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

[@HistoryCalling]

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: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/

[@DianaW3431]

I enjoy Bridgerton, and I don't get too bothered by the inaccuracies. I'm not sure why, because Netflix's Persuasion or Apple TV's The Buccaneers made me crazy, and I had to stop watching. I think maybe it's because Bridgerton has clearly crossed the line into fantasy, so I'm more willing to accept it. However, the other two shows seem to be inflicting 21st century language and ideas while still pretending to be historical. I don't know for sure, but I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this.

[@Lotsofcolour]

I love it and don't care about inaccuracies - it isn't a documentary. Love your videos , thank you.

[@JJMarie3509]

@@DianaW3431 100%. I can about tolerate it if it's fantasy, but when they claim to be "historically accurate"-no way.

[@tessdurberville711]

Having her bosom cinched up under her chin in every scene.

[@leahnichol6665]

One of the things I believe is inaccurate is that the younger Bridgerton men would have ‘careers’. Massively assisted by their elder brother, but still they ought to be in the army, navy or church. Perhaps an esoteric arm of the law for an egghead. I enjoy the series and treat it along the lines of Game of Thrones.

[@jldisme]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, absolutely. Now I'm no costume expert, but even I know that having a badly fitted item friction burning you all day is going to be painful and that our ancestors weren't that dumb (although that being said, women do have a long history of wearing painful shoes, so maybe we are a little daft in some ways).

[@laurenturner3578]

I can attest that if you do not wear a proper corset with certain period dresses, the dresses are very hard to wear because of their weight and how they hang. The corsets spread the weight away from the waist and make the dresses far easier to wear.

[@jldisme]

@@HistoryCalling the costume departments of films, I guess, just can't take the time to make a custom-fitted corset. But how hard is it to put a chemise on an actress?

[@kristinedunner988]

Also Your weight re wearing a more comfortable corset. Nicola Coughlin is pretty but fat..She suffered for her job, apparently😢​@laurenturner3578

[@tessdurberville711]

​@@kristinedunner988 Women who are "natural" and do not work out are easier to fit. The Italian extras used in "A Room With a View" were particularly easy because they did not exercise or have breast implants (a no no with corsets).

[@Claire_T]

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

[@HistoryCalling]

A depressing number. I saw someone trying to argue that Anne Boleyn was black after that Channel 5 show about her a few years ago. I kid you not! They claimed that the genuine comment made by a contemporary that she had swarthy skin meant she was black.

[@Claire_T]

​@@HistoryCallingOh no 😬 I feel like it's the same with films like Gladiator and Braveheart, yes they're based very loosely on real people and events, but they're complete fiction

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it's depressing how gullible some people are, even with regards to extremely obvious falsehoods.

[@stephencarrillo5905]

@@Claire_T Well said. I absolutely despise "Braveheart". It's one of the worst cinematic offenders when it comes to historical accuracy.

[@Claire_T]

@@stephencarrillo5905 The thing is, I love the film, the soundtrack in particular, it was only when I started learning about Scottish history in school that I realised how inaccurate it was. Especially the Princess only being a child at the time, the battle at Stirling Bridge not actually having the bridge in it to name a few

[@UnholyKat]

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

[@HistoryCalling]

It really is, yes :-(

[@LisafromNOLA]

@@HistoryCallingwhen watching shows like this I’ve always wondered how historians such as yourself are able to maintain any of your sanity as I would find it nearly impossible 😅

[@marythompson6282]

I’m prior service in the military and a history buff or history passionate, and between both those I go nuts with inaccuracy 😂. My husband who retired from the Army is even worse with military shows.

[@denisevincent4050]

@@marythompson6282 Right?

[@susanmacdonald4288]

So many people believed that everything in The Crown was completely true, when it was basically a soap opera roughly based on the Royal Family.

[@amandagreen4332]

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!

[@happycommuter3523]

Definitely an alternate reality, and Bernadette Banner is the best!

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, she's brilliant. I'm already subscribed to her 😊

[@NoelleTakestheSky]

Bnernadette’s life is an alternate reality. She irks me for the claims she maintains that aren’t true, like she wasn’t hired by Broadway. She comes from a wealthy family that pulled strings to get her a short, unpaid internship. Might seem a small thing, but it’s huge from a privilege standpoint. I was a big fan of hers for so long, but stuff like this eventually irked me too much.

[@raraavis7782]

​@@NoelleTakestheSky That's interesting. I've never seen anyone speak critically of her at all, but I have to admit, that this confirms a slightly uneasy feeling, I sometimes have about her. As much as I enjoy her content and personality, in a way she keeps reminding me of these 'Stay at home mums, who cook everything from scratch' channels, that present that lifestyle as some kind of idyllic fantasy. You just get the feeling, that she's roleplaying for the camera with her perfect esthetic and mostly mysterious background and life. It might not be a big deal, but something just doesn't feel entirely genuine about her. And never have that feeling with the other historical fashion KZbinrs I follow, like Nicole Rudolph or Abby Cox, who just feel like normal people, who happen to have a strong interest in the topic.

[@lorrainecasey749]

@@HistoryCallingme too

[@emilysewell6360]

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

[@HistoryCalling]

Yup. Like I said, they're def. not going for historical accuracy here :-)

[@emilysewell6360]

@@HistoryCalling I try to enjoy the show by accepting it for what it is, but so many things jump out at me. Still looking forward to watching S3. Thank you for your excellent history posts!

[@SugarWildflower-si4ox]

Pathetic 🤦‍♀️

[@judycat5544]

during the American Revolution, a cowboy was a loyalist band who would steal cattle to bring to the British lines.

[@ErinH-430]

Actually, cowboys as we know them originated in Spain. And the first cowboys that rounded up cattle for market in the U.S. were in Louisiana.

[@Tommie_the_wrath_of_Khan]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I agree it is lovely to see a world where all that nastiness doesn't exist (just like Star Trek!)

[@JJMarie3509]

@@HistoryCalling I loved your reference to Star Trek. I hadn't thought of it that way! There is a version of Mansfield Park (1999) that goes the other direction: it goes beneath the surface of some references in the book to bring out the context, eg, Sir Thomas' visit to Jamaica. It's a little darker than the novel but very interesting.

[@DlitMusic]

Ikrr, very true 💞

[@factsoftheconfederacy7151]

It should not even be seen as historical at all. It should be listed as purely a fantasy. The race mixing is disgusting too.

[@SofiiGolding]

So true. Wish Benedict would have a Sophie who is Eurasian along the lines of Jessie Mei Li. I am sick of his 16 hour orgies taking up important banter between the main characters especially in this last season. Ugh. He’s becoming a filler.

[@debbiecarter6430]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it is interesting how people can still get away with that sort of attitude towards men when there's been such a backlash against it with regards to women in the past few years. We'll have to wait and see how things develop, but I'm sure men will start complaining too about always having to look like superheroes and spend all their free time in the gym.

[@annmoore6678]

@@HistoryCalling It's my humble guess that we've been tolerant of the continued sexualization of male actors because, for so long, the female gaze was not acknowledged. One aspect of feminism was to legitimize female desire. That part is fine, but at some point we do need to balance things out. Bridget Jones got to sigh over Colin Firth's wet shirt in the novel, but does that mean that Jonathan Bailey has to have an even more extreme wet shirt scene? Food for thought.

[@lucindamakin1262]

@@HistoryCalling I managed to watch season 1 after considering it a historical fantasy to get over all the inaccuracies. BUT I couldn't watch after the sex scene between Daphne and Simon when he wanted to stop and she held him down (to get pregnant against his wishes). This is considered rape as he clearly wanted to stop and took away consent and she refused. Imagine if the genders were swapped, it would be an outrage. I hope it ages terribly as many people even now don't believe rape against men exists.

[@busylawbee]

@@lucindamakin1262 At the time, rape did not exist. Of course it's uncomfortable to watch but even if it had been reversed, you are viewing it with modern eyes with modern laws that weren't written until the 20th century

[@lucindamakin1262]

@@busylawbee of course, I was talking about why it is apparently accepted now, especially since if the genders were reversed there would be an uproar.

[@annmoore6678]

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.

[@LaLayla99]

And, for that, we are all eternally grateful. 😁

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I thought the same as soon as I saw the Bridgerton actor in the wet shirt. Firth certainly made an iconic moment there (and his shirt wasn't really very see-through at all). Just goes to show, you can create a huge cultural moment without nudity.

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

The Colin Firth version is not accurate to the book. The water scene was added to sex it up a bit for modern audiences.

