#Bridgerton corsets

[arbitraryreveries]

Bridgerton & Deliberate Historical Inaccuracies

Bridgerton is not historically accurate. We know this. We don't care. I think it's fine. And who cares, really, if they fudge a thing or two? It's a fantasy. There's no need for it to be accurate about fashions, society, race, language, etc.

But the biggest category I, a Regency scholar, notice the historical inaccuracies in is not about annyyyy of the above.

It's about repression.

Specifically, ignoring very real repression or choosing to reframe it (race and a woman's place being examples) and adding in repression and ignorance that is easier for the audience to swallow. The kind of repression that makes us roll our eyes OR be scandalized ... not the sad, cruel, evil kind that actually happened.

My two biggest examples?

The ignorance about sex.

WOMEN OF THIS ERA WERE NOT IGNORANT ABOUT SEX TO THIS DEGREE.

This is because, like today, Regency women talked amongst themselves ... and because it wasn't that taboo of a subject. (You're thinking of the Victorian era with the "that was taboo" stance, and even then, everything kinky just went underground and therefore got more alluring. The Victorians were freaks.)

Have you read Jane Austen? Or like, any Gothic fiction? Or like ... books? Have you read books!?

If nothing else, there would be a series of discussions in an upper class household with daughters as they became teenagers in a "and that's why men are pigs and you should wait until marriage and then only think of Scotland" kind of discussion.

But even if there was a very sheltered (usually very religious or something like that) young woman in the Regency era who had not learned of sex, that is not the Bridgerton girls. I mean, they have THREE older brothers who are all RAKES.

In season 1, literally what does Daphne think "rake" means? Like, he ... goes and gardens? "Ah, yes, my brother Anthony, GARDENING with that OPERA SINGER how horrible." Like, in the setup the show sets up, SHE CANNOT BE THAT NAIVE.

Now, this one I do not think is purely the decision of the directors. It's a common (inaccurate, annoying) trope in historical erotica because for some reason, historical erotica writers have a kink about being all innocent and deflowered by a hunky rogue who you can't resist because you just CANNOT and it's his fault not yours you are innocent you're just a baby. (Y'all coming off purity culture or something? How's the therapy coming?)

2. The period thing.

Women in the Regency era did not just bleed all over their sheets/clothes/etc. Especially not upper class Regency women with means.

They had menstrual products. Granted, made out of cloth, and granted, probably not as effective, but they had systems set up.

And further, they probably were more aware of their cycles than we are today because it was a valued thing to have a period. Because it meant you were (probably, somewhat inaccurately) fertile and could bear children for your husband. So, sexist as that reason is, this idea that women a: didn't know much about their periods and b: didn't manage them in a sustainable way is hogwash.

Further, the fact that these chicks HAD PERIODS means they know why they're bleeding, right? 10/10 they do. I am not taking criticism here.

3. The corsets

*sigh*

We've all heard the corset drama.

And that's fine. I don't care. But I can't help but feel like the reason they WERE using inappropriately-sized, uncomfortable corsets that were more modern or Victorian in style is BECAUSE they wanted the actresses to get uncomfortable (or even injure themselves) and complain and get the media riled up about it.

Because if they had just used period-accurate stays (or even period-accurate corsetry), they wouldn't have ever had this conversation in the first place.

I am somewhat confused, though, because every chick on Bridgerton that I've seen get undressed was not wearing a corset or stays, but that's a conversation for another day.

Just ... I feel like Bridgerton chose its inaccuracies very carefully to craft a specific type of society, and that's fine. Again, it's a fantasy. Really, if you care, you're giving this far too much energy (and I already have given it far too much energy lol). But ... it just is something to be aware of.

[doomed2repeat]

Very unpopular Polin opinion in this fandom but every time I see that picture of Penelope getting ready for the wedding in her corset with someone saying Colin didn’t get to see her like that because he was sulking and how he missed out because he was being dramatic it annoys me so much. I know it’s just a joke but it encapsulates so much of what is wrong with how some people look at Polin and Colin.

Not letting Colin have agency and a proper reaction to things because Penelope is the only one allowed to have negative feelings. Everything he feels must be in service to Penelope or it’s belittled and treated like an overreaction or being dramatic.

