Bridgerton Season 4: Will there be a Bridgerton Baby Boom?

In up to season 4 there is ongoing talk about the babies we may see, but these discussions often forget about the babies that we won't see (or haven't seen), and of course with the order and timeline changes in the show from the books the babies we may (or may not) see will be different.    

Image Credit: Netflix

Daphne and Simon: 

In the books Daphne and Simon had a girl first, Amelia, born in 1814, with Belinda, Caroline and David following each year after, finally Edward arrives 20 years after Amelia. 

In the show Daphne has a boy first, but they keep the alphabetical naming of the children, with August (Auggie) replacing Amelia as Daphne and Simon's firstborn.  We saw the birth of Auggie in season 1, and he made a couple of appearances in season 2, but as Daphne was not in season 3 we have not seen, nor heard about, her children in the main show.  However, in Queen Charlotte we saw Violet with 2 small children that were Auggie, and his little sister, showing that Daphne's second child was born in 1814. Following the books Daphne would have had a baby in 1815 (season 3), and should have her fourth by season 4. I doubt that the audience will hear anything about her other babies however. 

Image Credit: Netflix

Anthony and Kate: 

In the books Anthony and Kate have a boy, Edmund, in 1815, with Miles following a couple of years later.  Charlotte arrives 5 years after Miles, and Mary 8 years after Charlotte.  

In the show we have yet to see Anthony and Kate's first baby, however, season 3 ended with Kate heavily pregnant and Anthony inexplicably taking her on a six month periolous voyage to India. Will we meet Anthony and Kate's first baby in season 4, and will he be Edmund?  

I believe that there is a possibility we will see Edmund in season 4, there have been enough hints suggesting that Jonathan Bailey, and Simone Ashley, filmed with a child, and possibly children, (though whether Jonathan Bailey's slip about 'babies' was related to Anthony and Kate's or just babies on the show in general is unknown).  In addition to baby Edmund I would love to see Kate and Anthony with a second child, however, this is where I would be happy for them to deviate from the books and give them a girl second.  This would also allow some fleshing out of Kate's character (if Jess Brownell was so inclined) by using a pregnancy/birth or a baby girl to delve into more about her mother, and giving her mother's name to her baby - and I don't mean Mary. After all Kate said in season 2 that her mother had a name, we just don't know it yet.  

The question here is not whether we will see a baby or two for Anthony and Kate, but rather if Jess Brownell cares enough about good storytelling to do more than a surface level minute or two appearance of Kate and a baby in the hopes of appeasing fans. I would suggest not, but she might surprise us yet.  

Image Credit: Netflix

Colin and Penelope: 

Colin and Penelope's arc has had one of the most dramatic changes so far in the series with the shift in order and bringing their story forward by ten years, but that isn't the only big change with Colin and Penelope's story. In the books Colin and Penelope's first child is a girl, Agatha born in 1825 and named for Lady Danbury, then they have Thomas born in 1826, Jane born in 1828 and George born in 1831.  In the show this is changed, not only do they have a boy first, he also becomes the new Lord Featherington via a storyline centred on fraud (note that Penelope's father in the book was not a member of the peerage, he was a Mr).  The currently unnamed child was shown at the end of season 3, and from early stills we see that he makes at least one appearance in season 4.  The question now is whether Penelope will become pregnant in season 4, and will we see a second baby for Colin and Penelope? If there is a second baby will that baby be a girl?  What would they name her considering the relationship between Penelope and Lady Danbury in the show is not the same as in the book? My thoughts are that they should call their first girl Charlotte to honour the Queen (yes, I know it is Kate and Anthony's daughter's name, but I want to see their first daughter be named after Kate's biological mother).  

Image Credit: Netflix

Benedict and Sophie: 

I know we haven't seen Benedict and Sophie's season yet, and we don't know if we will see a baby for them in the season, but let's play 'what if' with this idea. Benedict's book comes third, before Colin and Penelope's, however the show has put Benedict fourth. In the book Benedict and Sophie have a boy first, Charles born in 1818 followed by Alexander (1820), William (1822) and Violet (1824).  The show has changed both Daphne and Colin's firstborn to a boy, so there is no reason why they can't change Benedict's firstborn to a girl.  I would like to see Benedict and Sophie have a girl first, and if season 4 follows season 1 and season 3 by showing the main couple with a baby in their season, I would love baby Violet making an appearance in the epilogue of season 4.  

Francesca: 

This one is interesting, like Colin Francesca's story has one of the biggest changes with her endgame being genderbent.  The questions raised is how they will address her wanting a child as in the boook where she had a miscarriage during her marriage to John but went on to have two children with Michael. If they are going to have Francesca give birth to the next Earl of Kilmartin then I believe that she will have a child while with John before he dies, which indicates that we will most likely see Francesca and John's child in season 4 based on leaks that suggest John dies in the season.  Of course they could leave it as Francesca being pregnant and not show the baby like they did with Kate.  

So how many babies will we see in season 4?  One is confirmed based on the stills released, rumours abound that we will see at least one baby, if not two babies, for Anthony and Kate, and if the show does give us Benedict and Sophie's first baby, and a baby for Francesca, there could be as many as five Bridgerton babies shown in one form or another in season 4.  

Netflix Erasure of Kate Bridgerton with "Just Anthony" highlighted

Netflix have not responded to any requests for comment on this.  

