What BRIDGERTON gets right and wrong about history. Is Bridgerton historically accurate? Regency era

What other (in)accuracies are there in this show that I didn’t get to, or (if you can’t think of any), what is your opinion of Bridgerton? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon at www.patreon.com/historycalling and my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling

The reason that's so many actresses speak about the torture of wearing a corset is because they are not wearing a properly fitted corset and they are not wearing it over suitable undergarments. Without those two things, a corset is very uncomfortable. Thank you, HC, for speaking up in defense of corsets. When I was younger, I was a reenactor, and I loved wearing stays.

I do wonder how many people base their historical knowledge purely on what they see on TV and in films

It's disturbing how many people think historical fiction means biography and film means documentary

Bernadette Banner recently hand sewed a set of Regency stays and a silk gown. She is an avid corset educator, and her channel is well-worth checking out for this aspect alone. Basically, I consider Bridgerton an alternate reality fantasy. Maybe, in some universe, the English Regency took place in the 21st century!

Inspired by American cowboys? During the War of 1812? Fifty years before the invention of blue jeans? Gobsmacked.

Bridgerton is a fun story with semi pseudo historical characters and storylines. I’m watching this to escape from our actual reality of hate and racism. Too bad the real world can’t be more like this.

Another titling mishap: Kate's step-mother keeps being referred to as "Lady Sheffield" by others in Season 2. However, she became Mrs Sharma when she married and I think the society would definitely have continued to snub her by reminding her that she became untitled with her choice of a husband.

In the books Penelope is at least 26 by the time the story of season 3 is happening (maybe even closer to 28), she's well and truly considered to be a spinster at that point & doesn't need a chaperone anymore

Fun fact: Did you know, while king Edward the 4th was searching for a wife; some of his representatives went to Castille and gave Isabella A necklace with his picture in it. Isabella reportedly kissed the necklace.

Thanks. As the designers say, they’re not intending to be historically accurate but it’s interesting to learn about the differences nonetheless. I think you’re bang on about the sexism towards the male actors, that puts me off watching Bridgerton far more than the historical issues.

It was interesting that you referred to the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice (one of the best tv productions ever, in my opinion) for an accurate representation of lady's bonnets during that period. Obviously the wet shirt scene for Viscount Bridgerton in Season 2 was a nod to Colin Firth's famous wet shirt in that same BBC production. Although he's a fine actor who deserves all his success, it's been noted that Firth's entire huge career, Oscar included, was launched by that sexy dip in the pond.

The lack of bonnets annoyed me to no end with the Kiera Knightlet P&P. I understand they wanted to be different from the BBC production, but don’t be so blatantly against fashion norms.

As long as it doesn’t frame itself a historic retelling then they can have as many inaccuracies as they’d like in my opinion (also the only times a teacher is mentioned is when Hyacinth tell Daphne her governess was wondering if Daph would marry the prince and also when Francesca went to Bath to learn pianoforte)

I heard something slightly different about Queen Charlotte's fashion sense: that she insisted on keeping with certain older and non-French styles in court which with out of touch with non-court styles

Something I'd like you to put under the microscope - Braveheart. A LOT of people came away from that movie thinking they had learned something real about Scotland. It takes itself more seriously than Bridgerton does and its storytelling is so effective and it's visually so immersive that it makes you want to believe it's a true story even when it isn't. That, and the fact that the movie seems to have had a political agenda (one where, being an American with no particular connection to England or Scotland, I have no strong opinion), makes me give it a side-eye, as much as I enjoy it.

THANK YOU for talking about Queen Charlotte. I'm so tired of people going around saying she was black.

"SHENANIGANS happen", how I love how you expressed that! I'm yet to enter the Bridgerton universe but I am now prepared to enjoy it without constantly saying to my husband "but that's not how it was!"

Reaction videos like this, featuring qualified historians, are extremely valuable, necessary, and appreciated, since we get so much of our history these days from dramatic sources. When I see a film rooted in history (or even someone's true story) the first thing I do is seek out context like this. I haven't seen "Bridgerton" yet, and I'm not sure if I have access at the moment, but I'll be keeping an eye out for it now.

That was ever so much fun, HC. Thank you! Although I was aware of all the inaccuracies you mentioned, it was still fun to see the skillful way you pointed them out, and let's face it: the show is a visual feast. I suppose the most glaring omission from the narratives, apart from completely ignoring both the Prince Regent and the horrible socio-economic realities of globalization, is the fact that the Napoleonic Wars were going on at this time, and the men of the upper classes were deeply engaged in them. Plenty of other film and television versions of famous novels (including Jane Austen, Tolstoy, and Winston Graham's Poldark novels) do reference what was going on in the world at that time, so it isn't a problem for those of us who don't take television as Gospel truth, but I had to mention it because it's a pretty big elephant to be missing from the room!