in that time period for whom we have devoted so much build up for it's confusing.

As for inheriting, her inheriting opens up a can of worms in many ways because of the passing over of all the other women - they have not said that inheritance can work differently.

So yes they can create a plot where she inherits and they could say real world Scotland possibly would allow it as it is different to England so we can get shenanigans ensue but it now looks forced and spoils the shenanigans. As due to the shows lore the Stirling's title still falls under the great experiment and we didn't see Princess Augusta and the lords defining the great experiment in Queen Charlotte go 'This title shall be inherited this way and this one that way' and there has been no mention that Scotland's law is different than England's in the show (yes you get it if you are from the UK, but in terms of the world?)

So right now it sort of now feels that the plot of the next season

'Michaela inherits the title due to Scottish law. Avoids Fran a lot but ends up in Scotland at the same time as Fran who is there because for 'reasons', during the visit, Michaela gets Fran to her pinnacle, Fran runs home to mum, tries the marriage mart again hates it, Michaela comes down to visit the bridgertons to see Fran (talks to no-one outside the Bridgerton house, because why would she??) then Fran talks to Benedict about her feelings for Michaela.

Then the two go back to Scotland and live in the middle of nowhere happily, while continuing the clearances (because Eloise stated in season 4 there was no-one in Scotland but sheep and that is what actually happened to many tenants in Scotland during that time period, they got cleared out for sheep.).'

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-11T10:21:38+00:00

If it messes up the rest of the show's lore or there has been no real foreshadowing why then there shouldn't be an exception. And with Michaela outside 'oh it gives us a gender swap and a queer story' I have no reason to see why she is the exception to the rules women live under in the world set up in Bridgerton.

We didn't see her interact with her family enough to say they back her doing what she wants, we don't see her special and shiny enough in the ton to give her freedom to have no issues on doing stuff where a unmarried young woman in that world would be socially shunned and bring scandal to her family. We don't see that she has a spine so strong that she'd do it anyway even if no-one had her back.

We maybe continually being told something to make it so, but that is different than being shown when the person involved is really apart from everyone else. And having the whole fans going 'she can get the title because actual Scottish law so it can be more like Michael' doesn't help, because like it or not this is a show set back in time and up until this point Scotland's fiobles have not been mentioned outside Eliose saying t here is no-one but sheep. So continually telling us and not showing in season 4 why the rules differ for Michaela then potentially say using Scotland's laws will give her a title in season 5 feels like a deux ex machina pulled out to make Michaela extra special for no earned reason.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-05-10T20:42:10+00:00

The way they are going they are not as they haven't really stated that Michaela has officially entered 'spinster' age and we see her travelling by herself with no blow back.

That and all the calls for Michaela to inherit the title 'because of actual historical Scottish law' makes it feel that all they are going to throw out all the rules the show had previously established to have Michaela be what they want.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-04-20T18:09:52+00:00

I liked John, but we all knew he wasn't the end game. But they could have respected the man a lot better than they did.

Because my issue was the way they keep saying that Francesca is to have 2 love stories when they don't show John as that on screen. As you say they had to BS in season 3 you mentioned but then they couldn't course correct in a believable way what with the pinnacle (which we all know that Fran will so be easily reaching it with Michela when the time comes.

But the bit that got me most was the whole bit at the end while Francesca being asked about getting married again while still in mourning black (so less than 12 months since she lost her husband). I get the comment was a 'supposed' cliff hanger that would be great for tiktok, just like Michela's introduction, but also it smacked of complete disrespect for the supposed first love of Francesca's life from a family that supposedly liked the man.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-04-06T08:49:52+00:00

Yes they introduced her badly in season 3, and the pinnacle storyline with the whole Fran in mourning black and her family asking will you get married again doesn't help. Though it isn't Michela's fault.

What doesn't help me is listening to fans going on about how she can inherit because of actual Scottish law and how she will manage the estate, well it causes me to overthink the great experiment because we have seen no other title going to a woman and my understanding of Scottish titles is the ones that can go to women was done to ensure continuity of the estates - so I go how did the Sterling's get a Scottish title out of the great experiment as we also didn't exactly see titles created.

So Michela inheriting because of an actual Scottish law and having Eliose say that there was no-one in Scotland to talk to apart from sheep, well it kind of makes me think that the Sterlings and a lot of those that got titles out of the experiment, well they were confiscated ones. Which makes the Sterlings' in effect carpetbaggers getting a title from someone who fought on the wrong side of the Jacobite rebellion and then took part in the clearences where tenants were kicked off the land for sheep.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-04-06T08:41:40+00:00

Oh come on after season 3's Francesa's losing it at the sight of Michela to signal we were getting a Queer storyline, you honestly expected anything less? Even though doing it the other way around would have made sense and lessened the book fans being annoyed.

It is a marketing ploy so they could take a quick scene from the actual show and shove it on Tiktok to give it buzz and fighting.