[@dominaevillae28]

@annmoore6678 I think it is interesting because there is a lack of kerchiefs around neck and tucked into the front of the day dresses in the -1995 version.

[@maureenogorman8740]

As a person who loves history, none of this stuff bothers me. Because you know it's fictional. So not a biggie. Just enjoy it !! Great video !

[@YmustTh3w0rldg0r0und2]

Yeah I give it a pass because to me it takes place in an alternate reality worst civil rights happened 200 years earlier but only in terms of racism. I guess a bit on the sexism due to the fact that it's the queen running the court and government and not just social side of society.

[@biosparkles9442]

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

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, the ages of the actors don't match either the ages of the TV show characters or the book characters at all. I think Nicola Coughlan is 37 (maybe 36 at the time of filming) but Penelope is meant to be only in her third social season, so perhaps just 20 and the woman playing Francesca is about 28, not 17ish.

[@tessdurberville711]

Beatrix Potter still had a chaperone later than that.

[@justincheng5241]

I think my big problem with Bridgerton in general is that it romanticizes the Regency period to make it something it is not. The Regency Period was pretty much an oppressive period to the vast majority of people. Women in particular, even upper class women experienced the law of coveture which stated that they ceased being legal persons upon marriage, which meant that their husbands could pretty much do whatever they wanted to them. I find while Jane Austen novels do romanticize the period to a certain extent, there are hints in the novels that the heroines are the lucky few, whereas Bridgerton imagines a regency period where it is the norm for most upper class women to be relatively free.

[@kystilla]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

I can't remember the ins and outs of that character's background, but did she have a title from her first marriage or something? If so she could have kept that. Emily, Duchess of Leinster married a nobody (her sons' tutor - it was all very scandalous) as a second husband for instance, but she was still called the Dowager Duchess of Leinster.

[@AmandaIbraimovic]

one can keep a title as a lady when married to an untitled person

[@kystilla]

@@HistoryCalling no, it was a title she was born with, as her father was Lord Sheffield.

[@yamyrm3687]

@@kystilla What kind of lord was Lord Sheffield? If he was an earl she could be referred to as Lady First Name forever, single or married to a commoner. That happened in Pride and Prejudice where Mr. Darcy's grandfather was an Earl so his aunt was known as Lady Catherine and his mother as Lady Anne despite the fact they both married commoners because daughters of earls get this courtesy title. But I don't know if it applies to all the lords. She definitely shouldn't be Lady Sheffield if she was his daughter and not his wife.

[@JJMarie3509]

@@HistoryCalling and remember Mary Tudor, the French Queen.

[@zugabdu1]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Confession time - I've never actually seen it :-0

[@NCWildHeART]

I would love to see this as well. The story of Wallace is cherished by many of us Scots-Irish here in the South here in America

[@orlennmurphy6843]

That was Wexford’s moment of Glory! I knew people who worked on Braveheart and on Saving Private Ryan. They were handling the extras. Braveheart guy was going around confiscating wristwatches and sunglasses and still got nowhere near getting rid of them all. Saving Private Ryan girl was a VERY harassed costume department underling trying to explain to the extras that they could not have perfectly tailored outfits. It was one size does not fit all. A guy taps her on the shoulder. She sighs but refuses to turn around. “Scuse me, I can see you’re busy, but these trousers are a bit tight around the armpits.” She turns. “Oh! Okay, yeah. YOU get a costume change!”

[@elsiestormont1366]

😂​@@orlennmurphy6843

[@mi_kirsh]

@@HistoryCallingin a strange twist of fate, my genealogy has being a descendant of William Wallace, which some research tells me can’t possibly be true because he didn’t have children - at least not recognized ones. I’ve never seen the movie either but would still be interested in a ‘man vs. myth’ video by you about him!

[@SurferJoe1]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Joe. For the clothing though, definitely check out videos by someone like Bernadette Banner, as that area isn't my forte. As long as you just watch Bridgerton for entertainment and not real history, it can be a fun way to pass your time.

[@SurferJoe1]

@@HistoryCalling Your comments on the music actually make me re-think whether I belong in the audience for this one...

[@annmoore6678]

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!

[@HistoryCalling]

Of course! I should have mentioned the Wars. That was really stupid of me. Good catch :-)

[@annmoore6678]

@@HistoryCalling You had plenty of other interesting things to talk about!

[@fibanocci314]

Except they do discuss it in the first season, it's where Marina's lover George was unexpectedly called off to and what eventually gets him killed, and THEN they ignore it completely in seasons two and three as Colin galavants around Europe without a care and Benedict worries about his art. If they had just pretended it didn't exist from the beginning, that would be one thing, but to make it a major plot point first and then ignore it calls for much more suspension of disbelief.

[@BlackCatMargie]

I am a big Jane Austen fan, so maybe that's why I can't watch Bridgerton. It's just a modern soap, set in the Regency period. It's not my cup of tea. I found your critiques very interesting, though, as there's nothing like pointing out what's wrong with a show, to make us a bit more aware of the truth. Thanks again.

[@HistoryCalling]

Poor Jane Austen would have a heart attack if her characters were depicted getting up to any of these shenanigans. I mean obviously Lydia was off living in London with Mr Wickham before they were married, but we never 'saw' what they were doing.

[@KatieRae_AmidCrisis]

I too have been in no hurry to watch Bridgerton - I think for the same reason: my love for Austen, for the real period, and for genuine dress history; and my appreciation of and preference for productions that care to strive for a degree of accuracy.

[@roweng.4245]

Another Jane Austen "stuffy purist" here. I recall seeing a picture of some of the Brigerton gowns and recoiling in revulsion at the color palette. (Not to mention construction.)

[@lesleystephenson1868]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

Exactly. Where are all the bonnets? You see the same problem with Tudor era shows where they often won't show proper French or English hoods. 'Becoming Elizabeth' was a notable exception though. On the whole I really liked the costumes in that show.

[@paganpines]

The pigs in the house is where they lost me. There is no way the Bennets were intended to be muddy farmer folk.

[@2007VolkswagenJetta]

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)

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I wish they'd put a disclaimer or something at the beginning, not for me, but for those who take this sort of thing literally.

[@2007VolkswagenJetta]

@@HistoryCalling yes agreed. That way everyone could enjoy without the need to wonder why everyone’s in such bright colors 😭

[@reesedonaldson]

They have stated time and time again that it is “fiction inspired by fact” and “not meant to be a history lesson” I believe this was most clear when the Queen Charlotte spinoff came out. I feel there is a clear difference between this and say the Netflix debacle regarding the Cleopatra “documentary” which portrayed itself as fact.

[@2007VolkswagenJetta]

@@reesedonaldson let’s not even get into that Cleopatra show cause I will start crying. But yes I love how they made sure people knew Bridgerton was historic fantasy

[@fibanocci314]

In season two, Anthony and Gregory have a conversation about some problems with Gregory's tutor

[@stephencarrillo5905]

Great critique, HC! I appreciated your reference to the Whitechapel murders as an example of the harsh reality of prostitution. Canon Barnett, a vicar and social reformer at the time, wrote: "Whitechapel horrors will not be in vain if 'at last' the public conscience awakes to consider the life which these horrors reveal." Thanks, HC. Have a great week.🙏🏼

[@HistoryCalling]

THANK YOU SO MUCH STEPHEN. You're very generous, as always. Yes, I think it's a bad idea to make out that 19th century prostitution was somehow glamorous. It really wasn't (and isn't today either I hasten to add).

[@elsiestormont1366]

​@HistoryCalling I agree! You would hope that there would be more sensitivity to the exploitive dehumanizing realities of slavery and prostitution, considering that human trafficking is a worldwide institution to this very day.

[@NayNayNayzyNayza]

"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!"

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it's always fun trying to find ways to explain what happened without falling foul of YT's community guidelines and shenanigans is a great word to use for that. :-)

[@juliaswandanner6944]

Showrunners have said it's an alternate universe.

[@DarthDread-oh2ne]

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.

[@HistoryCalling]

I didn't, but that Edward did like the ladies. I'm not surprised he was after Isabella. Think how different history would have been if he'd married her!

[@westieweardogkilts9715]

Thank you SOOOOO MUCHHH for this video. As a theatrical costumer with a penchant for historic detailing I can't bring myself to watch Brigerton. It hurts my eyes and sensibilities (see what I did there?). I had to do some research on it for a client so watched a few clips. Want some extra inaccuracies? In the sex scenes I saw: costumes that came of VERY quickly, close up on zip up boots, a navy sports bra, and a heap of mannerisms that seem far too familiar and modern for the era they have set it in. I get that it's a fantasy but it seems like a sex romp in costumes. My issue (as other comments have mentioned) is that many people pin their understanding of historic eras on series such as this and the Tudors etc and will argue this position as absolute fact. I often get "but they wore their hair down all the time" or "this is a bit fitting, I can't relax in this outfit" when costuming actors. Gaaah. Makes my work harder. Just say something is anachronistic up front.

