So I assume the TV show in question is an extremely high-quality production with great writing and acting and cinematography that doesn't purport to tell a strictly accurate story but to dramatize everything for artistic purposes.
I'd love to watch. They're already using me and "I" am being consumed by the general public. That's going on anyway. On the other hand, I kind of stopped reading the question after "snobs." I think it would be great fun to watch a show that amped up the cluelessness and snobbery of me and everyone I cared most about.
The linked article only has a few clues about whether the royals watch "The Crown" which I'll put below the fold. I think the question whether they would watch — that is, whether you'd watch, if it were you — is more interesting.
[T]he actress Vanessa Kirby, who plays Princess Margaret in the first two seasons, told Vanity Fair a few years ago that a friend of hers had once “met one of Queen Elizabeth’s granddaughters: Princess Eugenie — or was it Beatrice? — who said that her granny loved it.”...
“I’m pretty sure that the queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles don’t watch ‘The Crown,’” [said Richard Palmer, who writes about the royals for The Daily Express]....
Some royals are apparently being performatively anti-“Crown,” making their views (if in fact they have views) known via a network of “friends.”...
... Olivia Colman, who plays the queen, said she once sat next to Prince William at a dinner, and that while he was charming and gracious, their exchange “didn’t go very well” when “The Crown” came up. “He asked what I was doing at the moment before he quickly added, ‘Actually, I know what you’re doing,’” she told an interviewer. I was so excited and asked, ‘Have you watched it?’ His answer was a firm ‘No.’”
ADDED: I hope "The Crown" eventually has episodes that show the characters fussing about the TV show "The Crown." If they did that scene where Prince William says "Actually, I know what you’re doing" to Olivia Colman, they'd have to get another actress to play Olivia Colman.
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Oh, for a second I thought it was the Kennedys being discussed.
It might be fun to watch.
Anyone who would say something like "It is historically accurate" is a full blown idiot.
Crown frown.
To play the king had michael kitchen play call but named charles as an insufferable sot, too close to the truth.
I think there's an ethical issue in portraying real people fictitiously but realistically using their real names. For most viewers, seeing is believing, and the fiction becomes their reality. If it's obviously a farce, that's different. But if it's done realistically, and it's far into fictional territory and negative, use fictional names. Especially if the people are still alive!
Did you misspell Royle in your post?
I'd be willing to bet the Royle family is watching anything about the Royal family.
The Royle Family was a British sitcom of about 20 years back.
I watched the first 2 seasons of The Crown and liked it. Keep meaning to continue but get get motivated.
John Henry
Episodes of The Royle Family are on YouTube.
John Henry
Uneasy lies the head that watches The Crown.
There was a very campy soap that was on e for a while called the royals
"I think there's an ethical issue in portraying real people fictitiously but realistically using their real names. For most viewers, seeing is believing, and the fiction becomes their reality."
+10.
My understanding from a few people very knowledgeable about Brit royalty and Brit history is that this is NOT a very historically accurate show. In fact, they characterize it as biased, sensationalized, and so wrong as to be malicious.
But, if such series gain audiences, they become the history. The world learns the show's storyline as true history.
Imagine a world where all we know came from Oliver Stone. We'd all be ignorant and progressive.
So I assume the TV show in question... doesn't purport to tell a strictly accurate story but to dramatize everything for artistic purposes.
They should've filmed this show about the royals with Planet of the Apes make-up.
The real hot take on the royal family is “The Windsors” on Netflix. Hilarious.
Thats intriguing because stone based this on garrison who glommed on to deziforma almost from the get go planted in european papers,
Note that Shakespeare safely confined his subjects to long-dead characters.
If any of the royals watch The Crown they couldn't possibly admit it.
I am an Anglophile, and I have really enjoyed The Crown. I have not yet seen any of the current season. I really like reading your blogging about the series broadly, Althouse; I expect that I’ll have some issues with the current season since I have some personal knowledge of that period of time in Britain. I hope you enjoy the series.
No, such a show would be of zero interest to me. Sounds suspiciously like a Woody Allen movie.
It’s not moral principle. Costume dramas in which the characters giggle and gossip about their infidelities simply bore me.
