MovieChat Forums > The Duchess (2008) Discussion > Was the Duke really an Evil man?

Was the Duke really an Evil man?


was the duke really, well, evil?

Now before I continue I will say first that I am only going off what I have seen in the movie. I have never read any other biographies, movies etc of Duchess Georgina or the Duke, in fact to be honest I've never heard of them before watching this movie last week. I did enjoy the movie, thought it was really good and everyone did a great job in the parts they were given, especially Ralph Fiennes.

When I was watching the movie of course my reaction was "Poor Gee, having to marry a jerk of husband she never met and probably doesn't even love her, just being used to make a son and even getting raped to achieve that goal, no wonder she cheated/drank/did drugs, her husband was awful...bla,bla,bla, etc, etc."

But then I walked away and thought about it some more. Sure, he wasn't nice, and probably could have given her more attention,certainly shouldn't have raped her, but was he REALLY evil?
I mean, he was a heavy supporter of a political party that wanted to give all men the vote (even if it was "freedom of moderation"-but hey, that was just the sign of the times, vote to all men how that party wanted it to be was probably a major equality stepping stone back then). His people seemed to like him, as evidenced but the huge crowd cheering and applauding him when he got married to Georgina, even she commented something along the lines of "wow you're popular" in the carriage on the way to her new home. He did try to apologise to her, even if it came across to us as forced.
Heck, he even took in a child from an affair with a maid! Do you know how many noble men of that time would've shunned the girl and said it wasn't his? Especially a girl from a maid. The he took her in, gave her her own room and raised her as his own was a miracle thing from a Duke.

In the end I think the poor guy was a sign of his times. Under pressure to have an heir or else everything would be lost. Needed to avoid scandal because "he can't control his wife", which, as crazy as that sounds now, was the norm back then especially for the nobility.

Feel free to comment back with arguments made from biographies or evidence from Gee's or the duke's letters or documentaries whatever. In fact I look forward to seeing that, as I said I haven't heard of either of them until I saw the film. But again that's the limit of my knowledge, and this movie is the basis for my opinion, nothing else, and I do recognise the "Hollywood" effect of "creative license" when it comes to these fictional historical dramas/biographies. What do you think?

reply

I've wondered about this too.

I suppose the rape thing was just done to create more drama and took some liberties to give us a villain of this story.

Maybe Georgiana could have looked for his attention instead of cheating with Grey, even tough Bess became his husband mistress she could have asked her to tell him that she wanted more of his Attention and wanted a sweeter men in bed.

In a scene of this film when he gets Bored Of the dinner with the politicians, she goes to see him and after a while he told her that she looked beautiful.
Maybe he needed help when it came to seducing a woman.


Not so long ago I made about how both could have worked better on their marriage and could have asked that help from Bess.


Or maybe that's just our wish that we want to believe about his good nature because Ralph Fiennes portrayed him, with a duke that looks like Ralph Fiennes you wouldn't cheat on him with anyone and even less with Dominic Cooper.


reply

hahah yes to the last paragraph of this comment!

reply

Looking at a 1774 marriage of nobility through our modern point of view definitely skews the movie. The idea that G would have been brought up specifically to marry someone significant, and then be "disappointed" that he didn't love her, is almost ludicrous.

G would have been educated from an early age to be a nobleman's wife - to manage several large households, to bear children, to hold a place of leadership in the church, and to entertain a wide variety of people at dinners and parties, all while appearing stylish, fashionable, and respectable in public - almost a Western version of a geisha.

Unless her own mother was remiss in this education, G would have been well prepared for marriage as a political alliance (and definitely *not* for love) and for sex as a necessity to produce heirs. Of course we probably can't know what the Duke was really like on a daily basis, but he provided well for his wife and performed his "husbandly duties", and in 1774 would have had a reasonable expectation of fidelity (or at least extreme discretion) from his wife.

reply

Looking at a 1774 marriage of nobility through our modern point of view definitely skews the movie. The idea that G would have been brought up specifically to marry someone significant, and then be "disappointed" that he didn't love her, is almost ludicrous.


I don't think it was ludicrous Because she said from the beginning that she loved her mother's marriage and the movie made us believe that her father loved her mother and also the first thing she asked her mom about the duke is if he loved her and she answered it was impossible not to do so.


So that disappointment was normal


G would have been educated from an early age to be a nobleman's wife - to manage several large households, to bear children, to hold a place of leadership in the church, and to entertain a wide variety of people at dinners and parties, all while appearing stylish, fashionable, and respectable in public - almost a Western version of a geisha.


She did those things.
The film portrayed her as a great host and how almost everyone loved her so yes she knew perfectly well how to be a good wife for those times, It's just that she expected more from William(the duke) .