[@LizzieQueen18]

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

[@HistoryCalling]

Same here my friend, same here. It really is a terrible piece of pseudo history (aka a pack of lies).

[@RockChick63174]

Who says that? 😂😂😂

[@UnicornsPoopRainbows]

​@@RockChick63174 There were a TON of videos after Bridgerton introduced their Queen Charlotte. It happened around the same time Netflix tried to pass off a pseudo documentary with a black Cleopatra. The comment sections were just a travesty of confident misinformation

[@TracyD2]

⁠@@UnicornsPoopRainbowsI refused to watch that or anything Jada Pinket is associated with.

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

@@HistoryCalling that's the frustration in having real characters played by actors who are completely dissimilar. Imagine Tom Hanks playing Martin Luther King! That, along with the general ignorance in the world, results in people believing what they see rather than what's real. I was okay with Bridgerton's colour-blind casting until we ended up with four of the five relationships being of mixed race - at which point, it screamed too contrived for me, given the low numbers of black residents in that period and the lower still number of black peerages. Now we're expected to believe within the siblings LGBT characters. In the comments, someone suggested the next spouse be American Indian or Latino - as though there were thousands of them living in Britain at that time. I've given up on the series since they decided to turn Michael into Michaela and would not be surprised if he were revealed to be a trans woman. It's time viewers realised that wishing doesn't make it so and fiction and non-fiction aren't interchangeable.

[@carlaives7756]

Despite being a "period piece," Bridgerton is a fantasy. Shonda Rhimes, the show's creator, purchased the rights to a set of fiction books and has almost complete freedom to do what she wants with the story lines. The problem, as you noted, is the people who take anything like this as gospel truth and not just entertainment for entertainment's sake. In the Bridgerton spinoff, Queen Charlotte's story, there is a rather largish printed warning prior to the first episode that it's a work of fiction with characters based on history and much of it is the writer's whim. I don't remember if that warning is on Bridgerton or not. I'm a history stickler, but I love the show. I watch it for the sheer storytelling value. I think the mix of modern and past is delightful. However, accurate history it is not and doesn't pretend to be.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, you're right. There was a disclaimer on Queen Charlotte's spin-off. I only wish more people had taken it seriously. That show had almost nothing except some character names which was accurate.

[@vickihatley4041]

Thank you for adding that about Queen Charlotte's non-racial when that bridgeton show came out and showed her as a black woman the next day, I can't tell you how many of my friends call me up for me to have to say practically the same thing over and over and halfway argue with some of them. It got very frustrating. I wish people would stop screwing around with history. It's terrible when they play fast and loose with the truth

[@FireVixen164]

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

[@judycat5544]

The Court of George III had something called "court fashion" in which the men all wore blue embroidered coats and the women had to wear a sack back gown. The court gown that I saw for that period was a Regency high waist with short sleeves and 1750s sack back.

[@HistoryCalling]

I agree that the real woman could have been a little behind the times, but not to this degree. The issue with the fictional version of her is also more that she's presented as really having her finger on the pulse of everything and being very fashion forward, so I don't think her 50 year old style makes sense for her.

[@queencailo]

She did insist on keeping the side hoops from the late 1700s for women at court, even though the waistline had risen. Karolina Zebrowska just did a great video about the making of one of these insane dresses.

[@lynnl6979]

@@queencailo I was just going to mention this!

[@Wee_Catalyst]

@@queencailo.sigh. You know just enough to get yourself into trouble without actually engaging any critical rigor, well don’t you now The dress you’re referring to were official court dresses for special court functions, not what women of the court generally wore . . . 😂😂😂😂 Or just keep embarrassing yourself in front of people who have done actual research 🤣 Sounds like you need to pay more attention when watching YT videos since Karolina went into that in the video you’re referring to . . . Guess there’s no helping some people 🤷‍♀️

[@KatherineBurington]

I am living for the sass in this video lol thank you for shedding some light on the facts for those who might have been unaware of the accuracies and inaccuracies!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Katherine. Yes, a little bit of sass here and there never hurt anyone 😆

[@AnOldFashionedWoman]

I love your sarcasm and sticking to facts no matter what! Could you please give a lecture about the diversity of the English society throughout history to the likes of Suzannah Lipscomb? I recently watched a documentary about the Tudors in which she made it sound like a few pearl divers from Subsaharan Africa meant the English Tudor sociaty was oh so diverse. In that same documentary she called Francis Drake an *alleged* naval hero (if he was considered a naval hero in his time, then why downgrade him to an alleged one, if he wasn't why mention it?) and spent a few minutes explaining why Bloody Mary wasn't as bad as she's often made out to be (which I do agree with). I used to like her but she's obviously pandering to a few agendas now.

[@HistoryCalling]

You're welcome. Some historical inaccuracies just really get on my nerves :-)

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. I don't know about RJP, but I imagine he just knows there's no story for him any more. Look at how underused Phoebe Dynevor was in season 2. She was just background. It wouldn't have mattered if she was there or not. I guess he didn't want to get typecast either.

[@karenseward6405]

In reference to your comment about historical inaccuracies, I was watching a video about Queen Victoria last night and it was said that George IV’s daughter Princess Charlotte was Princess of Wales. That is not accurate, as a woman has not been Princess of Wales in her own right and the correct title for the Princess Charlotte of that time was Princess Charlotte of Wales. Just as it is for the current Princess Charlotte.

[@chilledoutmirage]

The 'colour blindness ' of the cast is what sticks out the most to me as an Indian woman. India was famously coming under British rule (Queen Victoria didn't assume the title of Empress of India until the late 1800s). Smaller monarchies existed in India and some of their members did come to the UK for studies or recreation. However, an accountant's daughters like Kate and Edwina would not be welcome in society.

[@Victoriacariad]

I've re-watched Bridgerton recently. Although governesses and tutors weren't seen, they were referred to several times. Gregory mentioned that his tutor was annoyed at him for his latin. I think it was Daphne or Eloise that was getting irritated with Hyacinth following them around, and asked "Shouldn't you be with your governess?" They should've had some screentime though!

[@HistoryCalling]

I'm glad there was at least a brief reference, but yes, a little show and tell here and there would help.

[@bethanyhait6880]

Yes, and in the Queen Charlotte prequel, we see Violet’s governess, who Violet says is teaching her Latin.

[@tessdurberville711]

Imagine Downton Abbey with only the Crawleys. How boring.

[@rebbeccahoneycutt7941]

I adore Phillipa Gregory's fictional version of the whole Cousin's War event, and subsequent royal dynasties. But I am also extremely well versed in the actual recorded history it is my most deeply studied. My dad was originally very angry that my interest lead me to historical fiction instead of fact until he saw my Christmas List that year full of authors of actual historical texts or historical time-line type books, the fiction I could borrow from the library to keep my feet wet. He bought the books requested, then started paying closer attention to my historal period and country references and started making it a world history collection for me! I love how often you bring her up for this reason specifically.

[@madoldbatwoman]

I doubt even Phillipa Gregory herself would recommend reading her books for historical accuracy! But oh yes, her writing keeps the pages turning. Reading 'The Other Boleyn Girl', the air of menace and threat was, I found, more disturbing than any ghost story or modern thriller.

[@rebbeccahoneycutt7941]

@@madoldbatwoman actually I'm pretty sure I've watched or read an interview or two where she specifically discounts the accuracy of her history. Main beats, big events, relevant characters mostly to/on point extra fun details of how everything came to be, well those are much more fuzzy and fun because this is fiction. And my favorite is the Boleyn Inheritance, from that set, not quite as fast but deep!

[@judycat5544]

It is sad that people believe that fiction is fact. A few years ago a TV series changed the timeline of someone's life to make it more dramatic. The next day someone changed that person's Wiki entry. As quickly as historians corrected it, fans changed it back. The page finally had to be locked temporarily.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yikes! Who was that?

[@judycat5544]

@@HistoryCalling It was the John Adams mini series, the series changed the year of the death of a family member to better fit the drama.

[@YmustTh3w0rldg0r0und2]

Oh God, they have to lock that forever.

