When the Show Does the Opposing

Samuel Brown

When the Show Does the Opposing

Abstract:

This paper will be examining The Crown, a Netflix television series about the British royal family that is meant to condemn their overwhelming relevance to British society. It focuses on how anti-monarchy messages are encoded by the producers and decoded by the audience as presented by Stuart Hall’s conceptualization of media consumption as well as the oppositional gaze, which is a decoded rejection of dominant ideology in media as coined by author bell hooks.

The Crown is a historical fiction show about the British royal family that has been popular since its start but which exploded with popularity during the coronavirus pandemic. The show has been a really engaging platform for educating the masses about the Royal House of Windsor and the role they play in British society, but while it intends to oppose the family’s position of power, the layman audience member might not decode that kind of view as they instead romanticize twentieth century high society living. Republicans (anti-monarchists) take issue with the great expense that the royal family imposes on taxpayers (on an individual basis this is not much for the average citizen, but whether that money is deserved is another question entirely) alongside their other revenue streams such as real estate and private funds. From a governance perspective, the Queen is practically dead weight to which too much public attention and money are paid because her power has been vastly diminished for many years. However, royalists might prefer consistently present figureheads as a guiding force in troubling times (like Elizabeth II’s father, King George VI during the London Blitz in World War II). The Crown wrestles with this, and despite inaccuracies in the narrative, what is true still hurts the royal family’s image. bell hooks explains the oppositional gaze by saying that “In resistance struggle, the power of the dominated to assert agency by claiming and cultivating ‘awareness’ politicizes ‘looking’ relations—one learns to look a certain way in order to resist.” The show itself (rather than the audience as is typical) takes an oppositional gaze by intentionally framing its narrative against an antiquated, monolithic establishment that represents nationalism, sophistication, and strength on the world stage. The reality of that image is not so, and The Crown proves this.

To date, The Crown is among the most expensive television shows ever made, costing a total of about £112 million thus far. It was created, written, and produced by Peter Morgan through Sony Pictures Television UK in association with Left Bank Pictures as a Netflix original. Morgan, a republican, said of Prince Charles, “He’s one of those characters for whom you have sympathy and criticism in equal measure, a perhaps not-uncommon attitude toward the monarchy in general. As an institution, it’s indefensible. Of course it is. And yet the whole thing’s so bloody ridiculous you can’t help feeling slightly sorry for them.” The New York Times Magazine also described his show by saying it “lifts the curtain on the whole royal enterprise,” and that “The Crown doesn’t feed public fantasy—it pours cold water on it.” The show has received strong praise and viewership; at the beginning of 2020, Netflix reported that 73 million households had watched the show since it began, and press coverage has shown a wide array of opinions on what it represents. People enjoy The Crown despite their low opinion of the characters, and polling showed that even with historical inaccuracies and the family’s blatant transgressions, general audience opinions of them improved.

As said, The Crown is a work of historical fiction, meaning that the events are typically true to history but also that artistic liberties are sometimes taken for the sake of the narrative or to maintain focus on certain plot points. There is no way to know all the details of intimate conversations and interpersonal relations among a group of people so far-removed from society as the royal family. Indeed, when challenged about the accuracy of his show, Morgan admitted that “Sometimes you have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.” By this, he meant that most of what is presented is not intended as a character assassination, nor do people’s actions misrepresent them or alter the course of history on geopolitical and diplomatic fronts. Instead, events that could plausibly have happened are meant to reflect on the institution of which these people are inextricably a part, which can be a curse.

The main characters, plainly, are the Royal Family of the House of Windsor. At the head is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, joined by her recently deceased husband Philip, sister Margaret, and children, Charles (heir apparent) and Anne. Charles’ wife, Lady Diana, is also present. Her father King George VI and uncle, former King Edward VIII (he abdicated the throne before his coronation, passing the line of succession to George’s family) are recurring characters as well as prime ministers (PMs) that meet with Elizabeth regarding ongoing national affairs.

Among the most prominent plot points is the conflict between familial interests and relationships and what advisors tell Elizabeth is best for the Crown (“The Crown” refers to the integrity of the monarchy as an institution, not just Elizabeth and her family’s personal stakes in any given matter). Elizabeth struggles between her duty to her country and what she owes to the people whom she personally loves, from which there arises an upsetting detachment only seen behind the veneer of glitz and glamour. The monarchy and the Commonwealth also hang precariously in the balance, and her duty during months-long tours is to secure loyalty to the British Empire in impoverished colonies, some of which have independence movements (these were Jamaica, Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanzania) in the show to demonstrate the British Empire’s decline. Leaving her children at home skewed Elizabeth’s perception of her motherly performance; her being absent but not cognizant of how that harmed her relationships is an issue brushed off by her family at one point as they insist that she “raised them” well despite none of the children being well-adjusted adults. Elizabeth and the family also cannot publicly express opinions about the nation’s governance or politics. Taking action and setting the course for Britain is done by the prime minister, who only forms the government in the Queen’s name. Despite this, the family has a vested interest in Conservative party leadership anyway because its discourse and ideologies support the monarch as a central tenet of the United Kingdom.

