I Hate The Royals But I Can't Stop Watching The Crown
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 05. 2024
- Is it possible to enjoy Netflix hit "The Crown" as an anti-monarchist? Well... it's complicated.
------
Support the channel:
Patreon: / jameswoodall
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/jameswoodall
Follow me on twitter: / jamesbwoodall
------
0:00 Introduction
4:39 Part I - Peter Morgan
8:40 Part II - The Truth
18:44 Part III - The Human Angle
36:33 Part IV - Impartiality
45:34 - Part V - Propaganda
55:59 - Conclusion
------
Seamless Letterpress Paper Textures by Tony Thomas
medialoot.com/item/seamless-l...
Music by
John Bartmann
freemusicarchive.org/music/Jo...
Scott Buckley
www.scottbuckley.com.au/library/
Mr Lonogan
Nightfall
Passage of Time
Filaments
Sanctuary
Signal to Noise
Adrift among infinite stars
Darren Curtis
He’s Changing The Game by Darren-Curtis | / desperate-measurez
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
DeMooz
/ sampled-classical-inst...
HOOS
/ the-lucky-one-soundtrack
/ the-old-hope
Keys of Moon
Downpour by Keys of Moon | / keysofmoon
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Alexander Nakarada
Horde Of Geese by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsoundstudios.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Gregor Quendel
freemusicarchive.org/music/gr...
Leonard Richter
/ frozen-ambient-orchest...
Alina Smirnova
freemusicarchive.org/music/al...
freemusicarchive.org/music/al...
Alexandra Tsikina
/ searching-for-yeti-roy...
#thecrown #videoessay - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Great analysis! Personally, watching The Crown did improve my opinion of the royals but it didn’t make me pro-monarchy. If anything, it made me more anti. Almost all of the problems that we as viewers sympathize with are caused by the characters being royalty. We feel bad that Margaret didn’t get to marry who she wanted. Why didn’t she get to? Because she was the queen’s sister. Charles and Diana had a terrible marriage because he was in love with someone else the whole time. Why couldn’t he marry Camilla? Because he would be the next king. The show seems to argue (maybe inadvertently) that these people would have been far better off leading a normal life.
Exactly!!
I think the overall message of the show is that the monarchy can now only succeed if the royals are allowed to live as normal lives as they can, to be themselves.
The royal family, if it is to stay royal, should be an example for happiness to the country. If their duty makes them miserable, we may as well be a republic.
@@rtozier2011 Imagine that the United Kingdom of Great Britain 🇬🇧 becomes the United Republic of the British Isles. How that for a country name?
This was my issue with it, too. I felt like the major conflicts were, as you said, 'my life sucks because I'm royal', or 'we have to pull some desperate political stunt to make sure we appear relevant to the public'. Maybe some more profound psychological exploration of the characters could have breathed some life into the series? I found myself disliking every single character by season 4 - but I did keep watching, so something is working 😂
@@itsblitz4437 That wouldn't be the name. It would be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As it is now, except changing Kingdom to Republic.
It wouldn't just be of Great Britain. That's one place, one island, and so can't be united with itself. It's not a football team. And it wouldn't be British Isles, as that term includes the Republic of Ireland, which is already a republic and a separate nation.
I like to watch the crown in a satirical way, I love the scenes when they do normal things like getting a haircut, and the producers play background music like they are curing cancer.
Omg, this 😂Don't get me started on Imelda Staunton's monologue about how important the Britannia yacht is "not a luxury" like ma'am who do you think you're kidding
@@emmacurzon4672 but she deserves a yacht cos all her castles were hand-me-downs 😆
My favorite bit in the show are those moments when Charles is going on a self important ramble and each successive PM being forced to sit through it are just staring at him like he's a freak
My favourite scene was Margaret saying how stupid it was to be filmed by a television crew whilst pretending to watch television.
That one scene where he is removing the kings lung and just puts in a sheet of old newspaper like he was at the butchers getting some off cuts for the dog lmao
I think the funniest fictional scene in the most recent season is when the Russian president out loud openly talks ill of the Queen right next to her in Russian and the Queen didn't have any translators for a state visit on what he could be saying..
I was fully expecting the twist to be that she understood what he said but they never got there. They did go pretty accurate with how the Romanov's died, which is another event that has mythologized quite a bit, so I guess that's part of the balance he mentions in the video.
And that why Angela Merkel learned Russian.
There was a translator. She even looked at him a smiled awkwardly. But the fact she didn’t say anything is stupid as hell
You're a kinder person than me, I was giddy watching Thatcher be continuously embarrassed at Balmoral.
I take it you are NOT a huge Thatcher fan, aren't you?
@@itsblitz4437why would they, even the person who made the video said they weren’t lol
me too :)
Number one ibbible dibble, am I right?
I think Margaret Thatcher was the gift from Hell.
She launched so much damage and injury on the weakest in society, only for us to gloat at them or scowl over their behavior, or lack thereof, on teve shows.
Still a small part of me felt a wee bit sorry for her. It was all too clear she was living in a bubble.
But it's not in the vicinity of the pain I feel for her victims, who keep suffering to this day.
Agree about Diana. She must have had a larger life and personality than portrayed. She was portrayed as extremely weak and one dimensional, which I doubt she was.
She found herself in an impossible situation, that's all.
No, mass media glorified that woman simply based on her physical appearance, just another example Halo effect. But on the other side, people closed to her *included her own family* described her as mentally unstable.
@@ilonat8373 yeah being 19 (btw, that fam who stood by and let her be groomed at 16/17 by a 30 something year old Charles and Camilla just so they could have a daughter as a princess) essentially being led to royal slaughter..oops, the expectation is being nothing more than a brood mare who only speak when spoken to, will do that to a young woman you know
@@ilonat8373 but I will agree with the fact that folks romanticized the notion of a young beautiful princess who's "fairytale ", only for it to ultimately end up as tragedy
@@leelohaskin7941 Royal slaughter? What? That woman got a life of extreme privilege that she didn't appreciate because of her paranoid thoughts. Don't blame it on age. Many 19 years old will be more then happy to get that life.