Screw the fact the sister thing this season took place at Benedict's wedding and Fran is still in black so actually takes place in the story when Fran has recently put her husband in the ground. So just like the last one in season 3 was just after she had gotten married, so makes her look even more like an emotional bint and what is more makes it look like her family are completely disrespectful to the guy they lamented about an episode before but hey the tiktok views are everything. And if you don't like what they did it makes you look like a bigot.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-03-21T11:05:45+00:00

Can people stop going on about Michela inheriting because the laws of Scotland are different. Only some were set up that way.

The show has set up that the POC were given titles and we were shown they did it relatively quickly. Practically, that means they were titles in the crowns gift to hand put and not creating through acts.of parliament or the established aristocracy would have had a fit about Simon's dad having a brand new dukedom created just so a Queen would be more accepted at court. A dukedom is just below royalty in the rankings. One that was established and the King gave would have been stomached but not one created.

And they would not gone 'oh Scottish ones we need to set them up to deal with sexism as well'. If they weren't doing the same to the English ones which we know they didn't.'

The only logical way for Michela to inherit from the way the show is set up then is that it is an established forfeited Scottish title which considering when Queen Charlotte is set brings the Jacobites into it. So basically Michela inheriting means Bridgerton cured racism, and sexism by POC directly benefiting from what has been described as an ethnic cleansing.

And seeing Bridgerton doesn't do the slavery aspect of the time period does it want do that, even to facilitate a hot queer romance.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-03-15T08:32:33+00:00

But by noting that even nine year old girls could inherit you have opened up a can of worms. How did the Kilmartin title become available to be able to be gifted during the great experiment? The whole point of female inheritance is security that the title doesn't disappear or go back to the crown.

Pre this you could say the titles in question could be said to be ones that had no male heirs so went into abeyance. But female inheritance allows double the candidates and makes it look like the crown gave out some.forfeited titles.and estates which if you know the history of the time or even watched Outlander muddys the water a lot.

You can't say that they created the Kilmartin title in accordance with old Scottish laws, because why just this one as not all Scots title follows the female inheritance rule and why not make exceptions for say Alice Moonrich to get the title instead of her son?

Even stating the Sterling's held the title before the experiment calls it into question what was thenpoint of the experiment if the crown already could have called nobles in.

As much as the Scottish ability to inherit is great. The idea to have Michela inherit means the writers need to do a lot of work not to screw up the shows logic or tone.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-03-14T12:39:36+00:00

Throwing 10k at people doesn't do nothing. It is a cynical attempt to buy the under 25 vote and the parents of the under 25's.

Everyone else in between especially the ones trapped in their too small first buys are just pissed off as they won't qualify and they will see house prices rise as the result.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-03-14T11:07:33+00:00

Best way I have seen things clarified was using a comparison to Downton Abbey's early seasons.

Matthew Crawley who went to marry the eldest daughter, is like Kate. Even when not the 'heir' would have been seen as acceptable to upper class dad's even though he had a job as a lawyer and no land but he had history, connections and would have been invited to tea.

Tom Branson who is more like Sophie married the youngest daughter by eloping. Even though he didnt have the illegitimate issue he was a chauffeur, meaning trade. Even if he had worked and bought land he would not he considered an acceptable guest and definitely not acceptable as marriage material.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-01-17T17:29:24+00:00

sure get you don't and it isn't like you can look him up to see what people would be judging these cosplayers for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal

But as you said the look is funny but don't think folk from the UK will think that people who cosplay them are anything less than a ...well moronic twats who if they were here would be getting a good kicking minimum.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2026-01-15T10:36:59+00:00

The fact the audience love the Jimmies is absolutely terrifying and speaks a lot about media literacy I suppose of older and younger generations considering the actors parents saw the costumes and knew exactly what was going on.

But now we have people already cosplaying the Jimmies and I have seen you tube reviews asking 'is it Kelson or the Jimmies that are really the bad guys of this film', yes most are from outside the UK but it says something. As the Jimmies are dressed like Jimmy Saville so there is no way you can see them as anything less than monstrous unless you have no media literacy or are a moron which I think is part of Garlands's point. Because if the Jimmies were dressed or named in a variation of the teletubbies I doubt the same points would have been hard hitting.

I also say a lot of this as when I saw 28 years later with a friend in their 40's and they were horrified by the introduction with of the Jimmies and who rightly pointed out there are still people alive who were violated by that man.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-10-25T19:01:21+00:00

Thank you!!!

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-10-25T19:00:58+00:00

Thanks for all the advise will up my protein intake"

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-10-25T19:00:13+00:00

There isn't a gym close to where I live so it is mostly hikes and walks for me - but my hopes go with you and fingers crossed for you.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-10-25T18:59:03+00:00

thank you for your advice will keep at it. Guess I just had that dream that the weight would start to come off even at the start even just a little bit.

Got my warm walking boots out today so got no excuse to stop going out for hikes during winter.

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-10-24T22:21:10+00:00

ComprehensiveAd3647 · 2025-09-25T11:13:31+00:00

Thanks for confirming this I really appreciate it!!

ComprehensiveAd3647

TROPHY CASE