If you love The Daily Beast’s royal coverage, then we hope you’ll enjoy The Royalist, a members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.
Does Harry and Meghan’s $100m Netflix deal count as endorsing The Crown?
The fourth series of The Crown starts streaming today—for more on this, see below—and its liberal interpretation of history has reportedly sparked renewed fury among senior royals at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s $100 million Netflix deal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The fourth season of the drama sees a tightening focus on the cruelty and hard-heartedness of the very institution of monarchy, with unsparing depictions of Princess Diana’s eating disorder, so disturbing that they are flagged with a warning at the beginning of the relevant episodes. Prince Charles’ infidelity also features. Friends of the royals believe that Harry and Meghan signing up to be front people for Netflix will appear to millions of viewers around the globe to be a tacit endorsement of the veracity of The Crown.
One royal insider, for example, told the Mail on Sunday: “There are raised eyebrows about Harry taking millions from the company that’s behind all this. After all where do much of Netflix’s profits come from? The Crown.”
Another friend accused the streaming heavyweight of “trolling on a Hollywood budget.”
They said: “The Duke of Cambridge is none too pleased with it. He feels that both his parents are being exploited and being presented in a false, simplistic way to make money. In this case, it’s dragging up things that happened during very difficult times 25 or 30 years ago without a thought for anyone’s feelings. That isn’t right or fair, particularly when so many of the things being depicted don’t represent the truth.”
The royals have never commented on the series although it is widely accepted that most senior royals have seen at least some of the hit show, which has accused Philip of having multiple affairs. In the new series he also threatens Princess Diana, which is likely to fuel conspiracy theories about her death.
As Diana’s marriage collapses, Diana, played by newcomer Emma Corrin, 24, is seen violently vomiting into a toilet on multiple occasions.
A warning reads: “The following episode includes scenes of an eating disorder which some viewers may find troubling. Viewer discretion is advised.” The show also provides a link to the charity Wanna Talk About It.
Yes, the internet likes The Crown, especially Gillian Anderson
No spoilers here, don’t worry. All episodes of The Crown became available for streaming at 3 a.m. ET on Netflix Sunday morning, which was 8 a.m. in the U.K. To judge from social media, the binge-marathons are already underway.
The good news for fans of the series is that Twitter timelines are already flooding with generally positive reviews and reaction.
Singled out for particular positive attention by the collective consciousness of social media are Gillian Anderson’s portrayal of Margaret Thatcher, to the extent that #GillianAnderson was trending in Europe today, which, as any star knows, is great news provided you have not just died/been arrested.
Emma Corrin’s depiction of Diana is a big hit, too.
Other Twitter users highlight the heartless manner of Prince Charles.
The portrayal of the relationship between Charles and Philip is also attracting attention.
Rights and wrongs
The accuracy police are out for their pound of flesh with today’s launch, and The Telegraph is leading the charge with a comprehensive roundup of what the series has got right and wrong.
Criticisms include the following: Princess Margaret never told Margaret Thatcher it is common to say pardon, that the queen never interfered in Thatcher’s downfall, that Thatcher, an ardent monarchist, would never have criticized the queen for her supposed privilege and entitlement, that the drifter Michael Fagan who broke into the queen’s bedroom in 1982 “harangued the Queen about the bleak economic climate in Thatcher’s Britain,” and that the timeline of the Falklands War is distorted.
The Telegraph’s writer Harry Mount does concede “the essential big picture of the monarchy in the fourth season of The Crown is true. Yes, the Queen is the great royal survivor who bestrides the kingdom like a colossus. And, yes, Prince Charles was horrible to Diana in refusing to give up his eternal affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.” He also admits his historical quibbles don’t matter too much “as long as you know it’s all a rollicking fantasy wrapped around a kernel of truth. It’s only worrying if some people think it’s all true.”
Bashing Bashir
Piers Morgan, now co-anchor of Good Morning Britain, opined this week that Princess Diana’s now-notorious interview to BBC’s Panorama led to her death. Morgan, while interviewing graphic designer Matt Wiessler who created fake bank statements for interviewer Martin Bashir to secure the interview, said that everything that flowed from the explosive documentary—Diana being stripped of her HRH status, exile, search for new post-royal identity—ended in tragedy in the Pont d’Alma underpass in Paris.