@@ilonat8373 see we're focusing on the privilege, its the fairytale syndrome alot of us middle class or poor get wrapped up in, but her loss of independence and self worth, and being essentially groomed due to looks and noble lineage is not nor will EVER be worth any title or castle. What the firm, Charles and Camilla did to her is legendary
Aberfan is probably my favorite episode of the Crown. It’s so powerful and heartbreaking. As an American I would have never heard of the tragedy if it weren’t for this episode.
Depends on what youre interested in. I heard about it on a podcast before watching the show, and I am american
its definitely my favourite. i grew up in the same area of wales as aberfan, so i often heard about it. the start of the episode giving background on the children made it so much more tragic.
I'm a 73 year old American and I remember the Aberfan Tragedy. It was well reported over here.
Does America not get international news?
@Merlin The person said "as an American". They didn't say "as a young person". So they said that being American was the reason they didn't know, not being young.
I think season 5 was dull because they decided to be too nice to Charles. In 3 & 4, he was regarded as a whiny child (though his character did have some redeeming moments). In 5, they're starting to treat him like they do Elizabeth, and give him a more sympathetic angle (I wonder why that is... I heard there were reshoots after prince Phillip and queen Elizabeth's deaths). That scene with him and Diana in her apartment apologizing to each other made me rage. Diana wasn't perfect, but Charles and the system was absolutely at fault, and they didn't say that well enough this season, and made me very disappointed.
Too nice to Charles? He's a cheating, unkind, unpleasant asshole beyond redeeming. If anything, season 5 made him seem even worse to me
@@bas_ee Spoken like you know him.
I hated him regardless
season 5 made him an even whinier adult.
he whined like a bitch,
much worse than in earlier seasons.
it was boring and awful.
Peter Morgan must adore Charles to think that this is a sympathetic portrayal
or" an interesting complex portrayal"
not just whiny crap,
( and this coming from someone who watched the first 3 seasons more than once,
i rather liked Josh O Connor as Charles )
and if he meant to make him look bad,
he certainly succeeded,
but what would the point of that be ?
to make someone look bad and for so tediously long, over so many ...
let's see, i need another synonym
for whiny, annoying ...
bitch ..?!
a
As an American, I've been fascinated with The Crown since the first episode. But with each ensuing season, as they are released, I've been less enthusiastic. To me, the intriguing part was learning how the government of the U.K. worked in partnership with the monarchy. Watching Elizabeth struggle with her role as Queen, and learning all the protocols and the reason behind them, has been extremely interesting. Realizing that she couldn't share government papers with her husband. Learning that she had virtually no formal education. Finding out that her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill. Stepping into her shoes when her father died so unexpectedly, and knowing what that would mean for her, for her husband, and for her family. Wondering what it must feel like to have descended from a family that included great men, great monsters, saints, and butchers of saints. It must be a rather weird existence. To have the whole world suspect your husband of infidelity and be unable to do anything about it. Or do anything to change your life at all, EVER. To have all the world privy to the growing pains and missteps of each of your children. Yes, I admire the queen for her dedication to her country, and her stoic and resolute commitment to her duty.
being welsh, the episode on aberfan really moved me. it brought me to tears, which rarely happens when i watch media. im very proud of those involved in the making of that episode.
Let me put it this way. Watching the Crown did not change me from being a royalist to a republican. Actually going to Buckingham Palace for my Duke of Edinburgh Gold Award ceremony, having to stand in the pouring rain in an ill-fitting suit, told I was strictly only to chose one cup of coffee and one cake, then watching Prince Edward, a man whose family is supposedly ‘above’ me, give a half-hearted speech where he got the words wrong, then wonder around the gardens being hounded by sycophantic throngs even though, to my closer inspection, he appeared to be nothing more than a bored-looking middle aged man with a posh accent, when there were Olympians, respected journalists and Arctic explorers present getting far less attention, THAT is what made me a republican. It’s like becoming an atheist by reading the Bible: actually seeing the truth of the people you believe in face to face is a sobering experience.
Good for you. This is good judgement.
Most ppl who are royalist aren't usually royalist because they think the queen and her family do great service or put in the same ammount of sacrifices as an army vets family does. No many times the identity of the monarchy is embedded in colonialism and they glorify the monarchy to find a glimer of hope for their state and their own identities as at one point being superior.
The old saying goes "better to learn from experience".
@@kanamenoname210 only people with shallow points of view think monarchy is synonymous with colonialism. Monarchs have existed since the first civilisations in Mesopotamia and almost every country has had one up until the 1800s really. Monarchies existed long before “colonialism” was even a thing
@@kanamenoname210 People like the monarchy because it makes a good symbol, it has lasted a long time. I would argue that it has little to do with empire and colonialism, but i could be wrong, its not like i have any evidence for that statement.
What i would say is that people like the royal family for a similar reason that Native Americans celebrate and display their (somewhat) lost/destroyed culture, it is an enduring iddentity and pride that has existed with the group for generations. Perhaps not the best comparison but i feel it explains my pro monarchist position.
Also, personally my primary reason to support the monarchy is an economic one. Ignoring the massive amount of tourism it attracts, the monarchy owns an incredible amount of property. Property they lease to the UK government for an allowance of sorts. This allowance is far less than the rent/lease value of the land. So without the institution of the Crown it would cosst UK taxpayers more.
Additionally, I believe there are diplomatic advantages to having a monarch whos institution has had such a extensive history. This is just my opinion.
I love the crown, it did made me 'like' or at least respect the queen more, but it has also made me even more anti monarchy. Like i'm not british but here in belgium we've got an even more unnecessary monarchy that is just there and the fact that it's so clear that it's upheld just to be upheld not for the good of the country is very annoying
Never undermine any royal family. They secretly rule the world. They are the most powerful lobbyists of all time.
Agree, I think sometimes the crown comes off as fairly pro Elizabeth, but a bit anti monarchy as an institution. Anti "the firm" if you will
I’d take a dysfunctional monarchy over having a partisan or political head of state any day. But I do understand your point. I’m indifferent to the crown, it’s made up for the most part for dramatic purposes.
