Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reconsidering “The Crown”
Hi Ricochet! It’s been a while since writing. Holidays, friends and family along with a healthy dose of Steelers, Rams and LA Kings take its toll. Actually, I should really blame it on my new love affair with The Crown on Netflix. First I should say, I didn’t want to watch this series. It looked like it would be a slog through some Merchant Ivory/Downton Abbey costume drama that has never interested me. Forty years ago I would stand on the streets of old Londontown donning my AC/DC schoolboy uniform (for realz) as Her Royal Highness parade-waved us commoners from her gold-leafed carriage. I recall not really caring about any of it even then. It all seemed so … unnecessary. And now, I am reconsidering my apathy.
A few years later, I was living in SoCal as a fresh legal immigrant. I was woken at zero-dark-thirty by my excited Mum so we could watch Charles and Diana walk down the aisle on our 19-inch RCA, which Princess Diana would one day say was the most disappointing day of her life. When she died in 1997, my then-fiance had the brand new MSNBC on 24/7 (don’t hold it against her … it wasn’t Maddowed yet). While I was of course saddened, for me it was more curious voyeurism seeing how the country of my youth stopped everything for a week and reacted with what I assumed was probably America’s reaction to the assassination of JFK. The real-life sociological drama played out live, resulting in the House of Windsor being torn apart because the Queen didn’t want to break a thousand years of tradition by … lowering the flag? In my mind, the whole thing was silly. That Monarchy was the equivalent of Ronald McDonald or Aunt Jemima … a symbol, an avatar, an empty relic of the past that happens to be ridiculously expensive for the British taxpayer.
Almost 50 years of not caring, and then I watched one television series and can’t stop thinking about it. Now, I’m not suggesting I will replace my Robinson/Long portraits with a painting of the Queen anytime soon, but I feel a new found respect for the history, and more importantly, their sacrifice. More on that in a moment.
The primary story is the intersection of Elizabeth the person, wife, sister, daughter and mother and Elizabeth “the Queen.” The real-life events move the story forward, and what is happening around the Royals allows us to get a sense of who the Royals are. The players on stage are the very people we already feel we knew, but only now do we see their most private moments, insecurities, and the psychology behind some of the 20th centuries most historic decisions.
We already knew that Winston Churchill’s (brilliantly played by John Lithgow) second turn at No. 10 Downing Street was not the triumph many had hoped. To be fair, living in post-war 1950s England was brutal as food rations and economic blight would have resulted in a no-confidence vote for any Prime Minister. My late cockney Father often told me stories about coping with “The Fog” and was actually one of the reasons he would mention why we left (coal-induced fog was fairly common for many years thereafter).
We learn some shocking things about King Edward VIII who we already knew abdicated the throne for the love of a divorcee … (the reason I personally can’t be King, otherwise, shine up my scepter, guv!) This resulted in his reluctant speech giving brother George VI taking over and changing the trajectory of his daughter’s lives (Elizabeth and Margaret) as well as his country’s history. The little known chilling details (and the post-credit real pictures) about David’s (HRH Edwards’) dark Nazi secrets could have derailed England from prevailing over Germany in World War II, which would likely have resulted in my not being here to write this review. This was a gut-check moment for the viewer comparable only to some of the best episodes of another must-see series, “Breaking Bad.”
We already knew about Prince Phillips restlessness but see his perspective of having not only his name, home, and future removed by the Crown but how he had to conform to rules that would have made any reasonable person rebel. You may not like some of the things he did, but you sympathized with the dominated man.
We knew Prince Charles as an adult typifies the upper crust, weedy silver-spoon which is largely an embarrassment to more alpha Brits. A guy like Charles would never have landed Diana unless he was a Royal or early investor in Facebook. After watching an episode about his childhood schooling, there’s a greater understanding of the man. Notwithstanding, I feel England has been better served by the long life of his Mother. Yet, for better or worse, we will likely one day see King Charles and it’s good to understand his trajectory.
The beauty of the series was not just the captivating storylines, but the cinematography, music and showing all of the money on the screen, reportedly $100 million! As Kurt Schlichter pointed out in our recent podcast, they could have easily referred to a parade, but instead actually put it on screen. You were there, and for the first time since my childhood, I saw the very same golden Royal Carriage that passed me by as a young boy.
Now, we look forward to seasons three and four which reports have confirmed will introduce new actors to play the major roles as they age. Claire Foy (Queen Elizabeth) will be very hard to replace. We should assume to see the introduction of Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan along with the psychodrama of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Everything ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s will be surely compelling.