All of these elements represent and encode a rejection of dominant ideology in British society and politics, which would otherwise suggest that the monarchy is integral. People feel connected to the Queen as her subjects while they could not be more disparate; their idol is not a model mother or necessarily a model leader, but they are complacent in believing in an everlasting, benevolent empire that strives to benefit all its people with the Queen as the (actually) false, empty symbol of authority. Putting these flaws on display is what the show does to condemn that system. The British government took issue with inaccuracies in the show and called for disclaimers, but the depictions of characters and, more importantly, their actions still speak for themselves. Even though conversations that were written in purely for the narrative (such as PM Anthony Eden’s strategies for the Suez Crisis following Egyptian nationalization of the Canal in 1956 or PM Margaret Thatcher’s handling of the Falklands War with Argentina in 1982), what resulted in the unfolding history of the nation gives a glimpse at the structure of its flawed leadership. Defensiveness with regard to these scenes still demonstrates Morgan’s nuanced but effectively encoded message, which is that the Crown is a superfluous accessory to government. Whether those conversations happened or not, Elizabeth does no decision-making (rather, she only hears what Parliament already plans to do), and yet there is still so much scrutiny that should be pointed to Parliament but which is instead on her and her family.

Just as Morgan’s narrative is oppositional, defining the oppositional audience reception is twofold: there are those who match the view Morgan intended, and those who oppose the opposition and embrace the status quo. Existing republican sentiment fed into the production and encoding of the show’s message, but, to refer to Stuart Hall, while “professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions about the audience and so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production…the production structures of television originate the television discourse, they do not constitute a closed system.” Messages cannot just reaffirm existing views; after encoding certain perspectives, the message “must first be appropriated as a meaningful discourse and be meaningfully decoded by the audience.” The array of resulting opinions can go anywhere from embracing reaffirmation to feeling a change of heart, which did occasionally happen despite the narrative’s clear leanings. Issues with narrative accuracy bear mentioning again because those have been the dominant criticisms raised in readings oppositional to the show’s narrative (they embrace royalist values). Defense of the royal family in the press has come from individuals with professional ties to or titles bestowed by the monarch in interviews, tweets, and articles indicating bias and conflict of interest.

For instance, there is Dickie Arbiter, former royal press secretary, who spoke to the BBC about the depictions of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in season 4. Arbiter repudiates meetings written into the show concerning Diana’s mental health but fails to criticize the circumstances of an unhappy marriage that hurt her self esteem and worsened her struggle with bulimia in the first place. Instead, he insists that Charles and his mistress Camilla (current wife since 2005 following Diana’s death in 1997) are turned into villains and that the average viewer will see their portrayals as gospel. He maintains that Charles was not vicious as is shown, but makes no concessions regarding how Diana was actually treated by him and the rest of the family. After all, the inescapable truth is that he was unfaithful and their marriage did fall apart because of his infidelity. To legitimize Diana’s struggle, Prince Harry, her younger son, likened the treatment of his own wife, Meghan Markle, to how his mother was treated by tabloids before the two decided to formally separate from the family in 2020.

Another example of opposition that contributes to dominant ideology came from Sir Simon Jenkins, a writer for The Guardian and a Knight Bachelor appointed for his services to journalism. Like Arbiter, he argues against historical inaccuracies in the show and even likens these falsehoods to fake news. However, he sees The Crown as fictitious and harmful without also taking a critical enough eye to the truths of the family’s past. Among a list of “complete fabrications”, he points out that Diana “threw a tantrum” during a visit to Australia and ordered the itinerary be changed (so as not be kept apart from her son William) as if to suggest that her behavior and feelings of duty as a mother made her seem immature. Despite that inaccuracy, Jenkins speaks condescendingly of her character and omits that William was the reason for her demanding the trip’s schedule be changed (something which decidedly would have humanized her for the reader). He also makes no speculation about why a scene like this might have been added to the plot, nor did he ask about actual events and dynamics that it might have reflected. Again, Morgan sacrifices accuracy but never truth.

Of the cast members to embrace republicanism, Josh O’Connor, who played Prince Charles, is very vocal about his anti-monarchy views even after playing Charles on screen. In fact, he expressed that he has even less interest in the family than before he took on the role. O’Connor reminded viewers that what they see should not be taken at face value, and that the actual family is “far removed” from how they are depicted in the show. Nevertheless, his opinion of Charles stops at appreciation for who he is as a person, but not his position of power. O’Connor was not swayed by the royals’ allure, and despite his initial hesitation about playing Charles, The Crown ultimately reaffirmed his republican sentiments.

As for the general public, polls were conducted to assess any change in viewers’ opinions of the family. Focaldata found that 23% of viewers’ impressions of the royals had worsened, and it is said that intimidate the family most. However, despite the framing of the narrative, 35% felt an improvement in their opinions, which would ironically indicate that Morgan did not effectively make his case against the royal family. It must be said, though, that viewers come to the show with the different frames of mind or understandings of these people. After all, not all viewers could intuit fact from fiction, and for all its criticism, the show did much to humanize the family; maybe their struggles could never match a commoner’s, but they are still allowed empathy on some level. Even with a net increase in perception of the family as shown in the poll, elements of the oppositional stance were still properly decoded to some extent.

