‘The Crown’ and what the British Royal Family would like us to forget

Over the past seven years, ‘The Crown’ has been criticized by numerous prominent Britons on behalf of their royal family.

After former Prime Minister John Major described the show as a ‘ton of rubbish’, and actress Judi Dench – who is friends with Queen Camilla – accused it of ‘gross sensationalismIn 2022, Netflix labeled the show a “fictional dramatization.” But these complaints failed to grasp the appeal of the sprawling drama for many British fans and, for the real-life royal family, its usefulness.

The show was never about revealing something new. Instead, what the royal family would most like us to forget has resurfaced. “The Crown” has spent six seasons addressing several covert British truths: the public perception of the monarchy, the self-preservation strategies of a family concerned with becoming irrelevant and the family’s rigorous suppression of internal dissent.

The glossy dramatization of these truths is partly why the popularity of “The Crown” has endured and found an audience in Britain, even among people who want an end to the monarchy or are indifferent to it. I am one of the former.

When the show premiered in 2016, I was captivated by Claire Foy’s portrayal of a young Elizabeth prematurely enthroned after a tragedy, entertained by Olivia Colman’s more confident queen who has had more challenging relationships with her prime ministers and has remained loyal to her story. while Imelda Staunton closes “The Crown” as a pious matriarch and meddling parent.

Much of the show is devoted to the romantic woes of the royal family, but over the years I’ve become more interested in its depiction of the extent to which the crown will protect its power and traditions.

This was evident in episodes where Elizabeth traveled to Kenya as a princess to try to counter the country’s independence movement (season 1); the family hid the Queen’s disabled cousins, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, in an institution (season 4); and a 20-year-old Diana gets stuck in a loveless marriage so the future king can have a chaste-looking bride (Season 4).

Yet the show has often neglected to explore the true wealth and political influence of the monarchy. The crown’s real estate portfolio is valued at 16.5 billion pounds ($21 billion), and the monarch enjoys a broad exemption from most taxeslike many other laws. According to official rules, members of the royal family cannot be criticized in parliament, even though a report by The guardCharles has written directly to the country’s top politicians asking for changes to national policy.

In Britain, what the public sees of the royal family is carefully staged: we get recorded Christmas broadcasts and gentle waves from chariots and balconies that we can crawl over while waving our little Union Jacks. The ‘Palace’, as the royal institution is known, would like us to get to know the family through their carefully curated charity work, patronage, garden parties, weddings and anniversaries.

So there’s something exciting about portraying such a powerful family on screen without their control. It’s the same pleasure many of us will have had from watching Oprah’s interview by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, or from reading Harry’s memoir, ‘Spare’.

In recent decades, Britons eager for an unvarnished view of the royal family have pored over intrusive paparazzi shots of Princess Diana on a yacht or Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, having her toes sucked on holiday. But because “The Crown” is a “fictional dramatization,” it can be enjoyed guilt-free, without having to deal with the filth of British tabloid newspapers.

Perhaps it is no surprise that anonymous sources have done so passed bills about the royal family being upset by a show that dramatizes moments they would rather forget. But this fails to take into account the extent to which “The Crown” humanized those at the top of Britain’s rigid class system.

Louis Staples, a Harper’s Bazaar columnist and frequent commentator on “The Crown,” points out that “intimacy is one of the most valuable currencies in our culture today.” When people share with us deeply enough – their shortcomings, their failures, their ups and downs – we form a connection with them.”

Queen Elizabeth was known for not sharing the messy, human, and emotional parts of herself with her audience, and for encouraging the rest of her family to do the same. The PR strategy of ‘never complain, never explain’, considered a core principle of her government, means that silence is dignified and public expression is harmful.

But storylines on “The Crown” — such as the suggestion of infidelity between Prince Philip and Penelope Knatchbull or the grief of young William and Harry after the loss of their mother — may have served to humanize people who are generally at a distance were kept from the public.

Given that the real existential threat to the royal family is not public hatred but total irrelevance – especially since the queen’s death – ‘The Crown’ has given the Windsors an invaluable kind of reach, even if they have come to see it as a bitter have to take medicine. .

Once the show ends and viewers are no longer in the thrall of discovering the (yes, fictionalized) stories of the real people behind the on-screen characters, the Royal Family may be left longing for another season.