My granddaughters, aged 5 and 7, love to play princess.
I’m a naughty grandpa. I tell them that the French beheaded all their princesses, and show them a pic of the guillotine.
I read georgianna years before i saw the dutchess, keira was entirely miscast, as a very distant ancestor of diana.
In Britain, media vs. royals is a national sport, rendered harmless because of the royal tradition that they are not supposed to speak out on anything but the most anodyne topics and never weigh in officially on elections. The royals pay a price for this exposure, but they are compensated. Those who really break the rules lose the public paycheck.
Prince William was old enough to remember his mother and father blathering on about their sex lives on tv. I certainly wouldn't wish that on anyone, especially anyone British and upper-class, because they seem to have such bizarre erotic preoccupations.
Honestly, the show is worth watching just to see the Queen bellying up a ridge in her woolen hunting outfit and aptly shooting an elk.
Doesn't appeal to me. I have ZERO interest. But then, I'm an ocean and a continent away.
Well, I have one thing in common with Chuck. Probably more than that, but it sort of proves the point that the evolved idea of royalty is to unite the country.
Frankly, I’d rather watch some well produced porn.
Granted, that’s a rarity.
There is an element of costume drama in a well produced porn flick.
Five minutes of seducing the girl into taking off her clothing and a reasonably believable plot is all it takes, but it’s seldom done and even less often done well.
The gossip costume drama, a la Woody Allen, is the cultivated urban ladies’ version of porn.
My answer is hell, yes.
Are you sure? What if they had an episode where you (the character named “Ann” and allegedly based on you) did something despicable that you would never do in real life? Maybe “you” raised grades for some good-looking young stud who gave you an orgasm or two after class? Still interested in watching?
So I agree with Freeman Hunt.
Please stick to the topic. If you have technical issues commenting, the place to talk about that would be in the last open thread. Just scroll down. Don't hijack a substantive thread. (I'm writing this because I deleted some comments and want to explain. Please don't respond to my comment here. Go to an open thread if you want.)
"'They're already using me and ‘I’"
I thought you were talking about the Queen abandoning the royal plural for a minute.
Have you ever been a character in somebody else's novel? I have.
We watched about half one one episode.
Thomas: I like your grandparenting style. If you keep throwing little kids curve balls, they will have to think for themselves. The great thing is that the more you mess with them and shatter their world view, the more they love you.
One of the things The Crown got me to do was a deep dive into the powers of the king/queen. "Deep dive being an hour or two Ducking around.
Most people don't realize how much power the queen has. Most people say she is just a figurehead.
To some extent, that is true but it is true because she chooses to be a figurehead. And, perhaps, because if she did not choose to be a figurehead the country would rise up against the crown.
For example, most people think the Prime Minister is democratically elected. Nope. S/he is the queen's prime minister, not the country's. The party with the most votes goes to the queen and says "We want BoJo to be PM" and she graciously says OK.
But if Nigel Farage were to be accepted, she has the absolute power to say "Nope".
There is not even any provision under law for a PM. She doesn't even have to have one.
She can suspend Parliament or call for new elections at her whim.
She is commander in chief of the armed forces. Her Majesty's Ship(s) for example. As well as Her Majesty's Canadian and Australian ships.
No law is valid without the queen's assent. If parliament passes a law she doesn't like, it will not become law.
And a bunch of other things.
She also has a lot of power over what Canadians do. They are supposedly an independent nation but it is hard to be independent when you have a British queen.
It would be interesting to see a rogue queen/king get loose and start exercising their powers.
I'm not a big fan of rule by kings and queens or other dictators.
John Henry
And don't get me started on the British "constitution" unless you can provide a link where I can read it.
And, yes, I have read Bagehot.
John Henry
I sometimes wish my family was a "clueless bunch of snobs and philanderers who helped drive a mentally fragile young princess to despair..." We're not that exciting.
The only obligation of artists is to produce great art. You want morality, read the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita. Looking for morality in art is like looking for love at a whore house. You might occasionally find it, but you are a tool to expect it.
The characters on “The Windsor’s” watch “The Crown.” It makes the say things like, “We really are important!”
