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
@iwe As wonderful as the show sounds, the powerful images of flawed history worry me; I tend not to watch programs that might effectively distort my understanding of something important. (Weak-minded, or self-aware?)
It does sound amazing, and I do want to see the one about Edward VIII, at least…
Agree. Remember the circumstances at the time as they — Diana and Charles — were going through the worst days of their marriage. She said a lot of things to the media to hurt Charles and to bring sympathy for herself. I felt sorry for her at the time because of the Camilla factor in their marriage but must concede she lashed out in ways that hurt the monarchy and her children. It was all so seedy on both their parts.
Being born a Brit, I can understand why you could get interested in something like this. Although I have a smidgen of English blood in me, the royals are not my “cup of tea.” Yet, I see a different example of royalty by living in the island chain off the eastern coast of the Eurasian continent, Japan.
I don’t follow the news coverage of the royal family here, but it’s impossible to avoid it. Nothing that makes the major news outlets is anything but hagiography. However, any sentient being is able to pick up a few hints about the people from the reporting. One can see how the pressures and limits on their lives has affected Crown Prince’s wife Masako, who seemed like a strong and independent woman before getting married, but since then has suffered from what seems like a long string of maladies and reticence in public. And most recently, the desire of Emperor Akihito to abdicate before he dies, goes against what some in the far right here want, a strong emperor in the model of Emperor Meiji. On the other side of the coin, so many of the common people here appreciate what he has done as emperor and don’t mind his abdication.
I thought maybe that was the case, but I was not sure the time frame of the Morton interviews.
Charles behaved badly, and no excuse, but I’m guessing he was forbidden to marry Camilla. It always stunned me how he could not adore the beautiful charming Diana, and maybe he did at the beginning. Their story is another where the demands of the Crown wreaked havoc, and eventually tragedy in their lives.
Both William and Harry seemed to have come through ok, but they are still young, and don’t yet carry the full weight of the Crown.
I expect any day now she’ll be joining the other DTS sufferers at NYT following in the footsteps of Bret Stephens. Or perhaps she’ll follow Jennifer Rubin or Bill Kristol–though that’s tougher tracking since they’ve lost the gravitas that once caused them to actually leave footprints.
Too bad the link is behind a paywall.
Ha! Maybe change your TV AV option to ‘vivid’? It does look dusty and dark which I assume is by design. England generally doesn’t provide a lot of natural light so any dank, castle-like decor probably is close to genuine.
Commented on Jean’s point already before I saw this. The amount of smoking is incredible. I understand it was the 50’s, and I’m glad the PC police didn’t revise history, but it’s still sobering to see how much they all smoked. No wonder my grandmother died of lung cancer without ever smoking a cigarette. The palace upholstery probably still stinks like Chesterfields.
@iwe‘s (Noonans) point is important, but the Kennedy episode was just one of out 20. Not sure why they would make stuff up on that storyline, but it shouldn’t take away from the rest of the series. I personally found the actor who played Kennedy a little off-putting too. I remember him from 6-Feet Under which sort of took me out of the moment. I like not knowing any of the actors (besides Lithgow).
I find myself feeling sorry for the actress who plays Princess Margaret. She is virtually never seen without a cigarette.
I, too, admire that they didn’t whitewash her habit. It’s the first time in my virtually smoke-free life I understand the term, “chain-smoker.”
I enjoyed The Crown. And I’ve been an admirer of Queen Elizabeth II for some time. I’ve also an admirer of her father, King George VI, whose conduct during World War II, when Britain was getting bombed, was exemplary. I would say that World War II was the height of the modern British monarchy, and King George, as well as his consort Queen Elizabeth, later the Queen Mother, deserve tons of credit.
The reigning Queen Elizabeth grew into a young woman during that time, and that, no doubt, informed her own conduct as monarch.
Both her father and she had the highest of moral characters, as well as humility. Anyone who has seen The King’s Speech can see where his humility came from.
A big part of The Crown’s two seasons chronicled Prince Phillip, and Princess Margaret. I was aware of Phillip’s reputation as a philanderer in his youth, and the rumors of tensions in his marriage to Elizabeth when she ascended the throne.
But other than the controversy Princess Margaret had with the proposed marriage with Captain Peter Townsend, I hadn’t realized how scandalous her own conduct was. The profiles done of Margaret remind one of Diana coming up in their future. Clearly Queen Elizabeth, while disappointed, was probably not shocked by Diana’s behavior. She’d seen it before.
The series basically shows Queen Elizabeth as a rock surrounded by weaker people. Even the Queen Mother, who as I said, saw her greatest moment during World War II, comes up short compared to her daughter.
I’ve been mildly fascinated by the British Monarchy, and I’ve read biographies of Queen Victoria, as well as Queen Mary — consort to King George V and Queen Elizabeth’s grandmother — and also watched a made for BBC series of Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, and who, similar to Prince Charles, spent most of his life as Prince of Wales waiting for his mother to die so he could come into his own.
Actually, as an aside, Prince Charles has been allowed to do more by his mother than the then Prince Edward was by Queen Victoria. Prince Charles had a six year career in the Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, and even commanded a coastal minehunter before leaving service.
In the end, though, what the royals do nowadays is go to charitable events and military parades and make pleasant conversation. They are trained to make anyone encountering them in the course of their duties come away feeling good about the experience, though nothing consequential was said.
And though she has a few additional duties in consulting with the Prime Minister, and affixing the royal seal on legislation and appointments, she does essentially the same thing, going from event to event making pleasant conversation every day.
Though a comfortable life, it’s a stultifying one. And most of the royals are of at least average intelligence and could live productive lives doing something, anything, else.
So as I mentioned, I have a mild fascination with the British monarchy, but it comes with a mild contempt.
I think that Britain would do well to end the monarchy upon Queen Elizabeth’s death or abdication. It’s all been downhill since World War II. Time to let it die.
Not really. The government at the time was already withholding things from his dispatch box, because they knew he was forwarding information to the Nazis. They did have a plan to deal with him.
As for “the little known details”, I first read about them in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960, and of course these details were released in the late 1950’s.
He wasn’t the only one enamored of the Nazis. Prominent Americans Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy (father of JFK and U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, pre-war) were also.
None of Queen Elizabeth’s Prime Ministers in the two seasons, all of the Conservative Party, have been treated very well. I’m a fan of John Lithgow the actor, but it took a lot of suspension of disbelief for me to see him as Churchill, old as he was at the time.
As mentioned by someone in a previous post, Peggy Noonan did a review of the series so far, and heavily criticized their portrayal of Harold Macmillan. I didn’t, or don’t know much about him but when I saw that portrayal, my first reaction was that they sure were unflattering to him, without having a feel whether it was an evenhanded one. I did see a significant difference on YouTube versus the portrayal on The Crown.
So will there be a difference in how Labour Party Prime Ministers are portrayed? How will they portray Margaret Thatcher? Will they give Meryl Streep another shot?
Being enamored with European fascism was quite common in the pre-war era. Not just Joe Kennedy, but JFK himself had kind words for fascism. FDR’s new deal program was largely inspired by Italian fascists, and dont forget the first implementation of an old age security system was Otto Von Bismark’s in Germany. As late as 1938 the NY Times was publishing positive puff pieces on Adolf.
How is it, when there is a troubling aspect of a foreign leader’s rhetoric, we’re asked to ignore it, as “red meat” for his followers. The anti-antisemitism of Adolf, Ayatollah Whatever … We’re told “dont worry they dont really mean it” but time and time again we later find, they did mean it and they did act on it. Why doesnt the NY Times realize that those leaders arent domestic Democrats they mean what they say.
John Maynard Keynes, also had kind words for German fascists in the introduction to the German edition of “General Theory of Money and Credit” (1937) which was his theory to provide intellectual cover for the massive spending programs of the fascists and New Deal. This is why Keynesian theories dont work, its not an economic theory but political.
Her father, King George, was also a chain smoker and died of lung cancer. In Princess Margaret’s case, she was also a heavy drinker. She had her left lung removed, still drank heavily, and the last 15 plus years of her life were marked by ill health. She had a long bad end.
I’ve rarely seen the phrase used without at least a little irony if not outright sarcasm.
I wouldn’t get my knickers in a twist over it.