What’s Wrong with King George on Bridgerton? A Critical Examination of the Netflix Series’ Portrayal of Monarchy
The Netflix series Bridgerton, a romantic drama inspired by the Regency-era novels of Julia Quinn, has taken the world by storm with its lush costumes, opulent settings, and, of course, dashing romance. Among the show’s many characters, one figure stands out for his questionable behavior and problematic representation: King George, the monarch of the British Empire. In this article, we’ll delve into the issues surrounding the portrayal of King George on Bridgerton, specifically on Queen Charlotte, his wife.
The Problematic Marriage of King George and Queen Charlotte
Debuting in Season 1, King George, played by Richard Goulding, is introduced as the ailing and mysteriously tyrannical ruler of England. His marriage to Queen Charlotte, played by Ruth Nesbitt, is marked by his controlling and manipulative behavior, often exhibiting symptoms of emotional abuse. This toxic dynamic is perpetuated throughout the series, with Queen Charlotte often found torn between her duty to her husband and her own agency.
Critics have pointed out that this portrayal of King George and Queen Charlotte’s marriage grossly romanticizes the}" abusive relationship. The show’s creators, Kits O’Rourke and Chris Van Dusen, have received flak for presenting a widow as a mere pawn in a patriarchal society, trapped in a loveless and abusive marriage. By framing the queen’s experiences through the lens of romance, rather than exploitation or trauma, the show perpetuates harmful female stereotypes.
Furthermore, the character’s depiction of King George as a man suffering from mental health issues, rather than the blame for the abuse, reinforces the trope that abuse is a personal problem, rather than a societal one. This marginalization of women’s experiences and the erasure of their agency is a damaging and outdated narrative.
The Problematic Representation of Tea-Sipping Aristocracy
Another issue with King George’s character is the show’s depiction of the aristocracy. While the series acknowledges class and wealth disparities, it does so by presenting the upper echelons of society as rather bland and homogenous. The show’s premium attention to period detail and sumptuous settings create a sense of opulence, but this is often at the expense of genuine substance.
King George’s character, in particular, exemplifies this problem. His putative role as an "tyrannical ruler" is largely a caricature, lacking the complexity and nuance needed to create a compelling and multidimensional character. His extensive screen time is often consumed by his supposed madness and general scheming, which further trivializes his position and the institution of monarchy.
Framing the Monarchy as a Regressive Institution
Lastly, it is imperative to address the portrayal of the British monarchy as a regressive institution that perpetuates woman oppression and class inequality. By depicting King George as the arbiter of power, the show reinforces the notion that monarchical systems are inherently problematic.
This oversimplification is problematic, as it fails to critically engage with the nuances of British history and the complexities of the era. By framing the monarchy as a closed institution with no room for innovation or progress, Bridgerton diminishes the agency of those within it, reifying outdated power structures and reifying the colonial legacy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the portrayal of King George on Bridgerton is marred by several issues, including the romanticization of abusive relationships, problematic representation of the aristocracy, and the regressive framing of the monarchy. While the show is undoubtedly a romantic delight, its mistakes in character portrayal and historical representation are hard to ignore.
If Bridgerton hopes to continue its upward trajectory, it must take a moment to reassess its depiction of the British monarchy, its portrayal of the sexes, and its handling of women’s agency. Until then, we must continue to scrutinize the show’s implications and call for a more nuanced, thoughtful, and progressive approach to storytelling.