[@LauraSomeNumber]

The one inaccuracy that really bothers me is the corset especially because you can see the full length corset messing with the drape of the skirts. I also find it annoying that they would use them when the actresses have expressed that they hurt, meaning they are not correctly fitted to them. I like the costumes using the inaccurate materials but I prefer them when the silhouette is correct. I did find Penelope's nails and Francesca's make-up over the top and distracting.

[@AquaMoonMaiden]

The stays aren’t actually that inaccurate. What’s inaccurate is how they were treated (tightlacing 40ish years too early) and layered. There was no chemise underneath to prevent chafing or to keep it clean, or petticoats over it to cover the stay edges and smooth out the silhouette. That’s the real fit problem. The stays were probably fitted poorly though (there are reports of the professional stay makers being told to cut corners to shave a faction of an inch off an actress’s waist) and the actresses likely weren’t given time to break them in properly. So they were wearing to corsetry equivalent of brand new unbroken in shoes, possibly a smidge too small, with no socks, for 18 hours a day every day. Ouch!

[@SharonLathanNovelist]

The undergarment in this period in England was "stays" which were actually quite different than the French corset. Furthermore, the French corset during the Empire Period (concurrent with the English Regency) did not look like the later heavy corsets. Point is, no one in England wore a corset because they wore stays! All stays were custom made by a seamstress according to exact measurements for each woman's figure (no such thing as store-bought) and they were designed to be very comfortable. Even a lower class working woman, who may not be able to afford a custom tailored stay and thus making do with what she could sew or what might be handed down, wore her stays all day long doing her work.

[@LauraSomeNumber]

@@AquaMoonMaiden they are only wearing stays in scenes where they are visible they are wearing corsets in other scenes so while Daphne's short stays are pretty accurate the corset Nicola has worn under her costumes is not.

[@AquaMoonMaiden]

@@LauraSomeNumber that’s fair. I was only counting the stays shown to the audience. I agree the ones they put the actresses in under the costumes are corsets, and incorrect for the era. The bust sits wrong on the chest.

[@87glassrose]

The thing that keeps coming to my mind as a laughable inaccuracy is the younger Bridgerton boys being treated as though they are just a good of a catch as the Eldest. They all would’ve needed to establish some form career in some form or another as I doubt they would be supported forever on the family funds which have passed to their elder brother. As a result they have no titles and are not by any means a “catch”. At best they’d be looking for girls who have large dowries. Most likely they’d be studying to become lawyers, doctors, or a solider.

[@tessdurberville711]

Or clergy.

[@87glassrose]

@@tessdurberville711 yep forgot clergy

[@madoldbatwoman]

I have to say I started watching it. I stopped 3 episodes in because of dear friend and colleague, who's no longer with us (12 years, and I still consciously miss her at least once a week). She was a massive history buff, especially the Regency Period. At 30 she had a Grand Party, it would be all the parties she wouldn't have rolled into one. The invite stressed to get really dressed up. Many of us wore the closest we could get to Regency style, she was wearing a gorgeous gown that all of the Bennet sisters would have fought each other for. She nit picked every single one of us who'd tried .... 😆... like a pleasant drill sergeant. Accuracy was important to Ruth. So I find I can't watch it without hearing her castigate the costumes and behaviours., and then I miss her. I do love your well balanced, kind, review. Ruth would definitely have been a subscriber of yours.

[@fibanocci314]

I'm so sorry for your loss and so glad that your Ruth lives on in you! She sounds like quite the character!

[@SirenaXVI6]

And this is why I have not and never will watch Bridgerton. Thank you for this video!

[@Morrigan71]

Thank you! This is why I lost interest in the show after one episode (well, in addition to it being just really poorly written Jane Austen fanfiction). The reason I originally got so interested in history was due to films like "Anne of the Thousand Days," and "Lady Jane." Although neither of these were completely historically accurate either, they at least got the major things right (like, the clothing, hair coverings, and what race people were). The reason I loved these films was because they allowed me to escape the modern day completely and become immersed in a different time. Today's "period" pieces do not even try to do this. They are insufferably "of our time" and hold zero appeal for many people who used to be fans of this genre. I don't understand why if you want to tell a modern story, you don't just do that and leave "history" out of it, because there really isn't any left after they dissect it and rewrite it for these productions anyway.

[@leonardo.diCATio]

26:80 I'm a history/social studies education major, and I get real questions from my family genuinely curious if Queen Charlotte was truly black. It was very saddening to have to explain to them that the slave trade was alive and well then, and that unfortunately was not a reality

[@kyote1089]

Another in accuracy that irks me in many shows like this is thinking that they can go to the lone modiste that afternoon to have freshly made dresses for that night's ball. This seems ludicrous to me. 😅 In S3, George comes of age and we hear him say he will soon be off to Eaton. But, you're right, we never see anyone (other than young Simon) _actually_ being tutored in any way.

[@gracideaflower]

I'd love to see more videos like these, comparing popular films/tv shows with actual history - I know you’ve mentioned Philippa Gregory's novels in some of your Wars of the Roses and Tudor videos in that way. Films like The Other Boleyn Girl and shows like The Tudors have a lot of glaring inaccuracies that people often take as fact.

[@ludovica8221]

Thank you so much for this, I am afraid I could never enjoy watching Bridgerton for all the reasons you cite, I think it is MASSIVELY irresponsible to depict the past in such an inaccurate way. To show people of colour being treated as equals in the Colonial and Imperial past, kicks sand in the face of every one the people of colour who have suffered throughout history and those who have fought hard over the past 300 years for such equality as there is today. People who can glibly say "Its not a history lesson" should then set their story in outer space, in the far future where their imagination can run free and not use a soft focus, sanitised pastiche of a known past as just (badly conceived) set dressing for their very odious sub-Mills & Boon bullshittery. There is no reason why an historically accurate depiction of the past cant be entertaining as well as informative There are very strict rules about who can use a title, and heraldry. The rules are easy to research, Its not impossible to find out who is a "Miss" and who is an "Honorable", Who is "Lady Park" and who is "Lady Jane Park" and what the difference is... Its just a bit of homework that the makers of this frightful series cannot be bothered with and they ought to be ashamed, The truth is that the past is not a "romantic setting" and they didnt even bother getting the clothing and hair right, so it makes even more of a nonsense of setting it in Regency England which was a bloody awful place, that 100% ran on the profits from exploiting the less fortunate at home and abroad. People who think Bridgerton is a good thing arent seeing that this is the TV equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns as they gull a whole new generation into false beliefs about the world around them and the lessons of history and the sacrifice of countless lives to get them to a place where they can complacently watch revisionist anodyne garbage propaganda on TV and think that the past was all jolly good fun. This crap would only be acceptable if they all wore elf ears and fairy wings and rode hover skate boards and made it absolutely plain that its NOT Regency England in any way

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I agree with a lot of what you say. I too have serious reservations about rewriting history like this and worry about the damage it does because so many people believe it, but it seems to be very popular at the moment and I can understand the argument of some that it's nice to see people of colour more onscreen and not always in slave roles if the show/movie is historical. I guess only time will tell how problematic it might turn out to be if we start getting serious problems with slavery deniers in the way that there are Holocaust deniers.

[@ludovica8221]

​@@HistoryCalling Personally I think that by endorsing this trash, the actors are playing right into the hands of a slavery denying narrative. Yes, it is good to see people of colour on screen, representing modern civil rights achievements, MLK, Obama etc and current roles, modern day and futuristic, ......but in roles that could *never* have been taken historically by a person of colour it seems to me actually worse than a white person playing "blackface" because they are serving a "colour blind" agenda that has literally never existed, except as a complacent modern fantasy. This denies the truth and reality To make the arrogant assumption that everyone who sees this show has the sophistication to understand this as a bit of inconsequential 21st century fluff designed to entertain is reckless in the extreme. In a society where the media *even now* feels it necessary to remind us plebeian halfwits that 13 years ago, and before marriage and three kids, the Princess of Wales used to be called "Kate Middleton" it is hard to swallow that the broad brushstrokes of Bridgerton, stripped naked of any historical context whatsoever is really believed to be innocent. Colour blind casting is blurring the lines of reality to such an extent as to substantially hamper the teaching and awareness of history for years to come. We are being not just asked, but expected, and even shamed into be stupid and undiscerning enough to facilitate a "lowest common denominator" ideal where all the world gets along just fine 'n'dandy. Personally I am disappointed in influential actors like Adjoa Andoh endorsing this, but I guess everyone has a mortgage. There has to be powerful narratives of the 18th & 19th century that could more honestly depict an African point of view? To me, Bridgerton smacks of pandering. Jane Austen herself is known to have read the works of some abolitionists, but even she knew enough about the world she inhabited to not to sprinkle England all over with people of colour. Miss Lambe, in Sanditon was "half mulatto" meaning she had *only one black grandparent*, and three white. This was unusual enough to remark upon, so we can be confident that this one lady was the full extent of diversity in "Polite Society" at the time, at a modern seaside resort, ...AND she was very rich. I totally get that minorities need to be represented onscreen. I just dont think we should be misrepresenting them.

