Media Today released an objective defense debunking Perfect Crown's "historical distortion" backlash. They essentially confirmed my own take: the symbolism in this show is completely systematic, not accidental. But my "neo-feudal modernity" interpretation actually answers the reporter's biggest burning question: Why did this alternate version of Korea never declare itself an empire? That's exactly what my theory accounts for, and given the court behavior and narrative texture of the series, it's highly defensible.
In the real world, long-surviving monarchies constantly preserve obsolete rituals long after their original geopolitical purpose vanishes. Look at the UK preserving medieval parliamentary traditions, Japan's imperial court clinging to Heian-era ceremonial structures, or Thailand maintaining layered sacral court traditions within modern constitutional politics. So before someone tries to argue otherwise, my take isn't "anti-historical." It’s just rooted in a different kind of historical logic, one driven by institutional inertia, ceremonial conservatism, and continuity over rupture. That is exactly how an alternate universe can operate. It proves the creators were strictly focused on internal timeline worldbuilding, not some ulterior agenda.
“The Grand Lady of the 21st Century — Is It Really So Much ‘Historical Distortion’ That It Should Be Scrapped?”
You can criticize the issue of setting it as a royal court rather than an imperial court… But is defining it as “historical distortion” and demanding the program’s abolition excessive?
The backlash against The Grand Lady of the 21st Century is fierce. This drama, set in a constitutional monarchy kingdom, has drawn criticism for allegedly degrading Joseon into a vassal state (제후국, jehuguk) of China. Even though the production team and lead actors issued apologies, criticism has continued pouring in, including demands to recover government subsidies invested into the drama and petitions calling for the program’s cancellation.
A Drama That Consistently Depicts It as a “Kingdom”
The parts of The Grand Lady of the 21st Century that became controversial are that the officials shout “Cheonse” (천세, cheonse, “ten thousand years” reduced to “one thousand years,” a lower-ranking acclamation traditionally used for kings rather than emperors) instead of “Manse” (만세, manse, “ten thousand years”), and that the ruler wears a guryu myeollyugwan (구류면류관) — a crown with nine hanging bead strands — instead of the emperor’s sibimyeonryugwan (십이면류관), which has twelve strands. Critics argue this treated Korea as being at the level of a Chinese vassal state.
The historical verification itself is not wrong. This drama consistently maintains the setting that even modern-day Korea remains “Joseon” as a kingdom (왕국, wangguk). The setting itself is not an imperial household (황실, hwangsil) but a royal household (왕실, wangsil). The supreme ruler is portrayed not as an emperor (황제, hwangje) but as a king (왕, wang), and the king’s son is called seja (세자, crown prince of a kingdom) rather than taeja (태자, imperial crown prince). Even the gonnyongpo (곤룡포, dragon robe) worn by the king is not the yellow robe reserved for emperors.
If the issue is that Joseon was portrayed as having lower status than China, then titles such as king and crown prince should have been considered problematic from the start. In the process of consistently portraying Joseon as a kingdom rather than an empire, it is difficult to view the use of “Cheonse” and the nine-strand crown — both actually used in historical Joseon — as incorrect.
Was Joseon, where the king wore a nine-strand crown and officials shouted “Cheonse,” merely a petty vassal state? It is true that Joseon was influenced by China, which at the time was East Asia’s strongest power, but Joseon still possessed sufficient autonomy distinct from a tributary or vassal state. Sadae (사대, literally “serving the great”) was at the time one method of diplomacy, and expressions or clothing based on that premise are difficult to regard in themselves as disparagement.
Regrettable That It Was Not Treated as an “Empire”
However, it is true that bringing this “kingdom” setting into the modern era increased the potential for controversy. Moreover, considering that the drama is broadcast through global platforms, criticism that this is regrettable was inevitable. The most puzzling point in this drama is why the country in the drama is a “kingdom” rather than an “empire” (황제국, hwangjeguk).
Alternative-history works popular in web novels and similar media are not genres where any development receives praise merely because imagination exists. What matters is gaeyeonseong (개연성) — plausibility, narrative believability. The premise has to feel convincing to receive positive evaluation.