@@dandonovan11 Well a head of state that can actually do something will always be partison otherwise whats the point of politics
Well there is one silver lining to the Belgian royal family and that is Prince Emanuel de Merode. He's an actual wild life conservationist in Congo and risks his life for the conservation of endangered species in the country where his ancestor committed all those colonial atrocities. For what he's worth, it's clear how he is trying to make up for his family's past in whatever way he can, even surviving an assassination attempt and returning to his post as Park Ranger. Other than him, the rest could go imo.
I do agree that on the balance 'The Crown' comes out subtly pro-Monarchy, and the remark about Morgan's 'tin ear' for certain issues rings very true. That said, I've never really understood the idea that being sympathetic to the emotions of the royal family, either through fiction or historical frame, is somehow 'pro Monarchy'. Of course royalty are real people with feelings - was anyone's republicanism founded on the idea they weren't? David Ike's, maybe. The show makes the royal institution look like a very expensive torture chamber from where I'm sitting. Great video!
Good comment and I agree. Margaret is somewhat of my totem for what you said. Whether or not her relationship with Townsend was given up against her will or because she couldn't do without the trappings of the life given to her doesn't really matter. She never had the chance to develop as a normal person. She had no aim, nor was any really expected of her. She took solace and escape in vices (can't blame her) and often treated people abysmally (unexcusable.) She was the most flamboyant example of the system's inherent abusiveness to those born into it. Sure I'd murder for the perks (jewelry and always looking like the best version of myself are just beyond my means) but at the expense of having real friends or a job or generally participating in life? How different would we all be? Could I say I'd have turned out better than Margaret? For a fact: No.
Truth is, I think very few people don't understand what you've conveyed so well. Even those who hold the monarchy dear.
14:54 The idea of a man breaking into a woman's bedroom against her will shouldn't be considered a nice story, but should be recognized as the violation it was.
It’s entertaining for sure. As an Australian I’m most annoyed that, by our view, the most scandalous episode in the Monarch’s dealings (interference) with the Australian Parliament, the dismissal of the democratically elected Whitlam Labor government triggering a constitutional crisis, didn’t even rate a mention.
Both the Queens and Prince Charles were intimately involved in the dismissal.
You know a CZcams channel called History Matters made a video on the Australian Constitutional Crisis. Wasn't it just about Australia's party system (particularly its Senate) were at a impasse because they couldn't agree on anything?
@@itsblitz4437 it started with the death of a Labor senator from Queensland. The corrupt conservative National Party state government didn’t follow parliamentary convention by submitting the name of Labor’s chosen replacement but rather nominated an “independent” Labor person which the Queen gave Royal assent to. That changed the balance of power in the senate, which then blocked supply.
The Governor General, who had been in discussion with both the Queens and Prince Charles about his plans then recommended to the Queen to dismiss the Labor government, once again defying parliamentary convention and likely the constitution.
In both instances the Queen had a duty to ensure the constitution and convention was being followed, but because of the Royal’s antithesis to Labor (and Labour) governments, was more interested in the outcome, rather than her duty.
@@marty6462 no, just an Australian who knows his politics, and this was one of the biggest abuses of power by a Monarch in Australian history so it’s generally well known.
In fact, the Royals has pushed the line that the Queen was just following the advice provided by her minders but this turned out to be a lie when a series of letters were released which showed the Royals were actually intimately involved and knew what they were doing. A journalist had to fight in court to have those letters between the Palace and our GG and others claiming that these official government records were private correspondence. Quite apparent why the Palace wanted to keep this secret to avoid a new scandal and embarrassment.
@@coasterblocks3420 as a fellow strayan it's also fucked how down played it is in school too. It felt very brushed over in the curriculum.
I get how insulting that is for you, but it wasn't covered because it didn't matter to the royals. They're so egocentric that they probably get more upset about their hunting plans being disrupted than their role in a constitutional crisis.
About Diana, I am old enough to remember her life with the royals. From what I can see, this looks like what I can remember seeing on TV and in print (but not tabloids. I don’t do tabloids) You may think Camilla and Charles didn’t get together until after harry was born but that’s not the impression I had at the time. In fact, it became clear almost from the start that something wasn’t quite right. Charles never looked like part of a couple with her. He always looked liked like her escort. In other words, she was the star. She didn’t start off that way but she was so damn photogenic and charismatic that the only time you can remember Charles existed was when he stood with her outside the hospital. It’s almost like he wasn’t a part of the act itself. He was just there to take her home. It always looked formal and forced on his part. She never looked forced with anyone.
So, it came as no surprise that we had heard that Camilla was his mistress. And it would not surprise me if it had been going on since the wedding. One thing the Crown cleared up for me was the way Charles defied his parents was by completely rejecting Diana. That seems very real. He might have really loved her if he could only stop contacting Camilla and give it a chance. It’s not like his heart wasn’t in it. It’s like the more that was expected of him with respect to Diana, the more he loathed her.
I don’t know how long after the wedding it was before C&C did the nasty but in *his* mind, it was only as long as it needed to be to get the spare and absolutely no longer because he was intent on giving the finger to everyone and Camilla was his weapon. In fact, he’s kind of a beta male. Camilla has few things to recommend her. But he never goes anywhere else. It’s almost like he knows just how sycophantic a woman has to be to sleep with him. Even his wife had limits even if it meant breaking precedent to get out.
So, do I think the Crown got this right? It looks like it to me. Yes, it is tragic for her. It made her cynical, paranoid and took away her innocence a lot sooner than it would fit other people. You get a sense that her happinesses in life were all too fleeting. That’s the tragedy. It changed her. It made her harder. She disappeared for awhile. When she came back working with the landmine campaign, it was almost like, ahhhh, we can relax again. She finally found herself. She would become like another Jackie O. And someday, if she was lucky, she’d find someone worthy of her. The tragedy is that she died but the triumph is that she finally discovered her worth and purpose.
Charles and Camilla's affair had begun a year before he had married Diana.
The comparison with Jackie O, another public figure who'd been knocked down from a very high perch, is apt. Jackie O triumphed over tragedy and it really would have been interesting to see what Diana would have done with the rest of her life.