As the well-known history and stories happen, it’s fascinating to witness this group of people coping with simply being human. While most anyone would quickly switch places with Royalty to enjoy the trappings, luxury and never having to worry about mundanities, there is more than a hint of the imprisonment each member of the family feels. They are not in control of their lives. They can not choose what to say, what to wear, who to employ, or who to love. There is an overarching sadness to each character as to be born into Royalty does not permit to be anything but Royal. Their duty is to the Queen, who, in her own words, answers to God. She cannot allow for personalities, feelings, and human traits that we commoners take for granted. In fact, it is human frailties themselves that are the greatest threat to the sovereign, as they can derail the entire monarchy.
To be reminded daily of such is not a burden I think I would choose. Instead, from my commoners’ couch, I eagerly anticipate future seasons of what is some the best television ever created.
Published in General
By the way, the other episode that stands out in the first series is the episode when George VI dies and Elizabeth gets the news of his passing while in Kenya with Phillip on a Commonwealth tour they made on behalf of her father because of his declining health. Jared Harris, who plays George VI, is masterful and conveys that the king was a first rate intellect and wonderful father. The love that Princess Elizabeth and Margaret have for him as portrayed by actresses Claire Foy and Vanessa Kirby respectively, is beautifully portrayed. A very moving episode.
I watched some of the first episode last night – not sure what I saw… I assumed the (un)gentleman getting dressed was King George VI. I had 2 problems with the scene first, when he asked about blood in the spittle, his courtiers would not have brushed that aside, they would have at least got a doctor onto the schedule for a checkup and second the king’s dirty limerick should have been more clever. (at least as clever as the first limerick)
Binge watched season two one weekend when not feeling well. Makes it hard to wait an entire year for Season 3.
I considered the ribald limerick as a touch to give the monarch a human status rather than being a paragon of impeccable virtue. This was perhaps the first message to The Crown’s audience by the producers, that the royal family was going to be portrayed as humans, warts and all. As far as what the king’s servants would or would not have said, I think it’s a minor point and probably not worth arguing…especially if it eventually proves to be accurate. The king eventually was seen by doctors.
I am reminded of the suggestion that Richard Attenborough received when thinking about who should play Gandhi in his film. One devout Hindu suggested to the director that perhaps Gandhi should be portrayed by a glittering spot of light. Attenborough replied that he wasn’t making a film about “bloody Tinkerbell”.
Yes, I am nitpicking. possibly a very tiny nit to pick.
Queen Elizabeth: the whitest woman in the world.
I think you’re referring to Elizabeth I.
Mr. C and I have nothing to watch now that we’ve finished season 2. Sad.
It is so incredibly well done — the acting is superb as well as the rest of it — it makes me hope the Queen hasn’t and won’t see it, and not just because the season 2 episode about Margaret is positively pornographic (all the Ricochet men run for their remotes). It’s just painful on a very human level, and if it’s accurate, the Queen doesn’t need to relive it or know that their inner lives have been so exposed.
Not having had enough of it, though, I’ve been watching the documentary on the House of Windsor. Fascinating that there’s not a drop of English blood in them — they’re German all the way through.
I’m also more sympathetic to Charles knowing he was poorly matched to his parents (and grew up a grandma’s boy), but I do think he’ll be the end of the run for the monarchy when the time comes. He simply lacks the discipline (and, um, virtue) to wear the crown. He’s also a hopeless lefty who thinks he should be more involved in running GB. Oy, bad for Britain.
Long live the Queen!
I’ve only watched two episodes thus far, but agree with the positive comments above. I was hooked from the opening scene where surgeons were performing a pneumonectomy in palace. Nothing like setting up your own operating theatre in your ballroom! I found the scene where George VI sings with the Scottish villagers at Christmas very affecting.
Parliament controls the line of succession if Queen Elizabeth can hang on for a few more years, and Chuck is into his 70s. Parliament would be clamoring to have a young, dashing vigorous King, Prince William.
Also King Charles have not been good monarchs. 1 executed 1 exiled. There hasnt been a King Charles since 1685.
Sputnik and nuclear testing did get a brief mention. I would have liked to have seen the impact of the Cuban missile crisis on the city. My parents used to tell me how everyone thought WWIII was imminent. Petrifying when news was scant but rumors were prevalent.
The paparazzi on Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townshend was also annoying to me as that whole ‘news’ genre is of zero interest. What was interesting is how it does show the precursor of what would eventually kill Diana. I get people like to escape their own monotony by investing in the TMZ’ing of our culture, but even as a youth that’s probably one of the reasons I never cared for it. Books and film is one thing, but chasing celebrities down the street for a candid pic seems overkill.
I can’t disagree with anyone as to whether or not they found it to be compelling, we each have our own opinions. For example, I can’t really relate to most sci-fi or middle earth fantasy stuff as I need to feel it’s based on some form of reality. This series allows us to peak in on a very real lifestyle that almost no one will ever see and certainly never experience.
Assuming Charles isn’t King for too long, simply as QE2 is still remarkably healthy, do you think William will be good for the throne? He seems fairly popular and as the son of Diana is awarded tremendous devotion from the British people.