[@leticiagarcia9025]

Despite of the inaccuracies in this show it is fun to watch. Love the message, IDIC. I see the featheringtons as bottom feeders, but Penelope didn’t deserve Colin forcing himself onto her inside that carriage. Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth is my favorite. Colin Firth is the best Mr. Darcy in my opinion. Thank you for this video. I enjoyed it.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Leticia. Yes, Firth will always be my favourite Darcy, just like Connery is always gonna be my favourite Bond :-)

[@leticiagarcia9025]

@@HistoryCalling Connery is my favorite James Bond too.

[@Twisties34]

I didnt mind season 1, the costuming annoyed me a little bit but was able to let it slide (mostly), yeah the music of season 1 should not have been modern but it had to appeal to a younger audience, so that was ok. story lines though ugh, the whole oh we have to get married, someone saw us together in the garden! BS *cough* Season 2 I dragged through, the fight between Pneleope and Eloise and Penelope being the one to write the paper. What a mess. I also hated everytime they said "ton" instead of town, I don't know if that was really how they spoke or just an American interpretation. But Modiste this and modiste that, they had to get to the modiste. I'd never heard the term before. I own and have read countless books from the time period - Including Miss Austin. The presumption that a single seamstress can make THAT many gowns for people in such a sort amount of time is ludicrous. It was all done by hand and took HOURS!!! Most girls wore made over gowns, not new ones. But this seamstress can whip up 5 ball gowns by the time you've drank your tea! I can't even bring myself to watch Season 3. Watched one episode and 10 mins of episode 2. I can't. It's too horrible. Even skipping every few seconds. Nope. Too trashy. Too American. And as for the Gilded Age. SMH. No. Just no.

[@sazzlepopz1553]

I much prefer the nonsense of Bridgerton to The Real Housewives of wherever. It's just drama to relax in front of 📺 Good to see this video available for any viewers that want to check if it's historically.

[@cherrytomato6139]

Bridgerton is a fantasy. This is all right as long as people actually understand this. It is full of inaccuracies but fun to watch for those who don't care for precision.

[@tweetledd4709]

Let me give a nod to Phillipa Gregory; she got me started on the Tudors and I’ve been hooked on the British -and by extension, the French, German, Russian and Spanish-monarchy ever since. I still occasionally dip into historical fiction as a sorbet, a light refreshment, while tussling with Russian names or sorting out Henrys and Williams. All this to say that history is fascinating but not all are inclined to study it until enticed by entertainment. (Much like geometry which was a void until I needed to figure out how much wallpaper I needed.)

[@AXEL00754]

Thank you for another fascinating video. I also applaud your well-balanced comments about the recorded ethnicity of the characters portrayed. I have often wondered about the accuracy of the well illuminated ballroom scenes of it and similar historical shows set during night-time, prior to the creation of gas-lighting.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, the lighting has got to be inaccurate. Fires and candles in large quantities are good of course, but not that good. Still, I can understand why shows/movies are inaccurate in that respect. It's no good if we can't see them after all and they get criticised if they stray too far into accuracy and we end up looking at an almost black screen (looking at you Game of Thrones).

[@zenkittystudiowithdarklily1110]

Thank you. I enjoy Bridgerton series, but as a history major I see those glaring inaccuracies. I consider Bridgerton to be an enjoyable escape from reality, and like the campy movie “A Knight’s Tale” starring Heath Ledger, fun, irreverent, but not history. I struggled a lot with the racial diversity issue, as a history graduate. I didn’t want to be accused of being prejudiced, but ….History! you know. We can’t rewrite it. Also the claim of Queen Charlotte being biracial bothered me, as there is almost no evidence to support it but folks keep trying to claim it based on a few bad paintings and an obscure ancestor that was likely Spanish moor descent. But the reality is that such a connection is so far removed by centuries that it’s unlikely one darker ancestor 200 years earlier would influence the appearance of a descendent that much. It is sad to see people trying to force historical facts into changing for modern sensibilities. I struggled with whether or not I wanted to watch this series because it’s so badly done, from costumes to lack of chaparones, etc. In the end, I am glad they chose to be inclusive, like showing how diversity “could have” been if people were more open minded 200 years ago. It is a pretty show, after all. I’ve read the books, and as a historical romance author myself, I really am disappointed with how the producers took such liberties with the author’s creation. Kate Sheffield, an English young lady, became Kathani Sharma from India for TV show, it changes the character’s journey, their internal struggles and beliefs… basically it changes the personality completely from the author’s original source material. (The author being the creator of that character) Also the love interest for Francesca in her upcoming story is rumored to have changed gender from a Michael to Michaela, again. Totally ripping apart the author’s work to fit this show into a modern culture. i just think it’s insulting to the author to diverge so much from their work. But thank you for sharing these historical notes on the show. It is hard to ignore those glaring historical inaccuracies and character changes.

[@tessdurberville711]

Julia Quinn sold out her characters and her stories just as George R.R. Martin did with Game of Thrones, for an executive producer credit and a large pay check. I hope that you have more scruples and protect your creations when a production company comes calling.

[@JenniferBrown-hm4sx]

I was quite distracted by the makeup as well. Especially Penelope’s bright red lipstick during her sisters ball and her confession. That much makeup would have been scandalous in England at that time.

[@julieratliff6705]

Other inaccuraces? How about there's not been a single mention of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). Surely someone should have been off to war at some point in time? Even if it wasn't one of the actual Bridgertons, SOMEONE should have gone to serve under Wellington or Nelson.

[@joshspencer1]

I know it’s probably not practical, but I’d love to see a collaboration between you and Bernadette Banner on historical fashion!

[@HistoryCalling]

Oh she's way out of my league in that area. I'm not a dress historian. I'd just be sitting there drinking in everything she was saying 😊

[@revgurley]

Always learning something from you. Thank you! I've considered the Pride & Prejudice from 1995 to be superior to those before and after, and not just for the costuming, which is lovely. Haven't watch Bridgerton (I'm the last person on earth without Netflix), but if/when I do, I'll make sure to note the costumes. Interesting point about making the ladies into eye-candy, or the guys with sheer shirts. Not sure why you have to add that to a good script with good actors, but alas, I'm old-fashioned.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. I love P&P (1995) as well. I don't mind 2005's version, but no one beats Ehle and Firth for my money. :-)

[@spunkybkworm]

The whole show is based on a series of romance novels so the eye-candy (and steamy scenes) aspect is integral to the style/aim of the storytelling...

[@jeffarmstrong1308]

I haven't seen Bridgerton because of the current trend of British and American TV to be completely colour blind in their casting. I just could not ignore the trope that a coloured woman could have any rank in that era. Another programme (name escapes me just now) portrayed Anne Boleyn with a coloured actress! She did a beautiful job of playing Anne but I just could get around the complete impossibility of her skin colour to truly enjoy the show. By being so [colour blind] they completely ignore the true situation that coloured people found themselves in back in those days. Your analogy to the colour. blind world of Star Trek is particularly apposite.

[@StorsieNessie]

Totally agree. If the shoe were on the other foot, there would be public outcry and gnashing of teeth.

[@emilybarclay8831]

⁠@@StorsieNessieplenty of black characters have been played by white peoples throughout history. Angelina Jolie played a black woman in 2007’s ‘A Mighty Heart’ and no one cared. Ben Affleck played a Mexican-American in the 2012 movie Argo and no one cared. A white man played Michael Jackson in the 2016 movie about him and no one cared. You’re just wrong.

[@HistoryCalling]

I remember the Angelina Jolie movie. I think there was some backlash though, but it helped her massively that the woman she was playing is still alive and gave her blessing to Ms Jolie portraying her. Nevertheless, I don't think AJ would get that role today.

[@HistoryCalling]

Ah yes, that was Jodie Turner-Smith in a channel 5 production. I saw people writing comments under YT videos after that came out saying that Anne was actually black and that that is what contemporaries meant when they said she had a swarthy complexion. Absolute rubbish, but it shows how gullible some people are.