Blogger Dick said...
I am an Anglophile,
I have found over many years that about 99% who make statements like this wish we had a king/queen here in the US. Sometimes openly, sometimes discreetly.
They would rather be subjects than citizens.
Those kinds of people should just go away. Maybe move to England. Which has become quite the shithole country over the past 30-40 years.
John Henry
Blogger Fernandinande said...
We watched about half one one episode.
I'm surprised Mother didn't like it.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Have you ever been a character in somebody else's novel? I have.
Available via the portal I assume. Name?
John Henry
I have been a character in a novel, and I have found love at a whore house.
Two separate stories.
"John Henry Days" by Colson Whitehead, available at the portal.
So big whoop, Ann, Thomas. Me too.
But have you ever been the subject of a song sung by pretty much every American kid at some point in their lives?
John Henry
As @Darkisland said, the monarch in the UK has a lot of power, mostly unused. IIRC, Queen Elizabeth could veto any law coming out of Parliament. But it is a power that could be used only once, because there would be a (peaceful) revolt, a republic would be set up, and the royals kicked to the curb. They would still be wealthy and have their titles, but their pay would get zeroed. It would be an incredible mess to untangle what they own vs. the state.
"If there were a TV show that portrayed your family as a clueless bunch of snobs and philanderers who helped drive a mentally fragile young princess to despair, would you watch it?"
Sounds a little like Schitt's Creek a Canadian sitcom that's hard to watch, but also hard to avoid right now. Sort of a sitcom The Simple Life or a reverse Beverly Hillbillies.
But it's an interesting question. Some people take offense. Some relish being portrayed warts and scabs and suppurating wounds and all.
I saw the documentary Who's My Roy Cohn? last night. Very anti-Trump. Cohn had to defend himself against all the -- justified -- complaints and attacks, but I suspect he loved being hated and being the heavy.
One sidelight I didn't know: Cohn's uncle ran the Bank of the United States, which went bankrupt in the Depression, and he was sent to prison. Wall Street wouldn't prop up the bank because the family wasn't part of the Establishment. Resentment of this was one of many things that went into making Roy Cohn what he was.
Another sidelight: Gore Vidal makes an appearance. Now I see that he was a typical Internet commenter before there was an Internet. He was unique in his day and hard to figure out, but now he is legion.
"If there were a TV show that portrayed your family as a clueless bunch of snobs and philanderers"
Well, it depends on your role in the family. ERII doesn't come off too bad, and Philip pretty good. Margaret and Charles not so much, but what difference, at this point, does it make?
"I think it would be great fun to watch a show that amped up the cluelessness and snobbery of me and everyone I cared most about."
Now that's funny. Of course, the episode on the "cluelessness of me" would have to be very short, since, as readers of this blog know, Althouse is never actually clueless. Occasionally readers fail to understand her, sure, but any good scriptwriters would make that clear. Althousian cluelessness is just cleverness in disguise.
Now the people around her, maybe (looking forward to the JAC episode).
🎶Her majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say...🎶
Well I guess they can all just rattle thier jewelry.
It's full of center left pieties and suppositions. How could it not be? But it actually tells a story of 70 years or so of UK history in a manner that, though not quite fair to all, roughly approximates the big picture.
Blogger Edmund said...
IIRC, Queen Elizabeth could veto any law coming out of Parliament.
Not quite, as I understand it. She doesn't have to positively veto the law, all she has to do is not "assent" or approve it.
We do have something similar here with what is called a "pocket veto" the president sticks a bill in his pocket and ignores it.
A difference is that we can override a veto. Parliament can't
The queen never fails to assent because the PM meets with her weekly and discusses all pending legislation. Parliament/the government will never submit a bill or pursue any policy she would not assent to.
Always remember it is Her Majesty's Government. Not the English or English people's government.
And you are right, the country would rise up. Though, since they are unarmed and have no power, I have no idea what this might look like. They've been pretty much cowed into subjection (subjecthood?)