That last part about Diana is worded so well and I agree completely. She was only here for a short time but she did find purpose in her life and that’s what life’s all about imo.
I believe that if she did live the royals family would try to poison her kids against her.
@@rhino5100 I’m not sure if Jackie was ever really booted off this high perch but I completely agree, and what’s super nice about Jackies life is that although she had to deal unimaginable trauma that probably followed her for the rest of her life with the murder of her husband, she did not let herself be defined by that moment in her personal life and she found fulfillment and happiness with her work and of course her children. It’s really nice that she got to have that and its so sad that Diana didn’t get the same opportunity, I’m sure things would have gone wonderfully for her and it seemed like she had a lot of big plans and hope for the future. At least we know that she did have a taste of it in the months/year leading up to her death.
I just wish we’d gotten more Anne. Erin Doherty was so captivating, and speaking as an American who finds monarchy silly as hell, I understand why so many Brits prefer her to Charles 😂
Yeah, they didn't even go inti the kidnapping plot.
why? She's rude charmless and never been popular
as an oblivious american, i would love a full academic study explaining the relationship between british citizens and the royal family.
i’ve never heard a british person be ambivalent about them, i feel like they either really love or really despise them lol. like, did people actually cry at the royal wedding? do some british people feel genuine grief after the queen died?
Lots of Brits had really weird reactions. The Royals, like any of the other celebrities, are seen as 'public' figures, as in figuratively owned by the public, which is why the press feels free to invade their privacy, and manipulate their behaviours and actions to dish out entertainment to a judgemental public.
Many Brits are head-over-heels for the Royals; they feel they know them personally as they are wrapped up in all this media output. Many Brits actively hate the Royals: they see them as glorified but ultimately useless media fodder who live in luxury on the back of our paycheques. And plenty of Brits are ambivalent, seeing the entire thing as this sort of optional charade (this is why I accepted an invitation to observe the 2018 Trooping the Colour, a bit of fun cultural pageantry, because why not, fun day out that I wouldn't have otherwise bothered to engage in) or if feeling more serious, as a good excuse to find a shared experience with our communities.
I recall one interview (I think a soundbite was featured in this video at 51:58) where this lady says going to see the Queen's coffin was "the best thing [she's] ever done" and better than the birth of their kids?! This is definitely not the attitude of someone mourning, that sounds like someone wanting to revel in the cultural pageantry of it all. And whilst her words seemed to me to be quite tone-deaf and indiscreet, I can't help but agree with the sentiment. If I had not been abroad at the time, I would probably have also taken the time to go into central London and gawk at all the Royal happenings, humans crave the feeling of significance, and having a first hand account of an experience of a historical event is exactly what many Brits were probably doing by flocking to the city.
@@lir.j6245 🤓
You wouldn’t get it
Brit here, I'm very ambivalent towards them. They're just kinda... there, to me
It was a strange feeling when she died I never knew her like most but I felt somewhat upset when I found out about the news.
America had ten monarchs, from King James I to King George III. How did Americans feel about them?
I watched this video and until the 47 min mark completely forgot the queen is dead
The Crown is legitimately one of the greatest TV series of all time, regardless of what you think of the Royal Family or the monarchy in general. It's a great way to learn your Royal history, even if some minor details are exaggerated a little bit for dramatic and theatricality's sake.
Love this analysis! Totally subscribing.
Ironically, though, I had issues with this season for the opposite reason to yours: because I *did* care about Charles and Diana. Well, just Diana really. Loved Emma Corrin's portrayal of her in 3-4 and tbh the Crown made me really interested in learning more about the real Diana and her life before the tragic death. And I found it so infuriating that the show - after portraying Charles as treating her absolutely appallingly throughout season 4 - suddenly started trying to both-sides everything. There's small lines they throw in to make her seem that bit more unsympathetic and a lot of the series feels like hour after hour of kissing Charles' ass, especially when they end an episode gushing about how great the Prince's Trust is.
Also, were we really meant to feel bad for Liz when the government would cough up a bajillion pounds to refurbish her fucking "not a luxury" yacht?! That whole arc was so batshit entitled (even by the characters' usual standards) it almost felt like a parody.
I agree with you about the Prince's Trust episode (that was just... weird), but I think the whole yacht refurbishment debacle was indeed a heavy handed metaphor to show how out of touch with reality they were. Philip jotted down the numbers of the refurbishing (17 million pounds if i remember correctly) like it was petty cash. Also, she gloats how a distance of a two hours flight takes her two weeks on the yacht, which obviously means an enormous cost in diesel fuel and staff. I think we were supposed to understand that she was refusing to let go of a bygone era, and maybe sympathize with that feeling, more than to just feel "bad" for her?
@@annasiile ALSO also, didn't the prime minister point out in the beginning of the episode that the royals *did* have enough money of their own to pay for the yacht refurbishment themselves? 😬 After he pointed that out and it was dismissed, I couldn't forget it! Whenever the royals were complaining about the government not paying for it, I blurted out "then YOU pay for it, if it's so important!"... It made them look especially entitled and out of touch that they had been reminded, time and time again, that there was a recession going on and their "subjects" (aka the population) were struggling. But the royals were more concerned with symbols, and not wanting to pay the expense.
I think it's rather weird that the show recieved those commentaries from royalists for doing some milquetoast off-hand criticism. It's worrying how anything short off full-blown loyalty is seen as an animosity, and it makes me thankful the royal family isn't any more powerful than they currently are.
That been said, excellent video, as always! Incredible how you only release masterpiece videos!
It makes me laugh whenever the royalists complain about the crown- and makes me wonder how fragile they think the Royals are if they think one mildly critical TV series could end the monarchy as we know it.
It's less because it's some powerful tool to pull them down and more because some people believe the Crown is what happend in real life. The producers are also unkind to include people who are still alive today into their fictional storylines.