Though it may have stumbled in delivering an entirely effectively encoded message against monarchy and imperialism, The Crown provides a deep criticism of a group who is, for better or worse, the lifeblood of the post-WWII British Empire. The show encodes the family as failures at being good role models for a country whose adoration always forgives. During the course of the show and beyond, there have been incidents of cultural and racial insensitivity, matters of infidelity (concerning both Philip and Charles), and numerous scandals that were not adequately addressed. Edward VIII toured early concentration camps with Adolf Hitler before the invasion of Poland, and to look ahead of The Crown’s timeline, credible evidence brought to light in the 21st century directly links Prince Andrew, Elizabeth II’s second son, with child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Despite inaccuracies, pushback, and a net increase among viewers in positive opinions of the royal family, more knowledge and discourse regarding that institution is now circulating as a direct result of The Crown. Given the show’s divisive nature, though, this brings up the question of whether more studios and writers will begin to craft oppositional narratives of their own. Could they become more comfortable with the idea of critiquing the untouchable like Peter Morgan has so gracefully done? Will The Crown have long term effects on the structure of British society, and as the world modernizes, might the constitutional monarchy soon be abolished (or rather, will its abolition have been sped up)? As for how fans empathize with characters and expressing sympathy for the devil, did this show reach its limit, or will it? Does the way of decoding media content change when the audience has a more direct way of interacting with creators in order to interpret the work?

Works Cited

Adam, Karla, and Jennifer Hassan. “Netflix Refuses to Add Disclaimer to 'The Crown,' despite

Pressure from the British Government.” The Washington Post. WP Company, December

8, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/12/07/the-crown-netflix-

british-disclaimer/.

BBC News. “Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News.”

November 17, 2019. Video, 49:26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtBS8COhhhM.

“The Crown: Company Credits.” IMDb. IMDb.com. Accessed April 9, 2021.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4786824/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co.

“The Crown: Full Cast & Crew.” IMDb. IMDb.com. Accessed April 9, 2021.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4786824/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1.

“The Crown: Trivia.” IMDb. IMDb.com. Accessed April 9, 2021.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4786824/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv.

Dellatto, Marisa. “'The Crown' Is Polishing the Royal Reputation: Poll.” New York Post. New

York Post, December 6, 2020.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/the-crown-is-polishing-the-royal-reputation-poll/.

Dickie Arbiter (@RoyalDickie). 2020. “So #PeterMorgan has finally admitted scenes in

@TheCrown4 - covering 1977 to 1990 - are made up. And why is HM's same PS

#MartinCharteris there throughout? He retired in '77. As for the programme meeting

(E10) referring to #Diana's mental health - it didn't happen. I was there.” Twitter,

November 17, 2020, 3:57 AM.

https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1328623193947566082.

Dymond, Jonny. “Prince Philip: An Extraordinary Man Who Led an Extraordinary Life.” BBC

News. BBC, April 9, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50589065.

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding, Decoding.” Essay. In Encoding and Decoding in the Television

Discourse, 507–17. Birmingham, AL: Univ. of Birmingham, 1973.

Harvey, Giles. “How the Man Behind 'The Crown' Made the Monarchy Relevant Again.” The

New York Times. The New York Times, November 6, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/magazine/the-crown-peter-morgan.html.

Hennigan, Adrian. “I Hate Thatcher and the Royal Family – So Why Did I Love Season Four of

‘The Crown’?” Haaretz.com. Haaretz, November 17, 2020.

https://www.haaretz.com/life/television/even-staunch-anti-monarchists-will-love-

season-4-of-the-crown-1.9309641.

hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators.” Essay. In Black Looks: Race

and Representation, 94–104. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992.

Jenkins, Simon. “The Crown's Fake History Is As Corrosive As Fake News.” The Guardian.

Guardian News and Media, November 16, 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/the-crown-fake-

history-news-tv-series-royal-family-artistic-licence.

Lawton, Megan. “Meghan and Harry's Oprah Interview: Princess Diana's Significance.” BBC

News. BBC, March 8, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49905596.

“New Years Honours List — United Kingdom.” The London Gazette, December 31, 2003.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/57155/supplement/1.

Saunders, Emma. “The Crown: Ex-Royal Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter Criticises 'Hatchet

Job'.” BBC News. BBC, November 17, 2020.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54974674.

Syed, Armani. “'The Crown' Actor Josh O'Connor Says He Has 'Very Little Interest' in the Royal

Family after Playing Prince Charles.” Insider. Insider, March 29, 2021.

https://www.insider.com/the-crown-josh-oconnor-has-no-interest-in-royal-family-2021-3.

CGP Grey. “The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained.” April 19, 2011. Video, 4:42.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw.

Vincenty, Samantha. “How the Royal Family Actually Makes Their Money.” Oprah Daily.

OprahDaily.com, March 29, 2021.

https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a29862205/british-royal-

family-money/.