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?