And at the very least we should’ve gotten an equivalent thirst trap of Colin getting ready for the wedding so we can use that to meme how Penelope fucked up her chance at a fun wedding night with him because of how SHE acted. They both didn’t get what they wanted that night, but let’s be clear on who was asking who for a wedding night, and who’s fault it was that they were having this problem in the first place. Penelope stood ten toes down on messing up her own chance for a sexy wedding night, and if she’s prioritizing herself in that moment over sex that’s fine, but Colin should also be given the grace to do the same.

Penelope wanted Whistledown more than she wanted THAT on her wedding night, and I think people just don’t want to own up to that, or what it means. It’s easier to put all the work back on Colin rather than hold Pen accountable for what she contributed to the dynamic at play and for why that wedding night did not happen.

And this is an audience issue, NOT a Penelope issue, because within the show Penelope shows more understanding and patience for Colin than Penelope-centric Polin fans do at every turn.

Anyway, yeah, I know it’s a meme but the meaning behind it is irksome.

[maevelin]

I just realized...

Edmund Bridgerton: I can't- Violet Bridgerton: You must breathe! Penelope Featherington: Colin... I can't breathe! Colin Bridgerton: Absolute panic! Violet Bridgerton: MISS WILSON! Antony Bridgerton: Get some water! Eloise Bridgerton: Give her some air! Me:

[lemonhemlock]

tried watching the new queen charlotte series but was immediately put off by the ridiculous anti-corset propaganda, so get ready for another rant.

first of all, this is the georgian era so what she's wearing are called /stays/ - corsets are a victorian invention. why do we still not know this in 2023 when period productions have remained consistently popular throughout the years? the concept of tighlacing (the goal being a reduction of the waist) is also victorian and was not the norm at all and v much an extreme practice. this understanding of history is so superficial, it's as if an alien were to open up People magazine and conclude that all human women resort to butt injections and lip fillers to stay with the fashion of the times. also, no, you cannot tighlace in stays to obtain a waist reduction because they are shaped like a funnel (picture 1 = long stays, 2 = short regency stays, 3 = corset)

charlotte goes on to complain about how dangerous whalebone is and that it might kill her if she makes the wrong move. what the actual fuck? whalebone was actually the very best material to use for this because it was sturdy yet flexible and allowed the /stays/ to completely and comfortably mold around a woman's unique body shape. one of the reasons why today it is v difficult to replicate the same effect in corsetry is because we do not have access to whalebone (killing whales is not cool for obvious reasons) so corset-makers have to resort to other materials like plastic or metal, which CAN break. whereas whalebone doesn't really break as easily. furthermore, stays/corsets were NEVER worn on bare skin, but with a chemise/shift underneath.

why did women in the past resort to this type of undergarment, you ask? well, apart from the fact that women need bust support, the stays also serve the purpose of allowing all the many skirts and petticoats to be placed comfortably onto the waist. you try piling on that much fabric around your bare waist and see how you like it and if you can even carry it all around without it cutting into your stomach.

clothes throughout human history did cater to the popular fashions of the time, yes, but they also reflected the technological limitations and there was thus a practical aspect to it. this is a time before elastic bands, before industrialization and fast fashion, clothes are v difficult to make, everything is done by hand, so a lot of care is put into preserving them, because they are /expensive/ and labour intensive. you don't want your fancy outergarments to get ruined so you wear a lot of undergarments to absorb your bodily fluids since those are easier to make and don't have to look "pretty", can be stained and patchy etc. again, why do you need so many layers in the first place? because this is a time before comfortable heating, with poorly isolated and drafty houses, and it's bloody cold otherwise.

the third reason why that monologue was so dumb is because CHARLOTTE is the reason regency court dress was so preposterous. long story short, in a few decades, the fashionable silhouette changes wildly from the late 1700s to the 1810s.

the regency waistline was much higher and the gowns were much more flowy and unstructured than the late georgian ones (what's commonly known as the empire waistline). the long stays of the late 1700s were now replaced with short stays that really were similar to modern bras. the scene in the first season of bridgerton where they squeeze penelope's sister into what looks like a pair of long stays (?) is bonkers bc no one would wear a waist-constricting boned undergarment under a regency dress. why would they? the natural waist is not even emphasized in any way. this is just another reason to peddle the women-were-oppressed-by-their-lingerie agenda. so if charlotte really hated long stays that much, regency would really have been her time to shine, right? wrong. the woman loved the fashions of her youth so much she forced everyone who came to court to still comply to them, which is why we get the absolutely atrocious regency court dresses - essentially a combination of the georgian style with side panniers, but with an empire waistline.