Historically, Joseon maintained tributary-investiture relations (조공책봉 관계, jogong-chaekbong gwangye) with the Ming and Qing dynasties for a long period. However, after passing through modernity, it discarded the name “Joseon,” which had originally been chosen by the Ming dynasty, adopted the new national title “Daehan” (대한), and proclaimed itself an empire.
This drama is an alternative-history work that applies a fictional scenario beginning after the era of King Jeongjo, so it does not pass through the historical upheavals of Joseon’s decline, such as the Japanese colonial period.
The issue is that the proclamation of empire was also omitted, and it is questionable whether there was any need to exclude that. Even applying the alternative-history setting, as China’s influence weakened during modernity and as the nation entered into treaties and established equal diplomatic relations with other countries, there was more than enough possibility that it would break away from Chinese influence and proclaim itself an empire. This is closer to a problem of “reality” or “plausibility” than historical distortion.
Are Repeated “Historical Distortion” Criticisms Toward Fusion Historical Dramas Appropriate?
The expression repeatedly appearing in the barrage of criticism against the drama is “historical distortion” (역사왜곡, yeoksa-waegok). It is difficult to define this drama’s setting — which preserves Joseon’s characteristics into the modern era — as historical distortion merely because it did not portray Joseon as an empire. Furthermore, demanding that even works with fantasy settings distinguish historical truth from falsehood is excessive. It is sufficient to view it simply as an issue of plausibility.
Previously, controversies surrounding the dramas Joseon Exorcist (조선구마사, Joseon Gumasa) and Mr. Queen (철인왕후, Cheorin Wanghu) were also accompanied by terms like “historical distortion” and “historical disparagement” (역사폄하, yeoksa-pyeomha), but these too have excessive aspects.
In Mr. Queen, which aired in 2020, controversy arose over the line, “The Annals of the Joseon Dynasty are nothing more than a gossip rag (jirasi, 지라시),” with criticism claiming it “demeaned the value of the Joseon Wangjo Sillok (조선왕조실록, Annals of the Joseon Dynasty), a UNESCO Memory of the World record.”
In Joseon Exorcist, media outlets such as TenAsia directly criticized dialogue insulting General Choe Yeong, using phrases like “insulting Choe Yeong” and “demeaning a historical great figure.”
Regarding the expression about the Joseon Wangjo Sillok, it is necessary to consider that the line came from a character who had time-traveled and then encountered situations different from the actual historical records. Likewise, there was nothing strange about the founding side of Joseon criticizing Choe Yeong, who opposed them, yet this still became a “controversy.”
Of course, this does not mean the dramas that became controversial had no shortcomings at all. Problems repeatedly occur where insufficient historical research results in props or sets evoking other countries. China’s attempts at the “Northeast Project” (동북공정, Dongbuk Gongjeong — a Chinese state-backed historiographical project often criticized in Korea for appropriating or reframing Korean history) must also be considered.
However, it is necessary to carefully examine whether all of this should be placed within the frame of “historical distortion,” leading even actors to apologize and progressing to demands that the dramas themselves be abolished.
Professor Gi Gyeong-ryang of the Department of Korean History at Catholic University stated the following in his 2025 study, “Controversies Over Distortion in Historical Creative Works and the Role of Historiography: Based on the Experience of the Joseon Exorcist Incident.”
“The overused expression ‘historical distortion’ is functioning as a gag (재갈, jaegal — literally a muzzle or bit placed in the mouth) restricting the autonomy and imagination of historical creative works. To overcome these limitations, there is a need to change attitudes that excessively sanctify or solemnly treat history. Most historical creative works essentially belong not to the category of historiography but to the category of art. I too hope to encounter historical creative works that reflect a deep historical consciousness grounded in faithful historical representation. However, even so, it is difficult to justify taking an overly hostile attitude toward creators’ transformations of history.”
“Creators as well must keep in mind that excessively using history merely as material could become a form of ‘exploitation’ of history, and they should maintain an attitude of respect toward the people who actually existed in the past and the world in which they lived.”
Copyright ⓒ Media Today (미디어오늘, Media Oneul). All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited.
pixelskylines
baratheonpilled
kaledo-art
gummygunk
areudirty
dailybridgerton
jacobvanloon
stormborns