I haven't watched the new season yet but this was such a great video. I remember back when it premiered my mother - who is a historian - hated it, and kept pointing out how things "wouldn't have happened that way" or "made no sense". I was already way too invested and my replies to her were always around watch the characters/ it's not a documentary/ this is a show/ etc. I think you're right that it is only as compelling as it is *because* it's about real people, but I wonder why I feel so differently about the crown than about all the other hundreds of biopics that have come out in the past few years.
The problem with "it's not a documentary" is that if this was about a fictional family, it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. People are watching this and confirming their biases about the royal family. The problem is, people don't watch documentaries. It's not like people are watching The Crown and then watching documentaries to learn the truth. They're watching the Crown and taking it as truth whether they admit it or not, then saying "it's not a documentary". Well when people only learn about history through watching drama, we have a problem.
@@kennethmacalpin7655 it's kinda sad since it's even here in the comment section. There are a ton of comments that state that they confirmed their anti monarchy bias because of this show and that alone shows the sad state of taking fiction for reality.
I think the thing that is most beneficial to me about the Crown is that it encourages me to go and learn more about the history it is based on. As an American I must confess that many of the historical events portrayed were outside the scope of my knowledge before I saw the show. While that is not unusual in my country it is rather more unusual for me since I've spent most of my life engaged in the pursuit of historical knowledge. It just so happens that the pieces of history I chose to learn were far more centered on my own country then on the world at large. This show has encouraged me to step outside of that knowledge base and it sometimes even causes me to ask the question, what part of what I just watched was fact and what part was fiction? As the pursuit of knowledge is best engaged by the spark of interest I find the show to be invaluable in it's ability to be a catalyst to grow my own knowledge base. In short it does not matter to me if it is accurate nearly as much as it matters whether it is interesting. And I find the show absolutely fascinating..
nothing but facts
She was always meant to be queen. Even if her uncle hadn't of abdicated she was up next being as he didn't have children and her father died young.
I think Venetia Scott was *maybe* supposed to be a foil of youth against Churchill's age? It seemed like Venetia's function in the story was to make Churchill confront his age and compare his present self with his younger self -- Venetia was "in love" with the younger, more virile version of Churchill. The fact that Venetia was in love with the "younger" rather than the older Churchill may also be another hint at the idea that Churchill in his old age was "past his prime". At the same time, what I read into Lithgow's acting is a sense of shame that Churchill had for his past self. My memory of WWII and Churchill history is that Churchill suffered a major military defeat in his youth that set back his career, so it would make sense that Churchill may feel a sense of shame when thinking back on his younger self. Churchill also seems like the type of character who became more jaded in his old age and would make more sense that he has a mixture of emotions thinking about his youth such as feeling both wistful yet also shameful -- simultaneously mourning his youth and virility whilst being disgusted by lack of wisdom and wishing that he had made better choices. In context of the arc of the Fog episode, Venetia's death served to remind Churchill about taking action and being bold -- thus he realizes his mistake of being unresponsive to the crisis once he sees Venetia lying dead in the morgue. Yet, it was all in vain because Churchill seems to go back to his jaded, unresponsive ways given how the clearing of the weather seems to vindicate Churchill for his inaction -- at least that's how I read into Lithgow's smirk when he saw the clouds fade away.
I feel exactly the same way.
There was an episode where the brakes on Diana's car failed and she nearly crashed but didnt. I wonder if that happened in real life. I am curious to how they will cover the incident of her death in the show
She made a letter around the spring of 1995 where she thought her car will be tampered to have its brakes broken
Honestly the most interesting part of season 5 had nothing to do with 90s, it was the Romonavs death scene I really found fascinating. I wouldn’t mind if they did a series about them or King George V reign with King Edward in it.
They're supposed to be working on a prequel series when the show ends which will cover the reigns of the four kings preceding Elizabeth. (Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI). I'd assume Jared Harris and Alex Jennings will reprise their roles.
I wasn’t alive or was too young during the Thatcher stuff, but she’s not thought of well in the US today. So the opinion I had of her and the Falklands was she doesn’t care about anyone except certain types of Brits so going to war to keep a piece of land for the empire would be nothing for her, in fact, something she would be eager to do. Austerity for the people, not for a military operation that will make her popular.
Ive always thought of her as commited to the state. Among all the British pm's, she was one of only few of them without personal scandals.
@@mmgs1148 and she created the broad prosperity that subsequent governments both benefitted from and squandered. She saved, for a time, the UK from socialist decline. Americans who understand these things admire the Iron Lady
The citizens of the Falkland Islands don't want to be part of Argentina. Thatcher protected them from a foreign invasion. "The Empire" doesn't care about the Falkland Islands, it's not like there's great natural resources there. But as long as the people wish to remain a British Overseas Territory, the UK will defend their right to self-determination. In much the same way the US has its Puerto Rico, its US Virgin Islands, and its American Samoa.
have you seen Dennis?@@mmgs1148
This is a perfect video! As a Scot, who is passionate about the self determination of my own country, it’s fair to say I am not the biggest fan of the Royals. But The Crown has a vice grip on me. 🙈
You can support Scottish independence while still supporting monarchy. Scotland had a royal family when it was independent.
Unfortunately for season five *too much* happened in the Windsor family. Also I think you might be on to something that the John Major years were politically a bit dull. I kept waiting for maybe his affair with Edwina Currie to be used as a framing device but (unless it comes up in the last episode) my mother reminded me that that came out much later.
Honestly, thinking about it what are the next big political stories in her lifetime. The Iraq war? 9/11? The financial crisis in 2008? I’m not sure.
Oh I think a 9/11 episode would be interesting, similar to how they showed her reaction to President Kennedy’s death in the Dear Mrs. Kennedy episode.
I think the issue is Morgan likes Major - you could very easily draw comparison between Major announcing "back to basics" even as the tory party imploded into a mess of sex and corruption scandals, and the queen trying to stay firm as her own family itself imploded
Same here. I only loved Diana. She was my hero throughout the '80s and '90s until her death. The Crown is binge-watch-worthy, but I really dislike what those people do.
I love the shot of her dancing with Nkrumah! And how closely they capture the shot of them on the dancefloor to the real thing we are already familiar with from the papers of the day!
My favorite episode was Diana selling her story to panorama and the 5th of November.