yeah, this is how daphne SHOULD have looked like when she was presented at court in front of charlotte. i can understand why the showrunners decided to just leave her in a regency silhouette because this is ugly af. but, anyway, queen charlotte is the last person on earth to be complaining about how uncomfortable stays are.

creative licence aside, the reason this pisses me off is because it is SUCH lazy storytelling. the show wants us to know charlotte is a spunky pseudo-feminist character so the easiest way to do that is to have her complain about the evil 'corset' trying to kill her. it is so profoundly ahistorical and does nothing to contribute to the conversation about women's true problems and true limitations during that time. instead of genuinely exploring social history and women's actual lived experiences, we are STILL, in the year of our lord 2023, diverting the discourse towards fabricated issues that never existed in the first place.

the reasons actresses complain about boned underwear in interviews are manifold. costume designers are very overworked, they have to produce clothes for hundreds of people in a very short time, so they simply do not have the time or resources to construct corsets/stays that fit the actresses like they are supposed to. in the past, these garments were made individually for every person and completely to their own requirements. they also make these actresses wear the boning on BARE skin to look extra sexy to the audience or to emphasize their oppression - that never happened, a shift was always worn underneath (hello dakota fanning scene in the alienist??).

moreover, they lace them up until they constrict their ribcages - these women are already super thin and their bodies cannot support more reduction - instead of relying on the historical practices of padding and illusion. nowadays, body parts are what's fashionable - that's why so many resort to fat transfers or breast implants or starving themselves to achieve a flat stomach. in the past, anyone of any size could have accomplished the fashionable silhouette because they had a wide array of accouterments to plop underneath their garments - panniers, bustles, hoop skirts, padding of any sort. it didn't matter how big your waist was, you just padded other areas until you achieved the desired shape. fat women wore corsets/stays, too. working women, who did a lot of physical labour, did the same. how were they able to perform all of their tasks if they were incapable of moving or breathing? even today, people wear medical corsets all the time.

TLDR the media's obsession with portraying modern women as so liberated because they wear bras instead of "patriarchal" underwear is so tedious.

EDIT: Some very basic chronological tadpoles to make this easier to place within historical context. "Georgian" is used to denote the 18th+ century when Great Britain was ruled by several kings named George, so roughly 1714-1830. Within this interval, we refer to the Regency period as encompassing the regency of Prince George, future King George IV, when his father George III was incapacitated by mental illness. The official political regency took place during 1811-1820, but culturally speaking, this was extended to roughly the end of the 18th century up to maybe 1830 or 1837. This is the time period of Napoleonic wars and Jane Austen novels, so all her heroines should normally wear Regency styles. Think "empire waistline" as in Imperial France and Napoleon. The Victorian era (and its corsets) follows throughout the rest of the 19th century. Queen Charlotte was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette's, so they should be dressed in similar fashions (robe à la française vs robe à la anglais).

[hellwurld]

every day i think about how great of a character eloise bridgerton could've been. like she has her fantastic moments and i did love her and theo, but truly i think so much of her feminism falls flat, and it's a shame because she is so spirited and dedicated, but she's written in such like . a shallow ? way despite that if that makes sense

[colinfeatherington]

speaking my truth I thought the mirror scene was going to be more about her boobs

[goatsandgangsters]

tell me you've never read the buccaneers without telling me you've never read the buccaneers

girl help they're girlbossifying and decontextualizing Edith Wharton !!

what is this ~~~oooh the fieeestty american girls #disrupting #subverting the corset-wearing english aristocracy with their Bold And Daring New American Ways~~ when the buccaneers is literally a social commentary of how wealthy turn-of-the-century americans were desperate to elevate their social standing by enmeshing themselves as part of the english aristocracy and the misery their daughters experience after marrying and assimilating into the aristocracy. it is, and I cannot stress this enough, an exploration of nationalism and class anxieties, not some schlocky Bridgerton-esque ~spunky heroine romcom

[pastlivesfinery]

