3 Historical Inaccuracies in Bridgerton and Vikings That Will Blow Your Mind
Alright, settle in, because we need to talk.
We’ve all been there, right?
You’re binging your favorite historical drama, completely lost in the world of corsets and courtly intrigue or fierce battles and Viking raids.
The costumes are gorgeous, the drama is gripping, and everything just feels so… authentic.
But then, a tiny voice in the back of your head pipes up.
“Wait a minute,” it says.
“Did people really talk like that?”
“Was that technology even invented yet?”
And just like that, the illusion starts to crack.
It’s a feeling I know all too well.
As someone who loves history as much as I love a good TV show, I’ve had my fair share of “facepalm” moments while watching what are supposedly period dramas.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to spoil your fun.
I’m the first to admit that sometimes, bending the rules of history makes for a much better story.
We’re not watching documentaries, after all!
But when a show takes some… let’s just say, *creative liberties*, it’s fun to take a step back and see just how far from the truth they really are.
Today, we're diving headfirst into the world of historical inaccuracies, focusing on two of the biggest shows that have dominated our screens: **Bridgerton** and **Vikings**.
We’re going to uncover some of the most jaw-dropping historical blunders that these series commit.
I promise, by the end of this, you’ll be looking at your favorite scenes in a whole new light.
So grab a cup of tea (or mead, if you're feeling a bit more Viking), and let's get into it.
Historical dramas are a delicate balancing act.
On one hand, you have the historical record—the facts, the dates, the artifacts.
On the other, you have the need to tell a compelling story, to create characters we care about, and to keep us entertained.
Sometimes, these two things are at odds.
And when they are, storytelling often wins.
Let’s start with a disclaimer: this isn’t a criticism of the shows themselves.
Both Bridgerton and Vikings are fantastic for what they are.
Bridgerton is a glorious, escapist fantasy full of romance and gorgeous visuals, and Vikings is a gritty, epic saga that captivated millions.
But their historical fidelity is… well, let’s just say it’s a sliding scale.
Ready to have your mind blown? Let's go!
---Table of Contents
- The Scandalous Truth Behind Bridgerton's Fashion
- Vikings: The Reality Behind the Horns and Hair
- Why These Inaccuracies Aren't Always a Bad Thing
1. Bridgerton's Regency Era: A Glimmering, Anachronistic Dream
Ah, **Bridgerton**.
The show that gave us the Duke of Hastings, the Diamond of the Season, and a whole lot of questions about the historical reality of the British aristocracy.
The first thing that hits you about Bridgerton is the visuals.
Everything is so vibrant, so lush, so… well, so modern.
The clothes, the music, the social customs—it all feels a little too perfect, a little too polished for the 1810s.
And that’s because it is.
Let’s talk about the most obvious one: the **fashion**.
The show is set in the Regency era, which spanned from 1811 to 1820.
This period is famous for its high-waisted, simple gowns known as empire waists.
They were elegant, yes, but they were also… pretty understated.
Think clean lines, minimal embellishment, and pastel colors.
Now, look at the costumes in Bridgerton.
What do you see?
You see bright, jewel-toned colors that were nearly impossible to create with the dyes available at the time.
You see intricate embroidery, elaborate beadwork, and corsets that are way more restrictive than what a Regency woman would have worn.
The truth is, while corsets were a thing, the Regency-era corsets were more about supporting the bust and smoothing the lines of the dress than cinching the waist to an impossible degree.
The famous "wasp waist" corset is a Victorian invention, a good 30-40 years away from the Bridgerton timeline.
So all those tiny waists? A glamorous lie, but a beautiful one nonetheless!
And the **jewelry**?
I’m a huge fan of Daphne’s diamond necklace, but the sheer amount of glittering, dazzling jewels on display would have been mind-bogglingly expensive and rare.
Diamonds were a luxury, not a daily accessory for every debutante.
The vibrant colors, the extravagant details, the sheer opulence of it all—it's less historical accuracy and more a romanticized, candy-colored fantasy of the past.
The show’s costume designer, Ellen Mirojnick, has even said that the goal wasn't historical accuracy, but a “fantasy of the period.”
And honestly? It works.
Now, for a smaller but equally telling detail: the **social season**.
In Bridgerton, the social season is a high-stakes, year-long affair where debutantes are paraded before society to find a husband.
In reality, the London social season was a very specific period of time, usually lasting from late January to July.
And while it was a crucial part of an upper-class young woman's life, the intense, high-pressure matchmaking we see on screen is greatly exaggerated for dramatic effect.
It’s all about creating stakes, right?
If they had to wait an entire year for the next season, the pace would drag!
Finally, let's talk about the **casting**.
The show’s color-blind casting is a deliberate and celebrated choice, and it's something that sets it apart.
However, from a purely historical standpoint, it's a huge departure from the reality of 19th-century England.
The British aristocracy was, for the most part, exclusively white.
