Yes, of course I watched Bridgerton.
I had lots of opinions but generally I enjoyed it. Similar to my thoughts on The Great, I liked the idea of just embracing that this was a fantasy version of history. It was full of inaccuracies but its goal is to be fun and escapist.
It was funny for me to see what kinds of inaccuracies I liked or didn't mind, and which ones infuriated me. Diverse cast? Great. Costumes made with bright, modern colors and embroidery that could only be done by machine? Ridiculous, but sort of fun.
A scene when someone is being tight-laced into a corset?
But perhaps my BIGGEST annoyance was the fact that QUEEN CHARLOTTE dressed in fashions that were at least 40 year old. She and her ladies-in-waiting were back in the 1770s while everyone else was generally in 1813 (except Lady Featherington who was just floating off into space by herself).
This is a weird period movie trope of having older, rich women wear things decades out of style. Not a few years behind. DECADES. Not a women who doesn't have the resources to stay up on the latest styles. A woman with RESOURCES. In this case THE RICHEST LADY IN THE COUNTRY aka THE QUEEN.
Like the corset thing, this one hits harder because it isn't just a fun, fresh idea that the production team wanted to experiment with. It is actually a dumb pattern that has been cropping up in period movies made in the 21st century. Here are some other examples:
Cranford takes place in the early 1840s. Above is Lady Ludlow, who lives in a gigantic estate and is the richest person in the whole story. She dresses like it is the 1790s, with her hair from even earlier.
This is Lady Catherine de Bourgh in the 2005 Pride & Prejudice. Not only the highest status person in the story but arguably in all of Jane Austen. The movie is set in the 1790s, but she dresses more like the 1760s or 1770s.
It is also worth noting that, while she is not as rich, the movie makes a similar silhouette choice for Mrs. Bennett.