Sorry. As a good American, I cannot include myself under “we commoners”. I am not a commoner and neither is anyone else in this country.
As a life-long Anglophile I have watched everything on TV about their lives and read just about all the books written about them. The series is simply wonderful and accomplishes a sympathy for Queen Elizabeth II that matches what Colin Firth’s portrayal of King George VI did for that monarch. What I hope future seasons show is how she promotes UK products in her many trips around the world and how assiduously she works to keep the Commonwealth together to benefit the UK economically and politically. Furthermore, the prestige of the UK royals is unmatched by any other country in the world, bar none. When Brits grumble about how much the monarchy costs them, they foolishly overlook how much money she brings in. Aside from Mexico and Canada, the number one foreign destination for American tourists is London.
I don’t know where you got that information, but I believe it to be incorrect. If the Henry you refer to is Prince Harry, he is close to and loves his father according to everything I’ve ever read. The royals have been nothing short of extremely welcoming to Harry’s choice of a bride, and Charles has been very supportive and complimentary.
I recall Diana saying in an interview, or it might have been in a book, that when Harry was born, Prince Charles expressed disappointment that he had red hair. I despised her for it, because there’s an excellent chance that Harry saw it. How must that make a child feel, and how could she as his mother say that in the media.
We can’t believe everything we read, so could be she was (I’m hoping) misquoted. That said, there are plenty of red heads on the Windsor side down through history if we can believe any of their portraits.
It was in Andrew Morton’s book: Charles wanted a girl.
“I knew Harry was going to be a boy because I saw on the scan. Charles always wanted a girl,” Diana admitted.
“He wanted two children and he wanted a girl. I knew Harry was a boy and I didn’t tell him.
“Harry arrived, Harry had red hair, Harry was a boy.”
…. the first words out of her husband’s mouth, saying: “First comment was: ‘Oh God, it’s a boy’, second comment: ‘and he’s even got red hair.’
“Something inside me closed off,” she said.
…
Charles took his discontent over not having a boy to her own mother at Harry’s christening.
She said: “[Prince] Charles went to talk to my mother at Harry’s christening and said: ‘We were so disappointed – we thought it would be a girl.’
……………………….
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/first-remark-prince-charles-made-10958035
Prince Harry was 7 years old when she said these things.
The quote command didn’t work. I didn’t say that. :)
That said, I think Dave used the term just as shorthand. :)
Yes, parliament may not be interested in making Charles king. Unfortunately, Charles is very much interested in the crown. He’s a weird mix of staid British tradition and Uncle David type, 1960’s Cambridge-influenced left wing nuttery.
I admire Diana for many things, but this would not be one if them. She should not have said those things to Morton. And he should not have used them.
What adults do and say has an impact on children. Even if the children never express that impact.
Very sad when private moments become public like that.
The most honorable act Charles could do is pass himself over for the Crown, and support his son’s coronation as King.
Oxford produced Prime Ministers. Cambridge produced Soviet spies.
Hubby and I watched the first episode of the second season tonight. I’ll second the favorable comments of everyone here, but I have one serious gripe with the series, both all of season one and, at least as seen in this first episode, season two: TURN ON THE DANG LIGHTS. What, did no one like bright, well-lit rooms in Britain?? Just about every interior scene (and even some exterior scenes as well) appears as if it’s where light (artificial or natural) goes to die.
This is why I cant be a gossip – I cant keep anybodies name straight.
Harry and William hate their father because of the way they treated Diana after/during the divorce. If you notice in the couple’s interview they gave after the announcement Harry handled all the family questions and Meghan leaned back – as if to say “Dont get me in that mess!” … There is a striking difference in them when they discuss Charles, than other topics. Also found this:
Another big fan of the series here. Watched the first and second seasons shortly after each was released. I agree with Dave’s assessment of its quality and compelling storytelling.
All the rooms (especially scenes set at Buckingham and Windsor) seem to have a dim smokiness. Maybe it’s authenticity, since George VI, Princess Margaret, and others in the royal family smoked like chimneys.
There were thousands of us with tears pouring down our faces for both the children. We also thought it was hideous they were made to do that.
Great review, thanks — so interesting to read about it from your POV being a bred/born yank myself and never that interested in the Royals. I’ve watched both seasons — found season 2 to be better than season 1 but both excellent and better than just about anything else on television. The Nazi episode is horrifying. Didn’t know Jackie was such a bitch, but was not surprised. Can’t wait for more.
I love the visuals of the show, but Noonan’s take-down of the show was absolutely damning.
Excerpt:
Yeah, I read that and didn’t think it was an accurate portrayal of what the series portrays. There’s a scene where JFK seems kind of snarky and drunk, but “enraged?” I didn’t see it.