That Guy fawkes had to be explained to British characters who would've knew who that was organically. Just explaining obvious information to an American audience.
It was so dry and the repetitive nature of explaining who he was and why it was so pertinen & I couldn't help but laugh.
for me, the person i'm getting to know when watching the show is Peter Morgan. the show's a fascinating exploration of what he thinks about all of this....oh you KNOW you'll be back!...
Felt like i was in an a level media studies class(im a medic by background), lovee this analysis a lot! Subscribed !!
Another excellent essay. This really got a bunch of thoughts circling my head. Putting them into words is tough since I'm not the essayist here, but I can try. It interests me how concepts like "the queen/crown" are less people themselves, more like literal cultural icons of thought, which certain sects of society (monarchists) will force someone to live in place of for their entire lives out of "duty", despite no actual person ever being equipped for that. (Smth smth Sword of Damocles) So when surprise, they say speak about how they're not equipped for everything, people will sympathize with the 'thought' over the actual person. But the thought doesn't care, there's no winners.
Idk, maybe I just sound like I'm repeating point from your video. I'm not great at nuancing my points. Like, I started writing this whole other paragraph that echoed like a "God is dead" metaphor about theme park costumes. Who tf knows what I was on about lol
I love the end of this comment, this is exactly what I’m like 💀
Love the analysis! I, as an outside American, and I liked this fictional not glossy look into what it would be like to be in that kind of institution. The fact that it’s based on reality makes it kinda fun and fascinating as to how such an old institution could survive in this new environment/world. It made me rethink the value of the monarchy as it seemed handy to have a portion of the govt that could be called in when the PM needs help, etc. This is of course coming from someone who’s knowledge of UK history is spotty at best. Learned a lot about Wales from the crown on top of one visit in high school ages ago but that was more a stop. Plus how they show US Presidents kills me and omg President Johnson…such a character irl.
If anything, the Crown was a great catalyst for me to do some reading and learn something new about history, as I would research after watching an episode because I was curious about the events poetrayed.
I'm not British, I'm South American. My opinion was an still is the Monarchy is a dumb old thing that should end everywhere. I watched maybe a season and a half. I keep thinking about watching more, especially because they keep casting such great people to be in it.
But my main take away from watching what I did watch is, that as much as I could feel empathy for those people's personal dramas, it all comes down to: these are not real problems. People want to do things for their own happiness but can't because the firm owns them. I'm sorry, that's not a real problem. Hunger is a real problem, inequality is a real problem. These people don't own their own lives but I feel like that is easily fixed, by, you know, throwing a wrench into the whole system. Oh...you'd have to work to own money and that kind of sucks? Well...OK...go on and keep inbreeding then.
Seriously great cast tho...I might watch the rest of it someday.
What do you mean it's not a real problem? While I agree the Crown lies a lot, the royals are real and the problem you've just laid out is real for them. Just because it's not a problem for you doesn't mean it's not real. You say hunger is a real problem, but it's not a problem for them, yet they don't say it's not real because it doesn't affect them. And I don't think the royals inbreed as much as the negative stereotype would have us believe. Maybe centuries ago but not now.
@@kennethmacalpin7655 I think what they mean is, it's only a problem they face because they choose to participate in the system that makes it a problem for them in the first place. It would be far easier to destroy the concept of a monarchy than destroying hunger or poverty, for instance.
I'll just say a simple sentence in response to your "real problem" statement. Just because someone somewhere is dying of hunger doesn't invalidate my hunger. I don't mean to be insensitive and equate these two, but the reality stands that we all go through our own struggles and we must not compare them in order to validate or invalidate one problem.
@@karanliya7056 nothing but facts couldn’t have been said any better
@@karanliya7056 while this may be true, we can’t act like this situation is equating two “kinds” of hunger. Because as we’ve seen throughout history, if a royal family member is hungry, then their own hunger very much indeed comes first and the rest of the world has to watch them consume until they’ve had their fill. You can’t have your privilege and cry about your oppression too. Especially when you directly participate and benefit in the oppression and subjugation of others. So yes normally one persons hunger can’t invalidate another, but that statement can’t be applied to people who wield so much power to change feed their hunger ethically if they truly desired.
There’s only one argument in support of the monarchy that I can appreciate, and it was Stephen Fry’s take on why it’s necessary. He compared it to the US, where for instance, if the President of the US had to get in the car every Tuesday or whatever and drive to the other side of D.C. to meet with Uncle Sam, where he would bow his head and inform him of what is going on in the nation and why, perhaps there would be a sense of regality, a sense that this job is important but you still answer to a greater power. It would make the President answerable to someone else (because it’s not like the voters are smart enough to do anything about it) In a sense, Uncle Sam is the fictional embodiment of the United States, and the British monarch is the human embodiment of Britain.
Gosh, this is just like stumbling onto Philosophy Tube four yearsish back, I love it.
34:40
Just make it not about the queen. Have her conspicuous by her absence and in the rest of the series actually show her regret. Have it be more than one episode.
Shows have episodes not about their characters all the time, sometimes due to filming requirements (doctor who and the weeping angel episode) and sometimes to make a point to critise the characters failure to be present.
the thesauring always has me laughing, like we get it!
I just subscribed this weekend, happy to catch this video as it comes out!
Very entertaining and "comforting" as I came to the series late, but am now hooked. I agree, season 5 has been a disappointment. My take from series one until now is that that Charles inherited his late father's whingeing gene, if nothing else..
Phenomenal analysis! I’ve been searching for an analysis for this show, this is by far the best one I’ve seen. Great job!
Remember, Elizabeth could have had a real life - pursuing a college degree - becoming a scientist or professional. Instead she was a lifelong cipher, a marionette who cuts ribbons, and is an institution and not a person.
Elizabeth Montbatten-Windsor? Pursuing a college degree? Seriously?
dont be silly, she was not in the least an academic
I love love love this commentary! Made me aware of so much i couldntve comprehended on my own. Im filipino so the monarchy is so far removed from my daily life. But as a viewer, i would like to add that my opinion on the royals based on what ive watched on The Crown has improved considerably.
