To say The Crown on Netflix is engaging is quite an understatement. It is a wonderfully crafted piece of art that takes us into the corridors of palaces and the lives of people who, otherwise, would be almost invisible to us. Although the lives of the British royal family have been well-documented over the last few decades, especially during the era of Princess Diana, this historical drama does an excellent job of humanizing members of the British royal family. It makes us empathize with them. As a viewer, you wonder what you would do facing similar circumstances? How would you deal with the news of your father's passing when you also knew he was a chain smoker throughout his life? One feels sympathy for the royals, knowing they also go through mundane life events like birth, death, heartbreak, jealousy, and the whole gamut of life's experiences in between. For any writer, actor, director, or show/movie creator, isn't that the pinnacle of success?
Obviously, the show is based on real events and on real characters. The events these royals faced, as portrayed in the episodes, are mundane. The love of Prince Charles for Camilla, for example. Or, Phillip being a harsh father to his son, or the Queen's sister feeling overshadowed (or useless!). Or the newest daughter-in-law blazing brighter than all the current and previous royals combined, or the sons and daughters going through divorces and then finding new partners. These are all common problems. I am not trying to take away the intensity of sorrow felt after deaths, or the jealousy felt after being sidelined, or feeling underappreciated after being overlooked. These are genuine human emotions, and whether you live on the edge of financial ruin or are a Queen with hundreds of servants at your disposal, the everyday travails of existence are shared by everyone. But as great a show as it was, it is nothing but a masterpiece of emotional manipulation that somehow transforms war enablers and colonial beneficiaries into tragic figures, it is a fantasy that the showrunners are selling that the family that once ruled quarter of humanity by unleashing violence of massive proportion and extraction, is at heart just like us, with lots of Rolls Royces's.
To say the history of current British royals is as sordid would be an understatement. I am referring to historical events or personalities that are well-documented and widely known. I am sure there is a lot more - 1/7th of the iceberg, that is still hidden from public records. There is fraud and deceit at multiple levels. The forefathers of the current dynasty ruled over the largest empire in human history. Though their names (Queen Victoria, especially!) are still stuck on a variety of locations or monuments across the world, somehow they (Queen Victoria, again!) get a pass for the horrific crimes her empire unleashed on the world. Be it the genocidal frenzy against the local black population of Africa or the 'Winston'-made (Churchill, that is!) famine killing millions in Bengal under the 'motherly' watch of the King. The royals were always kept above this 'empire' crimes as if they were the innocent, blameless child of it, while happily displaying the Kohinoor in their tiara.
Then at the family level, the current King's grand-uncle, Edward VIII, himself a king for barely a year, was a NAZI enthusiast. However, we are to believe that Edward was the only and literally, the only person from that family who was a NAZI sympathizer? Did he grow up in a vacuum, away from the family? The other royals may not be NAZIs, but they all were a Grade A racist and eugenicist lot for sure. There is a great scene in The Crown where Queen Elizabeth is aghast to find out that her Uncle, Edward VIII, not only abdicated but then actively worked towards NAZI goals. The acting and script in that particular sequence are top-notch. Still, one has to wonder how she would need her secretary to inform her about her Uncle's activities. I mean, the said Uncle wasn't much of a clandestine person anyway.
And then we have a fraud narrative at the individual level. The royals are nothing but the personality created and delivered to us to make the subjects fond of them and proud of them. The travails and difficulties these royals faced are dramatized in movies for our entertainment. And we do consume it rather voraciously. Some of these movies are truly outstanding. The movie The King's Speech was an excellent movie with impeccable acting and a script worthy of an Oscar. But if we look a bit deeper into the narrative, a second in line for the Crown was dealing with stuttering and panic/anxiety attacks throughout his life. And then, to make matters worse, he was thrust into the kingship. So, we are to applaud his most significant achievement during his - King George VI's, tenure: giving speeches to his war-torn nation without stuttering. I know critics will point out that the King refused to evacuate London during German bombing. Tens of millions of people were killed during World War II, and tens of millions more died fighting the war, and the King of a country ruling half of the world was fighting to overcome his stuttering and staying put in his plush palace? Does that make sense? It's a travesty!
Even Queen Elizabeth herself had never had to make any serious, accountable decisions beyond those affecting her family. The British royals have been reduced merely to 'Stamps' for centuries now. Any individual without accountability and goals is worthless. The case in point was the Queen herself. Her long tenure also cannot, in strictest terms, be celebrated since it's God who gave her a long life. She could have made a significant impact had she retired at a logical age and allowed her son to take over and 'rule' for a meaningful period.
Similarly, the life of Princess Diana is celebrated as if she should be an inspiration to young women. I am sorry, but what was special about her? She came from the aristocracy and married up, an aspiration and common practice among the British aristocracy. Her marriage wasn't happy, and she eventually divorced. She had multiple affairs between her divorce proceedings and her sad demise. After her separation from Charles, Diana associated herself with various worthy causes and provided photo opportunities. She even hugged an AIDS child. In short, she attempted to empathize with and humanize the masses that her family, both aristocratic and royal, had mercilessly exploited for centuries. Is that it? So, we bring the bar almost to the ground so we can celebrate Dinae. She was an OG of modern-day 'influencer', mostly worthless but still very popular. We can credit Diana for playing her role in nurturing absolutely toxic and corrosive 'tabloid' journalism.
But the show must go on. Somehow, the government of Great Britain sees a need to maintain the Royals, who at this point are nothing but unaccountable aristocrats stumbling from scandal to scandal. The British populace also overwhelmingly supports the monarchy. We feel bad when the Queen weeps over her corgis while her empire actively tries to dehumanize black Africans in their own country. We are to applaud the King for overcoming stuttering while his empire purposefully starved millions to death by diverting food away from the famine. And the historical drama may be pretty entertaining and engaging, but it is nothing but the longest-running propaganda campaign delivered to us in 4K. The real Crown isn't made of diamonds but of denials.