[@diannebdee]

Thank you so much for putting the whole Charlotte debacle to bed. I agree completely with your conclusions and I think it's ridiculous, as with Cleopatra, to force a narrative based solely on modern day politics.

[@avantegarde-rl4vi]

Everytime I see the older Queen Charlotte, I have to laugh. She looks like a man in drag.

[@katiesmith2447]

The shoes were the worst break in reality for me. In QC, there is a scene where they zoom in on her changing shoes into a fancier evening pair, and they are just so inaccurate. I understand costuming, but why specifically draw attention to something so wrong?

[@HistoryCalling]

I know. They just went with entirely modern shoes. Still, we should be grateful that they aren't wearing 21st century prom dresses (looking at you 'Reign').

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

Bridgerton's first series started the ball rolling by having one of the circus performers wearing stilettos 120 years before they were invented. It's impossible to take the programme seriously when costuming makes such serious mistakes.

[@ns-wz1mx]

Hi Hc! i’ve never seen this show, as i wasn’t sure how inaccurate it might be. perfect that you made this!!

[@HistoryCalling]

Oh you should check it out just for fun. It's not true to history, but if you take it for the daft bit of light entertainment it's designed to be, it can be a pleasant way to pass an hour.

[@ns-wz1mx]

@@HistoryCalling great way to look at it, i think i’ll give it a go!!

[@kalayne6713]

I once commented on the historical inaccuracies on this show and was absolutely trashed for my remarks, particularly in reference to the black characters. Apparently, the majority of viewers dont care about accuracy, only entertainment. I didnt watch anymore. I like to learn from my entertainment but learn the correct history and not an alternative reality.

[@emilybarclay8831]

For a show that openly advertises its status as historical fiction, a lot of people get VERY upset about the historical inaccuracies in this historical fiction. Whenever anyone tries to argue that this show ‘rewrites history’ I laugh. It’s not TRYING to be a historical source lol it’s as historically accurate as game of thrones!

[@HistoryCalling]

Wait, you're saying the dragons in GoT weren't historically accurate? ;-)

[@emilybarclay8831]

@@HistoryCalling as much as my welsh mum would disagree, alas I think they weren’t 😂

[@piratesswoop725]

@@emilybarclay8831 The show doesn't even tout itself as historical fiction, the showrunners straight up call it historical fantasy! They're completely open about how most of it is pure invention!

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

Presumably, the difference between Game of Thrones and Bridgerton is that the former has no actual historical characters appearing on screen.

[@NoelleTakestheSky]

Bridgerton is a historical fantasy, which is a genre of fiction. If it was sold as historical fiction, it would get more leeway.

[@salonikantidwivedi9434]

When I started watching bridgerton, and over the course of time when I have now seen all three seasons plus Queen Charlotte's series, I knew that it was a wishful re imagination of some of the historical facts and the book series. Being an Indian, seeing Indians as part of British aristocracy from the regency era, is actually quite painfully amusing because I am aware of how Indians were treated by the British here in their own country, India (which was a British Colony). So I chuckle looking at Sharmas and Samadanis in the series.

[@nadiabarrett5195]

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it. I'm not against mixing modern and historical when it's done as parody, actually the series "The Great" does it nicely, but it's so obvious (even the tagline is "an occasionally true story) that there's no danger of misinformation. I can enjoy it because I don't take it seriously and since I do know enough about real history I can tell the difference. Yet I do wonder what is being accomplished (other than sheer entertainment and the almighty dollar) by modernizing period drama ...it even sounds like an oxymoron. You can't claim it's introducing audiences to something they wouldn't have watched otherwise because effort has been made to make it "blend in" with current trends. It's just a modern show with a lavish costume and set budget, but as you rightly pointed out, even those aren't really "period". There's a cost to this (when not completely blatant) because true history has a wealth of wisdom for us, but the Hollywood version glosses over the real gems.

[@edasterner2444]

Thank you for this! I've been trying to enjoy Bridgerton but the costumes have been driving me bats. Half the stuff Lady Featherington wears hadn't been invented yet (or maybe not outside of a brothel) and poor Queen Charlotte is lost in the previous century. You were already my hero; now you're my goddess.

[@HistoryCalling]

Ahh, thank you very much. Happy to help :-)

[@angelicagaldos]

That is one of many reasons why we (my parents and I) can't get into the show.

[@ChristChickAutistic]

Bridgerton reminds me of an alternate universe Regency Era fanfiction. That's not an insult, as I've read some good ones on Wattpad, lol!

[@vickiamundsen2933]

i've made my peace with the clothing etc. but i cannot get used to this behavior where at the end of a dance, the couple bow to each other and then He Leaves Her Standing on the Dance Floor instead of escorting her back to her family and/or chaperone. Good grief.

[@thescarletgraywitch8052]

Your side comments had me giggling throughout the video! Love the information and all the humor thrown in between. 🥰

[@lynnl6979]

Wait, Philippa Gregory isn't history?! Shocking! I watched some of season 1 of Bridgerton and it was relatively entertaining but I got tired of all the sex. I prefer things a little more 'off screen.' I can get past the costumes in some ways, like the colors because they did have brighter colors than we often thinks, but after a while the little things start to grate on you. I feel the same way about the queen's clothing as I did Mrs Bennet's clothing and Lady Catherine's clothing in the 2005 P&P. An older woman doesn't mean she is completely out of touch. And the same goes for the hair. If you are watching a movie meant to be in a specific time period why wouldn't you want the hair to match? The hair in the 2005 P&P and in Sanditon was so modern it just takes you right out of things. Thanks for this very balanced take on things. I think I will probably skip the rest of the seasons. It just isn't my thing. (I love reading historical fiction but I don't like this take on it).

[@ninabooker2904]

I love history and respect truth TOO much to watch Bridgeton. I tried one episode but could only stand 15 mins before I turned it off forever. TY for the analysis.

[@avantegarde-rl4vi]

I'm the same way. I guess I'm a purist and can't stand the modern take on historical dramas just to get views. I've only seen clips of Bridgerton and that was enough.

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

@@avantegarde-rl4vi it's got worse with series 3 - by, along with colour-blind casting, adding LGBT themes to the 1800s.

[@margaretpepper3550]

This whole saga is a pack of historical lies. 200 years ago there were no black people in England apart from a few sailors, & they were certainly never part of the English gentry!!

[@paulacapps]

Thank you for telling about the inaccuracies galore. I’m a history buff of those times so I cringed at first. It’s not the this might be a better scenario of life back then, however we learn from history. ❤

[@kristinapreedy7069]

Thank you; I enjoy Bridgerton completely as historical FICTION but it always makes me want to know more about the real period and how the show (and books) differ from what life was really like. I especially appreciated your last comments on the pros and cons of how the show depicts a blended society - very thought-provoking.

[@sheriking4041]

In regards to Queen Charlotte’s ethnicity, I have heard that she may have had a 16 great grandmother that could have been black. I did a DNA test that said I had 1% African decent (which I didn’t know) which could only have come from my mother’s Portuguese descent and I do not look African or Black. On my father’s side my 1st great grandmother was Native American which I resemble more but I show no DNA from. So my thoughts are that if Queen Charlotte had any African decent it was so far back that all the generations between removed any visual reference to those ancestors.

[@HistoryCalling]

I've read that claim too, but never seen a verified family tree to support it. As you say, even if it was true, the generational gap would be too much for her to have looked biracial.

[@paulan7218]

yeah, that’s probably partly because Native American DNA isn’t included in most DNA tests

[@PrincessQ-fj9ly]

I'm pretty sure Bridgerton was never meant to be historically accurate. And we were told that historical dramas aren't really history lessons. Not that I need that disclaimer since I've been looking at documentaries since I was a teenager. All that being said, I still love Bridgerton. 💕 I love the glamorous period drama, from the fabulous balls to the beautiful period gowns. 👑 It's not perfect, but it's definitely worth a watch. I also love the spin-off Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story! 💕👑💕 Learning how Regency was really like was very interesting though. 😊 Probably wouldn't want to live during that time period though. 😅

[@HistoryCalling]

Oh it's def. not meant to be historically accurate. The problem though is that most people won't watch the documentaries like you do. They'll look at Bridgerton and think that that is the real Regency era and then it can be very hard to dissuade them. That said, I still watch it as a bit of shiny, fluffy fun and of course so that I can roll my eyes in a long-suffering, all-knowing manner and say 'but that's not what would have really happened' or 'they would never have worn that' and then feel smug. 😊

[@DlitMusic]

💯 😊👍🏾 The show is glamorous and enjoyable, though I definitely would not want to live in that era either.

