What went wrong with 'Perfect Crown'?

Grand Prince I-an’s coronation in MBC’s recently ended “Perfect Crown” was supposed to be triumphant. The crown prince, played by Byeon Woo-seok, finally ascends to the throne after much trial and tribulation, just ahead of the widely watched series’s finale.

Instead, the scene in Friday’s episode set off backlash over details that viewers and historians called insulting to Korea’s history and damaging to the state's sovereignty, fictional monarchy or not. The series’ lead actors and production team later issued rare apologies.

The fallout didn’t stop there. Beyond the accusations of historical insensitivity, it revived online debate over the cast’s acting and the series’s plausibility. The criticism spread further as some viewers took issue with the actors’ lack of accountability and, later, with their statements — a familiar pattern in Korea’s unforgiving celebrity culture.

Why did the coronation scene draw anger?

A series built on the premise that Korea’s monarchy survived into the present day was always going to take historical liberties. But critics said the coronation scene in the 11th episode of the 12-part series crossed a more sensitive line. 

I-an enters the royal palace to the sound of pounding drums and the cry of “His Majesty the King enters.” On his head, however, sat a square crown with nine tassels on the front and back. This was fewer than the 12 on each side of the traditional headdress worn by King Gojong (1852-1919), who proclaimed the Korean Empire in 1897, assumed the imperial name Emperor Gwangmu and asserted Korea’s status as an independent empire. A nine-tasseled crown would not signify a king, but a prince or, more pointedly, a vassal lord under an emperor.

The subjects’ cry of cheonse — meaning “long live one thousand years” — when I-an is made ruler would also not have been appropriate. Manse, or “long live ten thousand years,” would have been the proper phrase for the ruler of a sovereign state; cheonse would have been used in a vassal state. 

The titles used for the royal family, too, such as I-an, his wife Seong Hee-ju and the queen dowager, played by IU and Gong Seung-yeon, respectively, were used during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), not in the imperial system the drama appeared to reference.

In a previous episode, a tea scene in which Seong confronts the queen dowager also drew criticism for its use of etiquette widely associated with Chinese tea culture, particularly the act of pouring water into a drain tray.

The details touched a sensitive historical nerve. Korea’s preceding Goryeo (918-1392) and Joseon kingdoms maintained tributary relations with imperial Chinese dynasties, including the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1636-1912). The surrender of Joseon’s 16th monarch, King Injo, to the Qing emperor during the second Manchu invasion of Korea in 1636 is taught in textbooks as a painful humiliation.

The series’s production team apologized for the crown and cheonse details the day after the episode aired, saying it had “failed to carefully account for how Joseon court protocol changed over time.” The producers said they would edit the scene for network reruns and streaming platforms, including Disney+, where the series streams globally.

Public figures and civic organizations, including history lecturer Choi Tae-sung and the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea, condemned the series' creators, fueling further online criticism and discussion. Choi accused them of “spending hundreds of millions of won on actors’ fees while skimping on historical research costs” and pointed to the lack of a systematic fact-checking process in Korea’s TV and film industry, which he said has led to repeated mistakes in historical terms, costumes and dialogue.

Old wounds in a young democracy

Even before Friday’s episode, “Perfect Crown” was embroiled in discussions about whether a TV series with a constitutional monarchy would toe the line between preserving the pomp and glamor of the royal court and respecting the modern Korean state’s democratic identity, and whether the concept itself was outdated. 

Why, some asked, does a 21st-century monarchy still have a class system that looks down on “commoner” status, when Gojong abolished Korea’s caste system in 1894? Existing monarchies around the world are explicitly tied to religion; in Korea, the court operated under the strict moral and ethical codes of Neo-Confucianism, which has faced pushback in the modern age due to its emphasis — critics allege — on strict social hierarchy, filial piety, gender inequality and uniformity. Was the series little more than imperial-uniform eye candy?

Combined with the vassal-state implications, the scene landed at a sensitive moment. Disputes with China over history and cultural heritage, along with perceptions of Beijing’s aggressive nationalism, have fueled anti-Chinese sentiment, particularly among younger Koreans. Korea’s relatively young democracy had also taken a blow from the abrupt imposition of martial law in late 2024. 

In 2025, for the first time since the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism held the poll in 1996, Koreans chose democratic maturity (31.9 percent) over economic prosperity (28.2 percent) as the primary vision for their country’s future. A 2024 Seoul National University survey found that nearly 80 percent of Koreans took pride in the country’s democratic development. A Pew Research Center poll in 2025 found that Koreans ranked the country’s political system among their leading sources of national pride.

Seo Kyoung-duk, a professor of general education at Sungshin Women’s University and an outspoken advocate of Korean culture and history, on Tuesday expressed “deep concern” toward the issue.

“Historical dramas released through global streaming platforms are watched by viewers around the world, meaning productions must not only ensure accurate historical research but also carefully consider ongoing historical distortion efforts by neighboring countries,” he said.

Actors take criticism, and more

The criticism spread to online communities, where commenters debated how much responsibility the actors should bear for the series’s missteps.

Some questioned why the actors had chosen the project at all, arguing that the controversy should have been “foreseen.” Others countered that responsibility for historical verification lies with the production team, not the cast.

Usually, with an original intellectual property project like “Perfect Crown” — written by rookie screenwriter Yoo Ji-won, who won MBC’s script contest — actors are not given the full script from the outset. Only part of the story is disclosed at the beginning, with later episodes delivered gradually as filming progresses. In one behind-the-scenes video, IU said she first received the script for the 10th episode in December 2025, after filming had begun that July.

Nevertheless, some online commenters quickly turned on IU, pointing to her previous roles in tvN’s “My Mister” (2018) and “Hotel Del Luna” (2019), both of which had also been embroiled in controversy. “My Mister” drew criticism over its handling of sensitive subjects, including the power dynamics between leads with a large age gap and dating violence, and “Hotel Del Luna” faced plagiarism allegations.

The controversy also reignited criticism of the actors’ performances, which had drawn mixed reviews earlier in the series’ run.

While IU had previously earned rave reviews for delivering emotionally wounded or tragic characters in projects such as “My Mister” and “When Life Gives You Tangerines” (2025), some viewers felt her portrayal of Seong — a sharp-tongued, spirited conglomerate heiress — came off as cartoonish.

Byeon, also, who was returning to the small screen after sparking a sensation with “Lovely Runner” (2024), was also seen by many viewers as somewhat awkward in portraying a reserved character like Prince I-an.

The lead actors issued separate apologies regarding the series's controversies on their social media accounts on Monday. 

“As [one of the] lead actors, I am deeply sorry and have a heavy heart for failing to be responsible and for causing great disappointment,” IU wrote.

“There is no excuse for the fact that I failed to think more deeply about the various historical inaccuracies before acting [in the project]. I have sincerely reflected on and apologize for that.”

Byeon said in a handwritten letter that he “did not think deeply enough about the historical context and its significance to the show or about how viewers could receive [such mistakes] during filming or acting.”

“Through [your] feedback, I spent time self-reflecting and realized that I — as an actor — must take greater responsibility not only for my performance but also for the message and context behind my projects,” his letter read.

BY KIM JU-YEON [kim.juyeon2@joongang.co.kr]