Unless her own mother was remiss in this education, G would have been well prepared for marriage as a political alliance (and definitely *not* for love) and for sex as a necessity to produce heirs. Of course we probably can't know what the Duke was really like on a daily basis, but he provided well for his wife and performed his "husbandly duties", and in 1774 would have had a reasonable expectation of fidelity (or at least extreme discretion) from his wife.



Again her mother did gave her that education but also an example of a marriage with love even tough it seemed like it was also arranged.
The film portrayed the duke as a emotionally insensitive but also give us the impression that maybe G could have tried a bit harder, she could have gotten what she expected later but needed more patience and some abilities to seduce her own husband.

She was being charming with everyone and seducing everyone so why not trying to seduce her husband ? and she made a mistake at the beginning with her reaction when she knew about bess affair with the duke, instead of acting like crazy she could have maybe visited him to his bedroom and be nice with him.
I'm sure he wouldn't have mind if she took the initiative like when she went to his room after he left because he was bored of that dinner with politicians.


This was a couple with potential but both ruined it.


reply

"She was being charming with everyone and seducing everyone so why not trying to seduce her husband?"

Because he was cruelest to her? I mean, there are many things she could have done, but losing her virginity to her husband's mechanical loveless sex, being confronted every day with all of his infidelities - which then extend to her closest friend - and being asked to raise his illegitimate child as her own, while having affection withheld from her because she didn't yet give birth to a son... is a bit much. I suppose she could have played "seductive" more, but her reaction was more psychologically realistic. I don't think her screaming at him about his infidelity with her friend was "crazy."

And ultimately I doubt that any attempts at seduction would have won him over. I have no idea what the real Duke of Cavendish was like, but Fiennes gives a performance of a tyrant who's deficient in basic human compassion. Not completely devoid of it - not a 2D monster or a sadist - but someone who's severely lacking in human feeling. People are trying to make some excuses for the duke's character I think largely because of Fiennes' performance - if anyone could have given this guy some glimmers of humanity, it's an actor like Fiennes. And he does, a moment here and a moment there, and the fact that he doesn't seem to take real pleasure in his cruelty. Though he has no problem telling his wife to her face - rubbing it in - that "he has it all." (power, a lover living under his roof, all of his children, etc.) But it almost pains him that he has to remind her of her place, which he enforces with some acts of brutality and threats of taking everything away from her.

reply

What else would you expect from Lord Voldemort?

reply

To some extent.

www.kontentport.com/why-you-should-be-excited-for-guardians-of-the-gal axy-1019.html

reply

No, because he didnt know any better, he was born and brought up with a silver spoon and elitist thinking, he was never taught compassion, he lived in a bubble sheltered from everything, very small minded and obsessed with propriety, and because of his vast priveledge he was empty and void of any passion and intelect of his own.

🐈Jacks

reply

Blah blah blah all I see is excuses. Please the man is nothing but an scumbag. So glad I am not born in that of century. Gosh this movie is just pissing me off. Haizz

reply

The Duke makes quite a remark at the end of the movie, when he looks out the window and sees his children playing, he says something like: "Oh, to be so free". This makes it pretty clear, that he himself has never actually been free. He has always had to live up to other's expectations and do his duty as a duke. So that all the cruelty G had to suffer from his side, and her loss of freedom, was perhaps a result of him never having had any freedom in his life

reply

For anyone who has read about the real life Duke this film didn't get it right at all.

The Duke was an ass hole in certain ways for sure but he certainly wasn't the rapist that they portrayed in the film. His treatment of Georgiana was cold but he wasn't cruel in the way they made him out to be. Ralph Fiennes was also way too good looking to play the Duke. The Duke wasn't horrible looking but he was no Ralph Fiennes. He was awkward and chubby and his looks really started to go to hell once he gout took hold and he became more and more lethargic.

The worst thing the real life Duke did was separate Georgiana from her children after the whole Charles Grey/Eliza incident. This was heartbreaking for Georgiana and his inability to sympathize with her for so long was very, very sad and disappointing but he eventually came around and things more or less went back to normal once Georgiana was allowed to return from exile. (It took him years to come around so I can see how some people would see this as unforgivable.)

As for the relationship with Bess--so much of that was with Georgiana's approval and there is no doubt that Georgiana loved Bess to death even when knowing that Bess had given birth to two of the Duke's children. It was a strange situation but I don't think the Bess factor can be entirely blamed on the Duke.

reply

I can't for the life of me ever understand why people go out of their way to make apologies for the disgusting behaviour of men and sexism.

reply

Seriously!

"Was the Duke really and evil man?"

Um no. He only raped her but he wasn't evil 😄

reply

I think it's just like she said in the movie: they were just a bad match.

reply

i don't think so, he was just trying to do what he thought was right, he was a product of his time






so many movies, so little time

reply