Great video as always James! Can't wait for what you've got coming next!
I'm glad you talked about Diana portrayal here.. 🌺🌺
Amazinggggg!!!!!!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼kudos kudos kudos indeed!!! Every single sentence had me gawking at the detail, thought and precision put into it and in the context as a whole, WOOOOW. Amazing!!!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I can stop watching the crowns, sometimes until midnight,and inmidiatly I awake in the morning I start again,
Finally, a video essay made for me, personally! /j
I've been trying to figue out why I can't stop watching the crown, so this video essay was well-timed... I'm so glad season 5 wasn't the end of the show after all
Superb commentary - thank you so much for making this!
Great essay! I'm with a lot of the commenters who have come to understand the concept more but not necessarily became pro-monarchy because of it. I in fact have been on a anti-monarchy binge since the last season , but I think more because of the comfort I find in being negative about something that deserves being critical about, while also not having that much impact or being very pressing in the grand scale of atrocities going on in the world right now. I've come to dislike overly negative media reviews, but anti-monarchy commentary fills the need for that kind of shitposting without being about anything that would make me depressed for the rest of the day
This video was AGAIN so good it has been living in my head rent free. You never disappoint 🤩
This is a perfect video essay, It's mostly likely your best on your channel currently. I have watched it many times over. I'm certain I'm on my 10th re-watch of it. It's just perfect.
The Woodhall Groan, the new Wilhelm Scream.
Your feelings about the charles and diana drama are my feelings about it too, thank you for having the courage of saying it out loud
I can’t believe you only have eleven videos,new subscriber right away💗
The crown is a masterfully directed series, whether you like the royals or not.
The thing is when Queen took the crown in 1952 there was a lot reverence for the the new young Queen. Her father king George VI had stayed in UK London during blitz with his wife and two princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
Superb analysis - and very entertaining. More, please!
Great video and a terrific analysis of the many problems (and possibilities) with blending 'facts' and fiction in media! However, it made me want to watch The Crown, so, like the Queen with his uncle, I'll never be able to forgive you
Since the last shot of Crown season 4, I just knew the rest of the show would be a Diana show. Unfortunately, this show is no longer about the queen.
Have not watch The Crown, am not a fan of the royals at all so I'm not sure why this popped up in my feed but boy am I glad it did! Wonderful video 💗
I wish Netflix would put this level of effort in to all of their productions.
That depends on a showrunner
What an incredible doc! sophisticated nuanced and detailed. I’m also jealous. Despite my BA, I couldn’t do this good a job 🎉
Not being a royalist myself, I came to this party extremely late!
I had my preconceived views, but nonetheless I approached this 'mega' series as though I was watching Dallas or Dynasty.
I have to say that having watched all of it so far, I now consider myself a 'supporter' of our Royal Family.
This is Quality drama through and through.....
Oh wow, excellent video - super thoughtful analyses - reminds me of a great lecture I had in uni about the narratives inherent in how people talk about environmental issues! Just found this channel, but I'm definitely subscribing for more!
I really liked the Aberfan episode because it's very rare that we see representations of people who express emotion differently from what would be typically expected- it's very true that some people simply don't cry when they are faced with something sad. Also, given that Elizabeth (the character) expresses difficulty forming connections with her children or expressing any sort of emotions at all,it does fit with a running insecurity she has throughout the show. She worries that she isn't a good person, or that there's something wrong with her, because she expresses emotions differently from others. I think a lot of people can relate to that for various reasons. That being said, I do agree with you- I think it was inappropriate to use a national tragedy as a way to explore this character arc for her.
Thank you for explaining the deviations, for better or worst, that The Crown has been taking. With this season especially, after The Queen’s passing, the whining about how the show is pure fictions has been so irritating but we all know that creative decisions and protecting real human beings, royal or common, are part of the show’s production. The Royals and their defenders will never whine about the show’s deviations that shield them from public criticism and burnish their reputation. It’s good to have some help sorting though the smaller details of what was changed and why. As an American with Caribbean ancestry, I can never be pro-monarchy but I appreciate the series and how it puts all the events of Elizabeth’s reign into a timeline and that from a historical perspective, I still learn things about the monarchy that I didn’t know, even if the show leaves me with more fact-checking assignments after each season. You’ve made my homework just that much easier 😊
You do realize that by the start of the empire. The most powerful man in England wasn't the king right? It was the prime minister. King George wasn't most powerful man in England during the American revolution
In my opinion, the royal family should pay taxes as they are rich beyond imagination. They not only have public donations but inherited wealth, from the duchy of Cornwall , a £17.3 billion property portfolio and much more. They don’t even pay taxes, but a voluntary tax. No more voluntary tax! Put a full comprehensive list of the royal family’s wealth and their private estate with the tax they should pay.
are you very foolis The RF pay tax.
Interesting final comments on whether or not to venture the crown's following series. One year on that's been my feeling on a conscious level, subconsciously I cannot be bothered as I've already lived it. Last year's series, despite having lived through their ups and downs, it was interesting but for a more disconnected reason. I wanted to hear how their narrative contrasted through the endless documentaries I've seen, which supported the storyline and offered a subjective view to more known and factual as was possibly allowed.
I just found your content and enjoyed the POV. My biggest beef with this show since they've brought it to modern times is how soapy it's gotten- some really lazy dialog intended to go acknowledge weaknesses. I also hate all of the references to the family not being close or showing emotion when it's known how close qe2 was with her parents and sister. It feels like the writing staff just copied from the same tired assumptions lobbied by media/royal 'experts' that have never met any of these people
What’s funny about the accusations of historical inaccuracy for me is that the things that shocked me the most when watching the show turned out to actually be verifiably true. Was Prince David loosely associated with Nazis? That was true. Was Prince Philip’s DNA really used to confirm the identity of Anastasia Romanov’s body? That was true. Did Diana Spencer really meet Prince Charles when she was 16 and he was 28? Did they really barely know each other upon getting married? Did a 31 year old man really marry a 19 year old girl? That was all true. Did Queen Elizabeth really block the marriage of her sister to Peter Townsend? That was true. The details and conversations involved in all of that was obviously made up, but the events themselves that shocked me were true.