La Belle Assemblée, 1815

[mariemariemaria]

i really dont know whats driving all the pro-corset nonsense but its so annoying. girls were put into corsets from young ages, sometimes before they even reached puberty. mothers were often the ones forcing their daughters to wear corsets even though they didn't want to and rebelled against it. honestly i think being critical of corsets is important when discussing today's insane beauty and weight standards for women. 'tiny waist' crazes came in and out of fashion and waist goals could be as small as 16 inches, which is insane and there's no way you're gonna convince me that that's healthy or normal or feminist. how is that any different to women having weight or thinness goals that prioritise their beauty over their health? how is the fluctuating fashion for different waist sizes any different to how different women's body shapes go in and out of fashion these days? body shapes which are so extreme that they are impossible to achieve without either starving yourself ('herorin chic') or getting surgery (bbls). i think we do a disservice to ourselves if we ignore the similarities and dont learn from history tbqh

[thefabelmans2022]

@ bridgerton costume designers empire waist dresses don't require corsets and if the corset is dramatic enough it actually ruins the effect. just by the way.

[herbirdglitter]

Something that irks me in movies is not when period costumes are inaccurate, but rather when they’re perfectly fine and then the writers write about them in a way that’s batshit crazy

Like take Pirates of the Caribbean for example. Those movies were met trying to be historically accurate, why would they be? Yet still 98% of the outfits are at least historically possible for some decade in the 18th century and so it all feels believable.

Then came the writers with Elizabeth being tightlaced into stays (not physically possible) and she isn’t able to breathe (stays don’t work like that) and that smashing line “you like pain?try wearing a corset.” Ooooooh the drama. Girl they were not called corsets then but also, ???? It’s all comfortable walebone that molds to fit your body and it’s fitted perfectly to you? You’re the governors daughter, you can’t convince me your stays don’t fit you properly?? Why would it hurt??

And then there’s Bridgerton. Obviously Bridgerton’s costumes are purely based on vibes and in no world are they trying to be historically accurate which means I could easily forgive their lack of anything under their stays,

EXCEPT they made a point of showing the cruel marks and sores left by the patriarchal stays. How horrible. PLEASE. THAT’S WHY THE SHIFT IS THERE. It protects the stays from you and you from the stays. Nevermind you’re sweating directly into your stays and it probably smells like a swamp, you wouldn’t have the chaffing if you wore something underneath like you’re supposed to.

It’s like wearing sneakers without socks, going hiking, and then blaming your blisters on the cruel torture device that is your shoes.

And don’t get me started on the tightlacing scene. Yes, it doesn’t make any sense because you can’t see her waist in a regency gown, but again NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. METAL EYELETS WEREN’T INVENTED YET. YOU’D JUST RIP THE FABRIC.

I know it’s all just lazy writing shortcuts, tightlacing scene=tradition and oppression etc. but for the love of god, write a scene that’s at least physically possible

[sleepypeachii]

the princess bride 💍🩷

(finally posting sum wedding content!!)

[c-nan]

if eloise would’ve met young queen charlotte they would’ve been friends !

[summernightsdream]

[adamshallperish]

my back hurts, i need to sleep, and i'm about to start a tv show i just know i'm gonna hate

[eerna]

I agree with you. Her finding friendship outside of Penelope was refreshing to see. I also liked that the other girls started to find her interesting, smart and funny when she allowed herself to know them and be around them. She became less judgy and while she’s still questioning the standards of the time she could emphasize with them.

Anonymous asked: I understand why people call Eloise a bad friend and sometimes a “pick me” that being said I still find her character enjoyable and one of my favorite of the series. They could never make me hate her. Those are her flaws as a character and that’s what makes her more interesting.

These two asks are sort of tied with my reply so I am putting them together!

I feel like Eloise is the furthest thing from a pick me ahahahahah... She honestly despises marriage and her goal in putting other women down isn't attracting a man at all!! But also, I feel like the flaws the audience complains about aren't exactly intentional? The writers want her to be an awesome feminist who defies social norms, and I don't think we are meant to read her as judgy and unjust and ahistorically opinionated, but brave and forward thinking. That's why I appreciated when she changed her appearance to be more in line with the other women in s3, because I thought her friendship with Cressida opened her word a little and the writers were conscious of that... But then Cressida disappointed her and she decided to skip town and give up and I realized it was just prepping her for her Bridgerton Glowup TM for when her season arrives.

That's what I mean when I say I can't discuss Bridgerton characters like proper characters, because in the end every aspect of the show - the dialogue, the characterization, the story - is secondary to the end goal, which is to make that character as conventional as possible so they can be wish fulfilment for the widest range of viewers. I'm not saying you should all give up on liking characters or discussing them, but my answer will always be that I can't discuss anyone seriously bc the show won't let me.