The way past controversies are woven into a single narrative, the danger of a “criminal record list” stripped of context, and the paradox where public good deeds lead to harsher standards.
After the drama ended, the stage of responsibility shifted to the actors.
MBC’s Friday-Saturday drama ’21st Century Grand Prince’s Wife’ concluded on May 16 with a final episode rating of 13.8%. The historical distortion controversy that erupted in episode 11 seemed to be settling down after production interviews, updated OTT versions, and official apologies from the actors. However, the public criticism didn’t fade; it simply shifted direction. Some are now digging into the actors’ pasts to hold them more accountable for the current situation.
This isn’t a call to stop criticism entirely. However, it’s necessary to examine where the legitimate boundaries of criticism lie and whether the scales of responsibility are pointing in a rational direction.
■ From ‘Manse’ to ‘Cheonse’… The Absurd Historical Errors That Dampened the Success of the 13.8% Rated Hit
Issues with historical accuracy in ’21st Century Grand Prince’s Wife’ were raised from the first episode, but the fire really spread after episode 11 aired on May 15. In the coronation scene of Grand Prince Ian (played by Byeon Woo-seok), officials shouted ‘Cheonse, Cheonse, Cheon-cheonse’ (expressions for vassal states) instead of ‘Manse’ (the era name for sovereign states). Additionally, the crown worn by Grand Prince Ian was confirmed to be a nine-tasseled crown for vassal states, not the twelve-tasseled crown of a sovereign emperor. Viewers reported further errors, such as using ‘hungseo’ instead of ‘bung-eo’ or ‘seungha’ for the king’s death in the official timeline, the use of Chinese-style tea trays, and incorrect clothing. Criticism intensified as these errors directly clashed with the drama’s core world-building, where the Joseon Dynasty continued as the sovereign Republic of Korea.
History teacher Choi Tae-sung shared the problematic scenes on social media, directly targeting the production system by asking, “They pay actors hundreds of millions in fees, but are they trying to settle historical research costs for a few hundred thousand won?” The cyber diplomatic agency VANK also launched a campaign urging Disney+, the global OTT platform, to correct the errors. Since ’21st Century Grand Prince’s Wife’ was one of the most-watched Korean series worldwide for 28 days after its release, there are concerns that a significant number of international viewers were exposed to the distorted settings.
The production team explained that they were “inspired by European royalty and the drama Bridgerton,” but public anger didn’t subside. Eventually, they re-uploaded a modified version on the OTT platform where the ‘Cheonse’ and ‘Cheon-cheonse’ lines were muted, but the nine-tasseled crown scene remained, leading to evaluations that the issue was not fully resolved.
■ Production Makes the Decisions, Actors Give the Apologies… A Structure Where the ‘Most Visible’ Become the Shield
The premise that actors are responsible for the projects they choose is valid. However, historical verification is the domain of the production team. Director Park Jun-hwi admitted in a media interview that “consultations were sought to fit the Joseon Dynasty setting, but they were insufficient.” Despite this, lead actors IU and Byeon Woo-seok released official apologies before the production team did, with the production’s statement coming only afterward.
This sequence reveals a structural contradiction. In an episode of tvN’s ‘You Quiz on the Block’ featuring actress Gong Seung-yeon, about 10 minutes of content related to the drama were edited out, and even the drama’s title subtitles were deleted. An actress who reached her peak after 15 years in the industry ended up bearing the brunt of the production system’s failure.
■ Attacking 10 Years of History Piece by Piece… The Trap of the Context-Free ‘IU Timeline’
As the ‘Grand Prince’s Wife’ controversy erupted, past issues resurfaced. Centered on social media, problems from IU’s previous musical endeavors and cases where her prior works were criticized began to receive attention again. These events occurred at different times, involved different critics, and were of different natures.
However, all these elements began to be listed like a single timeline following the ‘Grand Prince’s Wife’ controversy. They were rearranged into a narrative that the individual has repeatedly made problematic choices. The contextual differences between the controversies were erased, and the number of occurrences became a ‘pattern.’ This approach is dangerous because it allows a logical leap where legitimate criticism of individual issues slides into a total condemnation of the person. The ‘this time again’ frame operates by piling up additional evidence for a trial that has already reached a conclusion, rather than questioning the specific responsibility for the current issue.
IU is known for her public donations and good deeds. This fact adds another layer to the conflict: the frame that she ‘sells a good image while acting contradictorily behind the scenes.’ This frame turns public philanthropy itself into evidence of hypocrisy.
If this logic is accepted, the conclusion is clear. If a person who does good deeds faces harsher criticism when they make a mistake than someone who has done nothing good, the safest choice becomes not doing any good deeds from the start. It is obvious that past good deeds cannot be an excuse for current mistakes. However, the reverse should not be true either. The paradox where good deeds become the reason for a sharper yardstick can systematically destroy the social motivation for doing good.
■ Not About Ending Criticism, But Asking for Balance
’21st Century Grand Prince’s Wife’을 둘러싼 언론과 대중의 질타에서 주연 배우 역시 완전히 비껴설 수는 없다. 대중의 전폭적인 지지를 받으며 작품의 얼굴 역할을 하는 타이틀롤이라면, 텍스트 뒤에 숨은 역사적·사회적 무게감을 공동으로 짊어지는 것이 마땅하기 때문이다. 다만 지금 가해지는 비판은 그 수위와 사정거리가 지나치게 과도하다는 데 본질적인 문제가 있다.
The lead actors cannot be completely exempt from the criticism from the media and the public surrounding ’21st Century Grand Prince’s Wife.’ As the title roles and the faces of the project who receive overwhelming public support, it is appropriate for them to share the historical and social weight behind the text. However, the fundamental problem is that the current level and range of criticism are excessively extreme.
Criticism corresponding to a mistake should be strict, but the weight of that responsibility must match the scale of the action. It is time to coldly reflect on where this all-encompassing pressure, which has strayed from the essence of the issue, is leading.