Wiessler said that the BBC have made him a “scapegoat,” with Morgan claiming that the BBC would criticize the tabloids had they executed such shady behavior. But is Morgan’s self-righteousness justified? If, as has now been claimed by the BBC, Diana sent a note making clear she did not give the interview because of the forged documents, then the question returns to why Diana gave the interview. (Bashir has so far remained silent; he is recovering from quadruple heart bypass surgery and also COVID-19.)
Could one reason be that she felt desperate to set the record straight after so many years of tabloid baiting and misrepresentation? That may be a harder thing for Morgan to sound off and broadcast his thoughts about to his GMB viewers, as he was once editor of one of those very tabloids, Britain’s Daily Mirror.
Harry gives wounded vet pal a video shout out
The Bashir row looks set to rumble on for some time, but Prince Harry showed he won’t let anger towards the BBC get in front of supporting his mates, however, with a surprise video message of support to Strictly Come Dancing contestant J.J. Chalmers, 33, a Royal Marine turned TV presenter, who was injured in a bomb blast in Afghanistan in 2011.
Harry teased his friend for his outfit, joking about his “tight blue shorts” and “socks pulled up,” adding: “You are definitely having an impact on society now. It doesn’t get better than that.”
Sadly, even Harry’s good wishes couldn’t make him a better dancer; Chalmers faces elimination after failing to impress judges with his military-inspired jive to Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy.
Harry, 36, served 10 years in the armed forces including two tours of Afghanistan, and has been keen to show support for his fellow veterans.
Chalmers suffered severe injuries to his face and right elbow, and lost two of his fingers when an IED exploded while he was on foot patrol in Helmand in 2011.
Three years later, he competed in the inaugural Invictus Games in London, the Paralympic-style event for wounded and sick veterans established by Prince Harry, winning gold and bronze medals in cycling and track events. He is now an ambassador for the games.
A spokesman for Harry told The Sunday Times: “The duke has known J.J. for a long time. They’ve been in good touch since Strictly started and he was keen to show his support for a friend so they recorded something together earlier this week.”
The Sunday Times also quoted royal sources who expressed annoyance at Harry for supporting the BBC in the wake of the Panorama furore, with one saying: “Given what has been going on around the BBC Diana saga and the resurfacing of sensationalist stories around the royal family, Harry’s timing is a little surprising. Of all the weeks for a member of the royal family to record something on the BBC, this wasn’t it.”
Well, maybe it was. Just last week Harry’s request to have a wreath laid in his name at Britain’s war memorial was denied by the palace. The sweet natured and encouraging message will have been a reminder to many veterans that Harry has never stopped believing in them, despite palace infighting.
Prince Andrew will “never” return to royal duties
Prince Andrew is still determined to “serve his country again,” while understanding that doing so in the near future at least is highly unlikely. This might imply he—or at least sources briefing the media on his behalf—understand that it is not only his relationship with dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein that may stand in the way of his return to royal duty, but also his continued refusal to speak to the U.S. authorities about it.
The Mail had pictures of him driving through Windsor Great Park on Saturday in his Range Rover, wearing a mask (so plus points for that at least), the day after the paper reported that he would never return to royal duties.
“This is as much about judgment shown over the issue, as the allegations themselves,” one “well-placed” source told the paper. “Even if the duke were to resolve matters satisfactorily over [Epstein], there is still an issue about [his] lack of understanding over the seriousness of the situation and not accepting that the relationship was wrong. I am not sure there will ever be an opportunity for him to return.”
A source close to Andrew told the Mail: “The duke’s future role can only be seriously considered once the legal process in the U.S. has been resolved and the duke’s side of the story properly explained. Until then, the duke is sensitive to the public mood and to the fact that the institution [of the monarchy] must come first.”
This week in royal history
That infamous—and still news-creating—Panorama interview, in which Diana spoke of the three people in her marriage and so much more, was broadcast on the BBC on Nov. 20, 1995. Twenty-five years later, as outlined above, it is still causing controversy with the suggestion that Diana was coerced into giving the interview.
Unanswered questions
When will Diana’s interviewer, BBC Religious Affairs Editor Martin Bashir, give his side of the story when it comes to the forged documents, and the circumstances of Princess Diana giving that 1995 Panorama interview—in terms of what he said to her, and the suggestion he stoked her paranoia to get her to sit down and dish on her misery? Will he issue an apology? Maybe not for a while if at all, as his recovery from surgery and COVID continues.