Update:  Netflix Tudum have updated their article, however, instead of updating the article with the inclusion of Kate Bridgerton (Simone Ashley) in the first paragraph they have merely removed the writer's name and given the byline to 'Tudum Staff'.  While I understand that this was potentially done to protect the writer from harassment, (I understand some fans have posted her linkedIn details and have said they contacted her through that), I believe that this has made Netflix look worse. I am not saying the writer deserves harassment becasue she does not, however, by removing her name and replacing it with a generic 'Tudum Staff' Netflix have made it appear that Netflix are protecting a white (or lighter skinned) woman whilst still diminishing and erasing a darker skinned woman of colour. 

I am not saying Netflix were wrong in trying to protect a freelance writer that does work for them, but if they listened enough to understand fans were angry with the writer why not fix their glaring omission in the first paragraph?  As it stands Netflix have still tried to erase, and diminish, a woman of colour on an article where White women are given equal standing to their screen partners.  Netflix need to do better. 

On 29 August this article was published on the Netflix Tudum site celebrating Jonathan Bailey's best moments as Anthony Bridgerton, including three moments from season 2 that included his onscreen love interest played by Simone Ashley.  The fact that these three moments were included, yet in the introductory paragraph Simone Ashley, and her character Kate Bridgerton (formerly Sharma) was not mentioned. Of itself it is not egregious considering that the article was about Jonathan Bailey, but the author included mention of Simon and Daphne, and Penelope and Colin, so that when it came to season 2 the author referred to "just Anthony Bridgerton" the exclusion of Kate (and Simone Ashley) was obvious, and seemed very deliberate.  The author clearly framed the season 1 and season 3 leads as equal in their stories, but for the season 2 protagonists the author dismissed Kate's importance to Anthony's story and love story.  That she eventually included Kate in a later paragraph does not redeem the author, but rather reinforces that the author - and by extension Netflix - does not value Kate's (and Simone's) contribution to the story of season 2, with Kate being mentioned almost as an afterthought.  

Screenshot of Netflix Tudum Article

If this was a one off situation then it probably would not have garnered quite the same notice in the fandom, but the exclusion of Kate as a character, and Simone Ashley as an actress, is an ongoing issue with both Netflix and Shondaland, leading many to believe that both Netflix and Shondaland have (at best) a problem with Kate (or Simone), or (at worst) have an active dislike of - or contempt for - Kate as a character (or Simone as an actress). Neither perception is good for Netflix or Shondaland. To continually exclude Kate from articles on Bridgerton, especially when directly connected to Anthony, and to continually exclude Simone Ashley from promotional materials, makes their claims of diversity and representation ring hollow, she is after all the Viscountess Bridgerton and was the season 2 lead. The continual exclusion of Simone Ashley (and Kate) from promotional content reinforces the perception that neither Netflix nor Shondaland prioritise representation of women of colour, or specifically the representation of South Asian women of colour. But worse, the continual exclusion of her by Netflix and Shondaland leads to other media outlets excluding her - or at least diminishing her importance in the show when compared to white counterparts. 

Image Credit: Netflix

One example is this article by gossip site Just Jared, where they are discussing the returning and new cast for Bridgerton season 4. In this we see that of the main cast members returning Kate is the only one that does not have a character description from Netflix, suggesting that Netflix does not care enough about Kate to include a character description for her. It should also be noted that there is no surname for the character of Kate provided, whilst the other returning leads (who are all white), have surnames listed for their characters. What does this say about how Netflix views the first women of colour lead in Bridgerton? Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern and three times is a choice, and to exclude, or diminish, the only dark skinned South Asian lead in Bridgerton is a choice that Netflix make over and over again. In doing this Netflix, and Shondaland, continually alienate and anger fans, most women of colour and many of South Asian heritage, they are telling these fans that they are not important, and that for them the South Asian representation is not important, further it tells everyone that Netflix prioritises white characters, and white stories over that of South Asians, meanwhile they will still use their South Asian Viscountess in promotion to entice those fans. Netflix's actions suggest that for them representation is superficial and meaningless. 

Image Credit: Netflix

The appeal of Bridgerton is the love stories, but you cannot have a love story with only one partner, so to omit one of the two partners in a love story diminishes the growth of both partners in the story. In the opening paragraph of the Tudum article, the author not only erased Kate as being important to the season 2 love story, but diminshed Anthony's arc by lessening the contribution of his screen partner, something she did not do for other lead couples. The fact that Kate is played by a dark skinned South Asian woman indicates a wider issue where women of colour - particularly dark skinned women of colour - are treated as incidental in the storytelling rather than essential to it, something that we see over and over when it comes to Kate Bridgerton. 

Image Credit: Netflix

The author's wording may have been intended as a clever way to show that Jonathan Bailey's performance as Anthony was the focus of the article, it did not come across that way to many reading the article. By referencing the season 1 and season 2 couple as a pair, each equal in their stories, the "just Anthony" line worked more to suggest that Simone Ashley's portrayal of Kate was unimportant in Anthony's story. We cannot talk about Jonathan Bailey's portrayal of Anthony without discussing Simone Ashley's portrayal of Kate, but this is what Netflix did, and has done, while using Kate (and Simone Ashley) to promote to the demographic that she represents, which diminshes the claims of diversity and representation in Bridgerton by Netflix and Shondaland. 

Note: I requested comment on this article from both the author of the article and Netflix, neither have responded.