Bridgerton’s decision to create a multi-racial high society is an intentional modern twist, not a reflection of the time.
As a huge fan, I love this choice.
But as a history nerd, I have to acknowledge that it's a massive, and intentional, inaccuracy.
It's all part of the fantasy, and that's okay!
For more details on the historical realities of Regency fashion, check out this great article from the **Jane Austen Centre**:
2. Vikings: The Brutal, Bearded, and Often Fictional Reality
Now, let's take a trip from the ballrooms of London to the brutal, muddy lands of Scandinavia.
The show **Vikings** gave us a glimpse into a world of fierce warriors, powerful gods, and epic sagas.
It’s a show that prides itself on its gritty realism, but even here, history takes a backseat to drama.
The very first thing that jumps out to most historians is the **horned helmets**.
Just kidding!
Vikings has, thankfully, avoided that classic, but totally fake, trope.
The real inaccuracies are a bit more subtle, but just as interesting.
Let's start with the most famous Viking of them all: **Ragnar Lothbrok**.
The show portrays Ragnar as a historical figure, a real man who led raids and explored new lands.
The thing is… Ragnar Lothbrok is almost certainly a legendary figure, not a single historical person.
He's a composite character, a collection of stories and sagas about several different Viking leaders.
Historians have long debated his existence, and most agree that he’s more of a mythical hero than a flesh-and-blood king.
The show also plays fast and loose with the **timeline**.
The show depicts Ragnar and his sons as living and raiding at the same time, but in reality, the events and characters depicted span several generations.
For example, the historical Ragnar (if he existed at all) would have been active in the 9th century.
His supposed sons, like Ivar the Boneless and Bjorn Ironside, were real historical figures, but they would have been active much later, and their lives didn’t overlap in the neat way the show presents.
It’s a classic case of condensing history to make for a more coherent and exciting narrative.
And let's talk about the **women**.
Lagertha is one of the most beloved characters in the show, a fierce shieldmaiden and leader.
The concept of the "shieldmaiden" is a popular one, but historical evidence for them is extremely thin.
While Viking women had more rights and freedoms than their counterparts in other parts of Europe, there is no solid archaeological evidence of women fighting alongside men in battles.
The stories of shieldmaidens come from sagas and myths, which are, by their nature, more fiction than fact.
So while Lagertha is an inspiring character, she's more of a mythological hero than a historical one.
Finally, let's touch on the **sanitation and hygiene**.
The show portrays Vikings as a pretty rugged, unwashed bunch, which fits the aesthetic.
But archaeological evidence and sagas suggest that Vikings were actually quite clean!
They were known for their love of hot springs, baths, and even had combs and tweezers in their burial sites.
They weren't the dirty, barbaric people we often see on screen.
So the grimy, mud-caked Vikings we see are more of a Hollywood creation than a historical reality.
For a deep dive into the historical realities behind the show, check out this great resource from the **National Museum of Denmark**:
3. Why Bending History Isn't Always a Sin
So, we've established that both **Bridgerton** and **Vikings** take some serious liberties with history.
The question is: does it matter?
And my answer is a resounding… sometimes.
Look, historical dramas are a gateway drug to history.
They get people interested in a period they might not have otherwise cared about.
How many people Googled “Regency era” after watching Bridgerton?
How many people started reading about Norse mythology after watching Vikings?
The shows spark curiosity, and that's a fantastic thing.
They make history feel alive and exciting, not just a list of dates and names to memorize for a test.
And let's be real, a perfectly accurate historical drama can sometimes be… a little boring.
The past was often messy, uncomfortable, and frankly, not very televisual.
Storytellers have to make choices.
Do they show the gritty, often unpleasant reality of the past, or do they create a compelling story that resonates with a modern audience?
Most of the time, they choose the latter, and I don't blame them.
In the case of **Bridgerton**, the show’s inaccuracies are a deliberate choice to create a more inclusive, vibrant, and fun world.
It's not trying to be a history lesson; it's trying to be a romantic escapade.
And in that, it succeeds brilliantly.
For **Vikings**, the show’s historical shortcuts allow for a much tighter and more engaging narrative.
If they had tried to follow the messy, fragmented sagas and historical records exactly, the show would have been a jumbled mess.
By creating a single, compelling protagonist like Ragnar, they gave us an emotional anchor to a complex and distant past.
The key, I think, is to watch these shows with a critical eye, but not a cynical one.
Enjoy the story, get lost in the world, and then, if you're curious, do a little research of your own.
Think of it as a starting point, not the final word.
And hey, if you're ever at a dinner party and someone starts talking about Vikings with horned helmets, you can drop some knowledge and look like a genius.
You’re welcome!
I found a great article from the **Smithsonian Magazine** that discusses this exact issue in more detail:
Historical Inaccuracies, Bridgerton, Vikings, Period Dramas, Historical Fiction