Well said. You pretty much covered the reasons why I like The Crown.
Me too... the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction
I feel the same I wasnt into the royal family but watched the whole thing! I'm still not into the royals and left with even more sympathy for Diana than what I already had
Excellent analysis!
I really enjoyed watching The Crown's previous seasons but during the 5th season I reached my breaking point. Watching the episode about prince Charles which ends with him giving an uplifting speech and dancing with the promising youth all while text rolls over the screen declaring the great things his trust has done AND then watching John Oliver's show about the British Monarchy right after. I couldn't. I just couldn't anymore.
Most people and arguably most institutions do both good things and wrong things. People in high positions can do a lot of both.
There's no full villains or heroes in real life I'm sorry to break it to you
Lord Mountbatten liked little boys and often visited a children’s home in Ireland…that’s why they killed him !
@@rebelpunx88 i don't think you're the one breaking it to them, but feel free to take credit, no one can stop you
The voice, gorgeous. The editing, sublime. The scripting, wonderful... not The Crown, this video ofc.
Oh and I missed... The beard, luxuriant.
New favourite channel. Truly excellent stuff.
I love this show... the acting is so good that I can't watch other shows without criticising the acting. As a result, it is the only show that I watch. I am annoyed that pple keep on bringing up the fact that some details are not facts!!! Erm we are not dumb, we know the actors are no real royals. And to be honest I think the truth may actually be worse or more damning and I suggest they should keep that in mind as well and let the rest of us the enjoy the show!!
I really enjoyed this analysis. Thank you so much
I like Philosphy Tube's summary, that Elizabeth got turned into a whole country's (and further's) wifu.
Brilliant James (Jim) !!!! Unlike you I don't hate the Royals I'm just overwhelmed with indifference.
I was young and barely aware in 1992 a year I personally hate it as well but I forget why and I saw the tabloids and the tabloid shows so I didn't know what was reported at least but I think they're actually attempting to trim what they originally going to do in Wake of the Queen's passing and prince Andrew otherwise maybe we would have gotten a normal season however it's getting into people's memory while they are alive now
This is really, really good analysis, loved it
It must be said that The Crown is a masterpiece of cinematography. The second season especially is one of the best works of film I've ever seen as far as blocking and lighting serving the needs of the story.
Great video. As a French I’m profoundly opposed to monarchy (duh 😂) and yet the show fascinates me. Glad to see I’m not the only one, and you put all my thoughts into a very coherent essay.
You kill your kings that is sick
So glad you talked about this one! It seems like onlu Vivien fabs know it. And tiur Taylor impersonation had me in stichtss! 😁
The British are a tribe. All tribes are led by a King.
And besides a monarch unifies the people, something a politician could never do.
As an American, yet borned in HK and around the same age as James, I reacted similarly to Season 1/2 VS Season 3/4. Perhaps I am at an age where I was far removed from what took place in Season 1/2, it was a history lesson to see what it was like. And it is focused on the Queen's own pathway navigating her own reign. Yet in Season 3/4..... it became less so. While I respect Jame's opinion about Aberfan, it did not one bit removed me of the horrors of the accident. I personally find Season 3/4 unwillingness to give the focus to the Queen a.... set back. In perhaps my own rigid mind, it is called The Crown, it damn sure should be focused on the Queen. There are many instances where I feel like the Queen is a giant background character for the last two seasons. Perhaps it is the problem within itself that we can't show the Queen's own political leaning that.... they just can't have the Queen take any position at all. The bombardment of Diana musical, Spencer, and heck gossips from the last few decades, I am tired of Charles and Diana too. Yet my wordings on Season 3/4 is a bit more harsh. At times, they feel no different from "trash TV".
Thank you for this great video. I had this feeling for a while because when I think about royals (all of them) I despise the whole concept but I can’t just stop myself of watching the crown
Thank you. Well done and insightful.
The thumbnail is brilliant, so is the video. And although I disagree, I can't refute the logic.
While I'm personally not a fan of monarchy in general (I'm not British) and the show has not improved my opinion of these people at all, it made me realise the enormous international soft power the monarchy as a British institution has... so many (if not most?) tourist attractions in England are somehow related to the monarchy, all the international newspaper coverages and films etc. From this perspective the British monarchy is really a strong marketing asset for a country that's not as politically/economically relevant as it used to be
Not everything has be economic, some things are just tradition
Watching "The Crown" has not improved my opinion of the Royals. The real world keeps butting in too much.
These people are real people but they are not doing jobs that we could get along
😊
These people don’t do much to help us. Cutting ribbons and shaking hands is not real work. Their rules are ridiculous. Their children are spoiled and their surroundings sumptuous. Their lives are either silly or fascinating.
You don't know what happens behind the scenes. You only see the surface. Royals are powerful lobbyists.
@@nomahope3182 so that means what they're trying to do to Harry and Meghan (ie. Trying to get others to hate and destroy them given that they blow everything they do out of proportion ) is orchestrated then?
They bring in a lot of money. Especially through tourists
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl You don't need royals to bring in tourists. France makes way more money than the UK in terms of tourism, but they don't have a single royal.
@@nomahope3182 yes. But it is culture and history that attracts tourists. England is particularly rich in both royal history and culture. That is why the royalty is doing the heavy lifting in tourisism. England lacks other things that could attract tourists
I’m obsessed with this video and I’m 1 minute 24 seconds in lol I feel the same I understand the royals are there but I don’t really like them as people but god do I love the crown especially season 1&2 (I’m a Matt Smith Stan) lol
I found that as I watched more of the Crown I liked the characters less. The longer they held power and learned the limits and restrictions the less they tested them and moved within them and the more they seemed convinced of their own worthiness and superiority and the less they seemed to notice the bizarre aspect of the position and the uniqueness of their power. Their humanity just slips a little further away with each season. I haven't watched season 5 yet, I feel like it'll be upsetting.
Exactly! I despised the institution even more than I did before watching it. Totally inhumane and archaic.
I love that you had the same view on season 5 I did.