[@Evenstar9092]

I’ve had a few well meaning people insist I watch bridgerton. I always try to deflect as gently as possible. I don’t want to cause hurt or offence. But I simply can’t. The creators just took too many liberties with history for it to be enjoyable for someone actually interested in that history 😢

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

What about the biggest inaccuracy? It's 1813 when it starts, & there's apparently a non-existent Navy, & only two soldiers in the British Army; Marina's lover, & the General Daphne gets in contact with, & no more than a vague allusion to the Peninsula Wars --- there's no disabled poor soldiers in the streets, no sign of militias being billeted at Hastings' village, no officers on leave at parties, no mention of an officer using his matured prize-money to purchase a lower title like a baronetcy^- no fundraising for a relation's widow, to arrange a pension- there's no discussion about campaigns, battles, allies- **the wars** (which had been going on & off, for the better part of *three* decades by this point, from 1789-1813, 24 years have passed) -- some people have grown up only knowing war; being absent from, &/ or losing acquaintances, friends, relations, & *family* ... They've added what they wanted to, & ignored whatever they felt like, for the drama - people *cared* about what was going on in the world around them, no matter what their social class; the idea that the wars just somehow wouldn't register with them, because they're rich gits who care only about gossip, is absurd- a ton of officers (ie. of the upper classes) were wounded & **died** It's ludicrous. And as for commenters who've said Jane Austen's stories had 'minimal' references to military matters- the hero/ LI of 'Persuasion' was in the Navy (as were most of Jane's brothers- she was very aware of what was going on, but they're ignoring that her writing was forced to have a certain form, because she was 'a lady'/ genteel- & even then, she was as subversive as she dare be at the time - this is what happens when people only watch adaptations, without reading her actual writing; she had to be creative with how she wrote, in how she phrased things- to get published - people who've read her work more closely understand how she was masterful in using subtle language to critique numerous things). This whole 'Hur dur- it’s obviously not historically accurate; it’s meant to be a bit lighthearted & fun- hur dur' - it's so asinine. Either commit to the goddamn world you're portraying, or don't bother -- it's Gossip Girl in an unintelligent & shallow Regency skin-suit... ^Something that was discussed in a kind of docu-drama/ larp-thing called 'Regency House Party' - other than a couple of minor issues- I **loved** watching that show.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, you're right. In hindsight I wish I'd mentioned the Napoleonic Wars and the fact that they AREN'T mentioned by the show. It's another major oversight. People were indeed reading newspapers, not just gossip columns like Lady Whistledown's and they were interested in & learning about what was happening in the wider world.

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

@@HistoryCalling The s2 subplot of the 'American cousin' is also problematic in this regard - being only 2 years since the War of 1812- & I believe British Loyalists were expelled, after the American Revolution (most going to Canada)- so his remaining in Georgia would render him an 'oddity', at the least- if not have him held in deep suspicion...

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

I sarcastically refer to it as the Americanised version of history.

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

@@voulafisentzidis8830 You know it! It reminds me of one of the big challenges my guy, Peter Weir faced in adapting 'Master & Commander'- the antagonist in the book it was adapted from was actually an American ship (America & France were allies, of course)- but American money-men were not in favour of that, apparently thinking that American audiences would be torn over who to support, so they made the enemy the obvious French. Even 'Hornblower' & 'Sharpe'- which, as TV series, had financial & cinematic limitations, had the proverbial balls to shine a light on the complexity of historical alliances in their series...

[@reluctantfangirl1621]

THANK YOU. I love the show for its escapism and romance, but I have a hard time with revisionist history. Especially when you are using true historical figures, like Queen Charlotte. We do need to keep in mind that most of the landed gentry were funded by slavery overseas. These were people who saw themselves as better than and profited off of people of color without even a blink. To suddenly make these people seem warm and accepting seems like a disservice to those that suffered under these conditions. Some have argued that it is drawing more people to the history of the time, and that gives the opportunity to open discussion. My problem with this is whether those people are following the show with education on the subject, before they have those conversations. I also thoroughly enjoyed some of Philippas White Queen series and had quite tge same issues. So yes, I do think you can enjoy a dramatized telling of history, but as with every thing these days, do your research!

[@HistoryCalling]

You're welcome. Yes, I think this is going to cause a lot of issues with people's understanding of the real history, just like The Tudors and The White Queen/Princess have really skewed public understanding of the later Plantagenet and Tudor eras. You're correct too that so many of the real Regency era aristocrats were involved in slavery in some way or another. We would never dream of showing slavery in the American south in these kinds of fuzzy terms (nor should we), so I think it's a bad idea to gloss over it here, as though it wasn't happening.

[@zenkittystudiowithdarklily1110]

I have had similar difficulties with the revisionist history. It made me put off watching the first season for a year or so after it released. I enjoy the series, but realize it’s pure fantasy, a costume drama/period piece soap opera

[@mbarrasing]

I understand your critique, but in this particular case the revision is one that is very openly stating that it draws on history as inspiration rather than being intended as a an interpretation of history. The series is created by a Black woman, and has a number of Black writers on staff who are re-imagining how Black and other racialised folks could have existed and participated in colonial politics in the early nineteenth century. It is important to remember that because the choice to omit references to things like slavery in that context is not out of ignorance or with intent to shield audiences from the colonial/genocidal attrocities of the past, the show creators are well aware of those and understand their significance to Black and racialised communities. The show imagines an alternative history in which 'the great experiment' was used to welcome and share power with racialised people (better explored in the Queen Charlotte show) to make a point about 'what could have been' and to explain why in this alternative world racialised people are able to hold political power and influence. The intent of the show is also to give racialised audiences an outlet through which to enjoy a light, happy piece of historical fiction which allows them to imagine themselves as something other than a slave or servant. It gives people options to imagine the past without being forced to reflect on the trauma of their histories. If it were more historically accurate to show racial inequities the impact would be that racialised people watching the show would not have the opportunity to identify and enjoy an imaginary world in which their race dictates their value in society. In short, the point of the show is that it is not an accurate retelling of history but is instead a lightehearted revision intended to provide racialised viewers a respite from the traumatic events of the past, and an opportunity to feel represented and identify with characters they are seeing on screen. In the case of the book series your critique I think applies very well because it was written by a white woman for a white audience, and the omission of the historical realities that allowed the characters in those books to enjoy frivolity is a means of erasing the underlying violence those characters were guilty of, but the TV show is reimagined with the intention to challenge white audiences to imagine Black and racialised people as more than their past trauma and as having been just as capable of frivolity, power, and joy as anyone else in the past.

[@maryloumawson6006]

I made it through 2 episodes of Bridgerton before giving up, even though I had low expectations at the time. I just couldn't get past the inaccuracies, especially when doing it right would have made it MUCH more interesting. Perhaps I'm biased in favor of history. But it seems crazy to me that a film or series with an obviously large budget would seek to promote such a false impression of a bygone era. I'd rather watch a show that tries, but fails due to budget concerns or lack of knowledge about the finer details than one that actively throws accuracy out the window. Disney princesses have been shown with more accuracy than this series demonstrates, for heaven's sake! So I thoroughly enjoyed your critique, and hope with all my heart that this type of travesty is not perpetrated on the public again. If the truth isn't interesting enough, a fantasy can be set on some distant planet that does not pretend to be 18th century Earth.

[@HistoryCalling]

Haha, you made me smile about Disney princesses. My personal favourite (in terms of the look of the movie) is Sleeping Beauty. It's just gorgeous and resembles a medieval painting. I never get bored looking at it. You're correct too. Some of them do seem to be more historically accurate than what we see in so-called period shows.

[@tyishastephen]

I agree. How hard was it to stick to the books. It would not have been that boring. I just don’t get it.

[@KeicoOhashi]

Thank you for an excellent study to show us how accuracies are there in this show. We learn from your video, how lack of attention and thought we have been, watching many historical novel.

[@Pixiestix4681]

For the governess comment- in season, hyacinth does say something to the effect of "my governess has the same questions as me" when she's asking questions about the prince

[@voulafisentzidis8830]

The prince wasn't in the books....

[@Pixiestix4681]

@voulafisentzidis8830 we're not talking about the books here. We are talking about the show...........

[@barbararedner4634]

And in season 2 Gregory talks about his mean Latin teacher.

[@proroller1921]

My fiancé loathes my tendency to point out flaws in shows / movies. I’ve done this all three seasons of this show as well lol.