John Henry
I'm surprised AA doesn't have a tag for "philandering". Interesting word. A bit old-fashioned, don't you think? A "philanderer" has the air of 19th century "cad" who, despite his self- indulgence and potential destructiveness, has some bounderish appeal; if you say "cheater", you're denying any such appeal and simply condemning.
Btw, there ARE clear constitutional rules in the UK, and the most important so far as the monarchy is concerned that the monarch cannot do anything -- and I mean anything -- important except on the advice of his/her ministers, i.e., the elected government. There's an well-written, accurate and amusing take on this in a film called "Charles III". (I should add that the UK has recently, and unwisely IMHO, created a "Supreme Court" that believes it has the power to define the monarch's powers; for example, with respect to suspension of a sitting of Parliament, in 2019 the Court ruled that the Queen's prorogation (as such suspension is called) of
the legislature, made at the government's request, was "null and void" and "unlawful." Not much power there, is there?
Jumped ahead and have to come back but--
I'm surprised nobody (that I've seen) has brought up the granddaddy reality show-- the oldsters may recall The Louds.
Narr
Whatever happened to them?
John J. Rockefeller was the richest commoner who ever lived. On one of his estates, he had an eighteen hole golf course. Nice touch, but not a patch on the Royal Family who have Scotland--the scenic parts anyway-- as their country estate. It's a job with a lot of perks. Free housing, all of it tastefully furnished with valuable antiques and the odd Reynolds or Van Dyck portrait. There are worse jobs.... The Windsors with a few exceptions seem to operate in the bright normal range so far as looks, intelligence and morals go, but, given the splendor of the backdrop you expect more in the way of operatic moments.. If you turned the Kardashians loose in Buckingham Palace, they'd give you a far more interesting soap opera.
"I think the question ... whether you'd watch, if it were you ... is more interesting."
I suspect that I would get all the information I desired about it, and more, without personally wasting a second on it. I suppose I might enjoy watching someone else being me. Like watching video of yourself, but without the mortification factor. Who knows, I might even gain insights into my own nature. But I would probably quit in disgust when they got some trivial detail exactly backwards.
Blogger Norpois said...
Btw, there ARE clear constitutional rules in the UK,
And where might I find a copy of this "constitution" so I can read the wording of these "rules"?
Seriously, there is no English constitution. Not in any meaningful sense of the word. It is not written down, it literally changes from day to day. It is whatever the courts decide it is on any given day.
There are no "rules", only customs and traditions.
Read Bagehot's explanation of why he needed to write a 2nd edition of "The History of the English Constitution only 10 years after the first:
This difficulty has been constantly in my way in preparing a second edition of this book. It describes the English Constitution as it stood in the years 1865 and 1866. Roughly speaking, it describes its working as it was in the time of Lord Palmerston;and since that time there have been many changes, some of spirit and some of detail. In so short a period there have rarely been more changes.
If I had given a sketch of the Palmerston time as a sketch of the present time, it would have been in many points untrue; and if I had tried to change the sketch of seven years since into a sketch of the present time,I should probably have blurred the picture and have given something equally unlike both.
His second edition was probably somewhat obsolete by the time it was published.
Contrast that to the US Constitution. We have made 15 changes to it in 230 years. (I don't count the back and forth of the 18th and 21st) Incidentally, all of those amendments have been for the purpose of increasing rights of the citizenry.
Interpretations may have shifted but the underlying principles are still "The law of the land".
John Henry
Chuck said...
"I am an Anglophile..."
Life-long, no doubt.
So, now we know that Chuckles hates the British. Duly noted, Chuckles. You can put the big dick back in now.
I would watch such a movie, for sure. I have often fantasized about the existence of a book having every word that others have said about me. Such a movie would be a version of the book, in a way.
Princess Anne's SIL says he watched it.
"You can put the big dick back in now."
That's what she said.
Shakespeare had to toe the line when it came to the Tudors and the Stuarts, but the BBC is free to take a few liberties, although even now there are some no go areas. Lord Montbatten's homosexuality? The writers alluded to the fact that Montbatten's affections shifted from Prince Philip to Prince Charles, but they didn't get into the dynamics.... The Royal Family and the BBC are part of the establishment. They look out for each other. From what I've seen so far, it presents Queen Elizabeth in a favorable light. Some of the dimmer bulbs are presented with more harshness,but the writers aren't especially cruel. I don't know if this is a true picture of the Royal Family, but it's a plausible one.
