👑 “The Crown” Ends - Part 1
The final season says more about its creator’s narrative of the royals than anything else.
The Crown Season 6 is on Netflix.
Grade: C (See below)
Surprise!
You’re in for a treat. I’m excited to share that The Crown recap will be a fab collab between BEVP and Rebecca Cyr, friend, TV buff and myrebeccamendations on Instagram. First off, thank you Rebecca for finding time this week to be here with me to talk about that finale. We’ve been texting voraciously with one another for the past 4 days since the final 6 episodes of the 2-parter sixth season dropped. I can’t do justice to this analysis of a show-gone-rogue alone. It’s daunting.
There’s so much to talk about we are breaking up this post into 2 installments.
“The Spare,” Honor & Service and Being a British Royal
Beth: Gosh, so many themes to unpack on this one. Of course, this show, The Crown, while about the British monarchy “institution” of the 20th Century is supposed to be about more than just Queen Elizabeth II but let’s not forget that she was the Queen for 70 years which pretty much spans most of the 20th Century. She’s the predominant figurehead. The show, starting in season 1 takes us from her childhood during WW2 through to her 50th jubilee, at the end of season 6, the final season in the mid 00s.
I am not a first born. I’m a 4th born so in this tale of the responsibilities that come with it and especially in inheriting the kingdom/queendom, I have no point of comparison, however I think this is irrelevant. The show leans into the sacrifices Elizabeth makes throughout her life for the monarchy and the gravity of her role and purpose - enough for the viewer to relate to the material.
“To be in service is an honor and not a sacrifice.” - Queen E
The Crown strikes a nice balance of depicting sibling love and hardships, especially under the microscope as with Elizabeth and her younger sister Margaret and William and Harry. The connection cross-generationally as we saw with the relationship between the Queen and William, her grandson always made for beautiful scenes. In many ways, Elizabeth is able to connect much more deeply with Wills than her own children and notably Charles.
Rebecca, what did you think about what the show was saying about 1st borns, honor and the concept of “the spare”? Are the Elizabeths and Wills of the world molded into responsible and noble humans and the Harrys and Margarets destined for rebelliousness as the 2nd children?
Rebecca: Oof, if that’s what they’re saying it doesn’t feel like Charles got the memo? Though that could be just how he was depicted as sort of a rebel (cue my rant about how Peter Morgan loves Charles). You know, in reading Spare, Harry described it as a second class citizenry, but it almost feels like more of a hall pass? Like a bullet dodged?
I’m also conflicted on birth order v. personality. I’m also the youngest, but my older brother took what you might call the “Harry” role and did a whole lot of screwing up in spite of what his birth order suggested. This required me to really buck up and do the right thing - I guess what I’m saying is even if Harry were first born, does he have the constitution for the role? I would say all evidence points to no. I might say the same of Margaret. It's hard to imagine her making the choices that were ultimately put upon her (like giving up her loved one(s) to avoid scandal). On Margaret though, it feels like her duty was to love and support Lilibet, and to that she was steadfast and unwavering. And her sister in kind.
Sir Peter Morgan’s Patriarchy & Anti-Diana Sentiment
Beth: It’s a valid point about Harry’s disposition, but I can say I would have preferred to watch more of his antics (minus the Nazi regalia wearing prank) and less of “Willsmania” (the title of episode 5 and a prime focus for Peter Morgan, the show’s creator). Watching William’s Eton and St. Andrews life was a major snoozefest, like watching paint dry. I don’t think it registered for me that he majored in Art History which is kind of interesting, I guess? But back to the analogy of paint drying, probably not.
Let’s talk Morgan’s love of and for Charles. It’s clear that he’s gunning for a royal title. Why else would he transform a rather dislikable, whiny character into the misunderstood anti-hero progressive of this story? Perhaps he relates to him on a personal level? Even his affair with Camilla came across as sympathetic - he wasn’t allowed to marry the love of his life. Damn the monarchy! But he was allowed to destroy the woman he was forced into marrying. I know this perpetuates the victim/martyr narrative around Princess Diana and this is the last thing I want to do, mostly because it plays into Morgan’s smarmy and thinly-veiled contempt for all British royal women apart from Queen Elizabeth, but I’m loathe to say, he cast Diana in quite the naive virgin-to-wicked-and-careless primadonna role pretty effortlessly.
Rebecca: Yup, they did Diana dirty and I did not like that. Even the Wills and Philip scene when he insinuates the person that Will is really mad at is Mum and not Dad? I mean, why? The fact is I’m always going to be Team Diana here but, I will say, this show has helped me to appreciate the love that Camilla and Charles have. The mere fact that it’s lasted this long, and through all of this, is pretty undeniable. This love is well depicted in all the scenes with 1:1 conversations between them. It’s just hard to get past the mistreatment of Diana. She was merely brought in as a breeder and was seemingly the last to know.
And yes, I’m completely with you, he has questionable perspectives on women in general that really color their character portrayals.
Agree that the Wills bits were BOR-ING. I suppose the only logical area of study for a monarch is history?
Beth: The whole Philip glam-up angle of this season has my knickers in a knot. Everything we’ve heard about dear old “Pa” in the media at least doesn’t really match up to the wise and thoughtful sage projected by actor Jonathan Pryce on screen. Philip is always the steady voice of reason in this show, except is he really?
Wait, is Philip even a “Pa” too? I know Charles is. [Note to Self: Check out this detail]
Philip’s interactions with Diana always reeked of misogyny and calculated venom and that weirdly cheating affair-of-the-heart he had with the much younger noble woman last season was also bizarre. He’s a bit pervy so that’s all I’ll say there. Also, do you remember his fascination with the moon landing? Like find a hobby, dude. Maybe become “Minister of tablecloths” and spare the taxpayers. Ok, I’m officially done ranting about Philip.
I’ll just chalk this all up to Morgan’s love of the male lineage. Heck, even the Queen was in on the take with her salute to her uncle, Edward VIII, a known Nazi sympathizer, during her wedding speech to Charles and Camilla in the finale, comparing their love to Edward’s and his American divorcee Wallis Simpson trumping everything else. Did we just erase Season 1 or is this a version of revisionist history. I can’t share in the positive sentiment for Charles and Camilla, even though I can agree that The Crown is trying to make us all believe they belong together and are so brave for bucking the odds. It’s all a Peter Morgan trompe l’oeil as he works his way into Sir Peter status.
Putting patriarchy and revisionist history to the side for a moment, one thing I’m always up for on this show is the relationship between the Queen and Prime Minister, which over the years has vacillated between being more tender and warm (Churchill) to more openly objectionable. I particularly enjoyed the Tony Blair opposition to the Queen - someone who is younger, Labour party, and represents more of an anti-establishment and non-traditionalist Britain moving forward because it begs the question as the Queen gets older and even more out of touch with her constituents if she’s even up for the job anymore, which of course is the focal point for the last few episodes.
Prime Ministers & Castings
Rebecca: Yeah I had feelings re Phillip too. He was a far more interesting character as a younger man (not the least of which because Matt Smith, Tobias Menzies), but has never come anywhere near loveable. He’s a famous curmudgeon, and the show seems to be ok supporting that narrative. The only part that I enjoyed of him in this season was his continued support of Elizabeth, particularly in the wedding/potential abdication episode. I liked the fact that he seemed to really see her, and hold his judgment short of validating her with few words when and where needed. Beyond this he’s kind of a misery and doesn’t deserve much screen time.
Ok let's talk prime ministers, cause Tony was a fun burst of energy in the room. I had a bit of whiplash from his portrayed rise and fall and definitely went down a google wormhole following that episode to see how much of this was the seeming collective sentiment vs Peter Morgan’s take, and it does seem to check out. How fickle the people can be! As you know from our chats Beth, the “audit” episode was one of the funnier bits of television I watched this year. To me, Tony and friends represented most American viewers at least with his “Can you believe this shit?!” take on the monarch’s spending habits. It really did leave me thinking, truly, how is this even a thing? But then I felt my opinion being so incongruent with what seemed to be the show’s conclusion which was more along the lines of “Don’t you see, this is history and it’s important!” Agree to disagree I guess? Maybe it’s just impossible to understand as a non-Brit.
But back to PM’s in general - some of the best content on The Crown has been in the episodes where the queen went toe to toe with PM’s, mostly because she is portrayed as being more than capable of beating them, and there’s something fun to watch about that.
I love a storyline of an underestimated woman and it’s actually quite logical that a woman in her position could become quite adept at spotting political nonsense - I mean, she outlasts all of them! What a unique position from which to take in the political world.
From the Archives & Part 2 - “The Crown” Continues…
 | A guest post by
|