[@vernon2542]

Great video, love how you explain things so well. Thank you HC look forward to the next one.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Vernon. Probably back to the Tudors next week, unless I suddenly change my mind.

[@denbeesewswhat9841]

Firstly, fist pump 👊🏻for pointing out the objectification of men in TV - the double standard is incredibly frustrating! Very interesting and entertaining video and likewise it's sad that people watch shows like this and assume it's historically accurate which then goes towards pushing the lives of the less fortunate in this era onto the sidelines of history.

[@HistoryCalling]

It's bizarre isn't it? Why is it people will still say the most outrageous things about the blokes? Not that people don't say inappropriate things about women too, or that women aren't badly treated in the industry (still worse than men on the whole I believe), but at least we're now firmly heading in the direction of that not being tolerated and certainly not openly like this.

[@jldrake3424]

Account number four. No, I don't watch it all the way through four times. I just put it on in the background on low volume while I'm doing something else. I just think you do amazing content and want to support your channel.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you four times over 😊 😊 😊 😊 I wish all my subscribers were as supportive as you. Yes, it's good background viewing, I agree.

[@brittanybacon5002]

Love this! Thanks for covering so much history :) I do want to mention: there is a tutor in Bridgerton: the Duke of Hastings’. Please see Season 1.

[@simon112]

To be honest HC iv never watched Bridgerton, most of the historical shows /series on TV very few if any are accurate when it comes to history, thank you as always HC. ☺️👍

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, that's sad but true. I will say thought that on the whole I was happy enough with Becoming Elizabeth and was sad it didn't get a second series.

[@simon112]

@@HistoryCalling I agree HC I watched becoming Elizebeth one of the few shows that I found to be very good, it's a shame they stopped it, I did like Victoria to be they binned that show to. ☺️👍

[@simon112]

I have a question HC, what historical mystery would you like to know the answer to?. ☺️☺️

[@rmelg9892]

I really like all your videos and have learned a lot from them, but in this one it was fun to hear you talk about clothing, since you rarely do so. Thank you for all you do!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. Yes, as I'm not a dress historian I don't like to stray into that territory too often in case I mess up, but I am interested in it.

[@KatieRae_AmidCrisis]

​@@HistoryCallingas well as Bernadette Banner, Nicole Rudolph and Abby Cox are great sources for dress history. If you don't subscribe to them already, I would recommend 😊

[@reneesylvestre-williams3912]

Regarding 200 years ago, those people who take shows and books as gospel need to read history books including Indian and Caribbean histories.

[@ginadoyle4089]

I like Bridgerton ok but it’s too smutty. And I am no prude. It just makes me want to rewatch P&P and Persuasion from 1995.

[@Shane-Flanagan]

Yep all these period dramas turned into bodice rippers. They seem to think we won't watch it there is little to no smut 🙄

[@dorym8045]

Well done. And there are so many people that ‘buy’ the false version of any history.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, sadly there are. It's particularly bad these days with regards to the Wars of the Roses and The Tudors.

[@kate_cooper]

I haven't actually seen Bridgerton, and I probably won't, it doesn't really seem my sort of thing. But, from some of the publicity shots, it looks like the costume department's brief was "Make sure the ladies' dresses have Empire lines, but aside from that, use your imaginations and whatever materials you've got". Also, the cartoon at 22:39 made me laugh once I'd read it, naughty humour is timeless.

[@saskade6682]

Based on the interview, that's exactly what happened. They said they just wanted an accurate silhouette, and would use modern fabric and embellishments otherwise.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, they mostly stuck with the silhouettes then went crazy after that. Yes, those cartoons are funny. My upper level patrons got a couple more this week too.

[@SurferJoe1]

By now I'm quite accustomed to the line from the producers/directors/art department that "we're not giving a history lesson". As a former film worker, I certainly agree; but the larger question for me is not in the taking of liberties but making them work. I would argue (and have argued with co-workers!) that if it's drawing a lot of my attention it's probably not working. Camera work, sets, costumes, editing, props, music, etc. should be harmonizing with the performers and story, not competing with them, and I find the examples you've shown here not only a bit distractingly out of period, but also a bit noisy. If they're meant to create a stylized reality, I still need to buy it- i.e., to believe it. I'd be curious what folks here think of 1964's "My Fair Lady:, especially the race track sequence, which tried to make a bold visual statement while remaining true to period.

[@HistoryCalling]

It's been a very long time since I saw that version of My Fair Lady (though I saw a modernised stage version of it in about 2017 that included a rap song in the middle, but which was still quite good). I know what you mean about distracting though. The outfits, hair, makeup and nails in Bridgerton actually pulled me out of the storytelling at times because they were so incongruous with the time period supposedly being shown.

[@SurferJoe1]

@@HistoryCalling Language is always the big sticking point for me in period pieces. I can't stand hearing modern slang used out of period. There should be a craft of getting even minor dialogue period-correct. Hearing a wrong phrase is, to me, like seeing the wrong car go through the scene.

[@timstoomanybooks]

Loved this video I was very exercised with the Milk Scene in the first book and first season. The series occasionally makes a nod towards ladies maids but I thought it took until the third book before the author discovered servants properly. I miss the lack of valets. According to accepted dramatic convention, well-travelled people like Simon, Duke of Hastings and Colin Bridgerton ought to have pleasingly eccentric thugs and/or pirates as their valets. For me, the best known example of letters of patent being altered so that a Dukedom passes through the eldest daughter is the Dukedom of Marlborough. As you said it is rare and always a very direct inheritance. Also not something that can be willed using dodgy documents. The inaccuracy that intrigued me most in the latest season, is that Colin Bridgerton arrives back in London sometime around June 1815. He doesn't seem to have had any difficulties travelling through France, even though he seems to have gone from Marseilles to Paris over the preceding month.

[@tempest2000]

Thanks for the video, well done. I have two comments, the first regarding corsets. I’ve noticed a lot of defense of corsets in recent years and it’s probably true most weren’t “torture” but considering I hate a tight waist band on my jeans and corsets were required for hundreds of years, I am still on the anti-corset side. I saw an experiment on another historical channel that resulted in less oxygen getting to the muscles during exertion due to forced thoracic breathing and an immobilized diaphragm. Plus, hot and sweaty in the summer! Second, I read one or two of the JQ books and I couldn’t discern much of any concern for historical accuracy. JQ writes what they used to call “costume dramas” not historical. Fun stuff but just fantasy.

[@Lady_dromeda]

Penelope’s ill fitting dresses made me think that they were Phillipa or Prudence’s old dresses

[@HistoryCalling]

Ah, maybe. They are quite different shapes so their dresses wouldn't fit her. Good catch. 😊

[@tenaoconnor7510]

I was disappointed by this season. Especially by Penelope’s hair and wardrobe. I also thought the love story part was rushed without important details. I expected the wild fabric and colors but the fit and style of her dresses did not flatter her figure and the style of her and her mother’s dresses threw me out of the story. She looked a bit like a wrestler. The fact that she didn’t have a shift on under her corset irritated me, none of the women wore shifts, so stupid. Also I think there was too much sex and too little story. The book was better, filling in details with thoughts and more story. Benedict sex scenes were a bit much for me, I fast forwarded through them, not something I was interested in watching.

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

The Baron Kent-thing probably had something called a Special Remainder- where, after male heirs were exhausted- if the grant had included a Special Remainder for, 'heirs male of my sister', 'heirs general' (meaning it could pass to female heirs, after the males), or 'heirs male whatsoever'- the latter of which could explain why it bypasses the boy's mother- even though the title is coming to him, from her side of the family. Edit: You mentioned the Special Remainder!

[@Whookieee]

I just love your content!❤

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you very much :-)

[@cezz789]

As always, another fantastic video ❤. Thank you so very much for all of your hard work, it’s appreciated so very much 🥰.

[@HistoryCalling]

And thank you for watching and commenting :-)

[@juliaforsyth8332]

My daughter suggested I watch Bridgerton and I groaned after hearing so much negativity. But I loved it. The obvious base of the era embellished with wrong era costume, material, music made it actually a lot of fun. And the lovely men helped too!

[@marypagones6073]

Hey, some of us don’t have great skin today even with access to all those modern skincare products!😂 Random tangent-re: Jack the Ripper’s victims, the book The Five (which profiles all the victims) questions that all but one of the women were sex workers. It’s a great read and highly recommend it. Great video-I haven’t watched Bridgerton, but I agree that the missing presence of the Prince Regent is an interesting anachronistic choice, versus other fictions set in the period. So the “compromised and must marry”trope beloved of Regency romance novels is somewhat accurate?