“But it actually tells a story of 70 years or so of UK history in a manner that, though not quite fair to all, roughly approximates the big picture.”
I agree, one of the reasons I enjoy watching it.
As for wanting my family portrayed as snobs who drove a mentally fragile daughter in law crazy...probably not.
And no, I probably wouldn’t watch it.
"I think it would be great fun to watch a show that amped up the cluelessness and snobbery of me and everyone I cared most about."
To put it mildly, you're rather protective of your reputation and any any assertions about you which are the least bit incorrect are met with immediate and forceful repudiations.
I can't see you enjoying a show which dishonestly presented you in a bad light.
"But it actually tells a story of 70 years or so of UK history ...".
Interesting. So it takes up somewhere in the fifties? Right about the time that the British Royal Family ceased to have any significant effect on world affairs? A soap opera, then. I would find the preceding 70 years considerably more interesting.
I've watched the first two episodes of the current season. Their depiction of Margaret Thatcher has come in for some criticism here. From what I've seen, the fault lies not in the lines that the writers gave her, but rather in Gillian Anderson's reading of those lines. Anderson takes the most unlikable mannerisms of Thatcher's persona and exaggerates them slightly. Thatcher was not warm and cuddly, but neither was she so cold and rigid as Anderson plays her....Lookism: Claire Foy was better looking and far sexier than Queen Elizabeth. Olivia Colman is about equal in terms of looks and dowdiness. The actress who plays Princess Anne is more attractive and personable than the real Anne who was a total pill. Helena Bonham Carter brings star power to her portrayal of Princess Margaret which makes Margaret far more sympathetic than she deserves. The girl who plays Diane is excellent, but Princess Diane was the only royal who was better looking and more magnetic than the average movie star.....I wouldn't mind being portrayed unfavorably in a movie if I was played by Brad Pitt and he didn't exaggerate my less attractive mannerisms.
I enjoy watching, "The Great", on Hulu. It's about Katherine the Great and the creators admit that it's, "*an occasionally true story".
The queen never fails to assent because the PM meets with her weekly and discusses all pending legislation. Parliament/the government will never submit a bill or pursue any policy she would not assent to.
She is consulted. She can encourage. She can warn. Those are the "three rights" of the sovereign that Bagehot (mentioned above) listed well over a century ago. But the sovereign pretty much has to assent to everything Parliament sends her. I'm pretty sure the Queen's father didn't actually approve of everything Attlee and Labour were doing in the Forties, but he had to give his official approval. Refusing would have caused a constitutional crisis and possibly cost him his throne. Nowadays, Lords plays a similar role to the Queen. They can delay legislation and suggest changes, but what Commons says goes in the end.
The first two seasons were very good. If you know a bit about recent British history it's a treat to see people you've heard about your whole life depicted on screen, even with whatever distortions there may be. Thatcher is still a living subject of controversy for Britons, as Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Wilson aren't, so any portrayal of her is bound to create a reaction.
I guess I hate British Gillian Anderson. Maybe she exaggerates Thatcher's bad qualities. She certainly does exaggerate her own. Dana Scully wasn't always easy to take, but she had a human, relatable side. When Gillian's doing British, that side doesn't come out as easily.
Lurker21 said...
I guess I hate British Gillian Anderson. Maybe she exaggerates Thatcher's bad qualities. She certainly does exaggerate her own. Dana Scully wasn't always easy to take, but she had a human, relatable side. When Gillian's doing British, that side doesn't come out as easily.
*****************
IIRC Gillian Anderson appeared in that detestable "climate change" bit where students were asked to say whether they agreed with man-made climate change. Those who didn't had their heads exploded, right then and there. Gillian herself got that treatment, for not sufficiently getting down with the struggle.
She must be a lovely person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
We just watched the episode about Michael Fagan's invasion of the Queen's bedroom. The plot points are the Falkland's War and the unemployment crisis. No explanation of why Thatcher is putting Great Britain through three years of misery or why she defended the British subjects in the Falkland Islands. No mention that the recession was world wide due to the energy crisis of 1979 and massive inflation. That was the time of stagflation: high unemployment and high inflation.
The "Crown" is good entertainment, but not history.
We are developing our own class of Royalty here: Andrew Cuomo, Gretchen Whitmer, Jay Inslee, Kate Brown, Gavin Newsome, Larry Hogan to name a few. They rule by decree with nonsensical pronouncements, like closing down the gyms where few or no infections have been traced to. Their word is law, the citizens, I mean subjects, will be made to obey all of their edicts. Or else.
I got a bad feeling about the show when it portrayed JFK as being physically abusive to Jackie. I'm far from being a Kennedy fan,and it's undeniable that JFK's infidelity was appalling, but there's no need to attributr faults to him for which there's no evidence.
Far be it from me to defend a Kennedy (exceptions apply) but I agree--any portrayal of physical abuse by JFK of Jackie should call the rest of the story into question.
Narr
Open to evidence
"Seriously, there is no English constitution. Not in any meaningful sense of the word. It is not written down, it literally changes from day to day. It is whatever the courts decide it is on any given day."
If you wish to understand the current state of the US Constitution, you must read the long line of USSC cases dealing with that document along with the document itself. The US Constitution changes from ruling to ruling, from interpretation to interpretation, from penumbra to penumbra. It is written down as a continuing series, just as the British one is.
I have to believe they watch, and probably have a great time...I can see them in the palace gathering around with corgis and martinis and having a grand old time.
Were it my life, I'd have to watch. And if I were that famous to have a show about me I'd make the producers lives miserable if they fucked anything up.
A tangential question is, would you ever allow a camera crew to follow you 24/7 like the real housewives or so many other reality shows.
And what happens to the children in those families that live in the spotlight for years sometimes, being filmed since birth?
Daddy Loud died in 2018. The wikipee page on the series is good.
I would watch my own family portrayed if the casting was right.
Narr
Jeremy Irons for me
"I would watch my own family portrayed if the casting was right."
That's a great tangential question (if allowed by our hostess)...who would you want to play the part of you?
Who do you most look like that should play the part of you?
I'll take young Marlon Brando for the first...can't think of anyone homely enough for the second : )
The British Royals have ALWAYS been a bunch of oddballs, weirdos, and near-do-wells. Usually, the actual Queen or King has been an upstanding person, but all the Dukes, Princes, etc.?
Forgetaboutit.
The difference is we know all their business today. Edward VII, the son of Victoria, was known as a "Rake". But that's it. If he was transported to 2020 his antics would be the nightly news, even we'd be shocked in 2020.
If there's not a space babe in it I don't watch it.
Joe Smith, thanks for playing. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me I looked like Donald Sutherland (back in the day) I'd have most of a roll of nickels. My wife never particularly thought so, and I think the resemblance, if any, lessens with age.
He and I certainly looked enough alike circa The Dirty Dozen (before my manly mature beard) and Kelly's Heroes (with long hair and full beard) for people to tell me so. (Vicious retard and weirdo . . . crowded out of juicy roles just because some frostback is a few years older.)
Narr
If not Irons or Sutherland, Peewee Herman would work
@Narr
Many years ago I played a round of golf at a local muni course. I was a single and got put in with a group of three guys that knew each other.
On the first tee I introduced myself, and one of the guys said I not only looked like Mark O'Meara (professional golfer--major winner) but he thought I was Mark O'Meara.
I was a pretty good golfer at the time, but I told him, "Let me hit my tee shot and I will disabuse you of that notion."
And yes, to my sons' dismay, I really do talk like that : )
My answer is hell, yes. The question is posed in the first paragraph of a NYT article with a headline that also asks a question — "Royal Watchers Wonder: Do the Royals Watch ‘The Crown’?"
This makes me sad for the human race.
Yes, I would watch. I have been a character in a collection of short stories.
I've been a character in epic wars and conquests! With a full share of humiliating defeats.
But always among friends-- after all, a juvenile mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Narr
As ol' Huizinga might say
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा