Conceptualising Fictional Intimacy in the Crown and the Genre of the Royal Biopic

Home , Andy Harries, Bertie and Elizabeth, British Royal Family, Gloriana (barge), Great Smog of London, Lithgow Plot

“Let them look at you and see only the eternal.” – Conceptualising Fictional Intimacy in The Crown and the Genre of the Royal Biopic

MASTERARBEIT zur Erlangung des Mastergrades an der Kultur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg

Eingereicht von Maria Baumgartner BA 1121494

Fachbereich Anglistik und Amerikanistik Gutachter: Univ.- Prof. Dr. Ralph J. Poole, MA

Salzburg, Dezember 2017

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre hiermit eidesstattlich durch meine eigenhändige Unterschrift, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich oder inhaltlich den angegebenen Quellen entnommen wurden, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht.

Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch nicht als Masterarbeit eingereicht.

I hereby declare and confirm that this thesis is entirely the result of my own original work. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been indicated as such and properly acknowledged.

I further declare that this or similar work has not been submitted for credit elsewhere.

______Datum, Unterschrift

Abstract

As one of the most well-established representations of monarchy through modern media, the genre of the royal biopic is dominated by its objective to portray a historically truthful picture of monarchy while simultaneously giving private insights into the life of the sovereign and their immediate environment. In order to achieve this goal, contemporary royal biopics undertake a combined approach of placing fictional depictions of private events and conversations against a setting which is dominated by the historic events of the past. The present thesis aims to analyse this genre-specific approach by proposing the concept of fictional intimacy, which argues for fictional employments within the narrative of a biopic to foster the creation of a companionate relationship between the narrative and the audience. This proposed conceptual framework is subsequently applied to the Netflix original television series The Crown, which covers the life and reign of British monarch Queen Elizabeth II and has been praised to have revolutionised its genre by re-negotiating its pre-established conventions. The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the current academic discourse by successfully defining one of the genre’s most essential cinematic strategies through the proposal of a conceptual framework which strives to be applicable to past as well as future royal biopics.

Als etablierte Darstellungsform der Monarchie in neuen Medien erstrebt das Genre des Royal Biopics die Veranschaulichung von sowohl geschichtlichen Ereignissen, als auch privaten Einblicken in das Leben der königlichen Familie. Um dieses genrespezifische Ziel zu erreichen, vereinen zeitgenössische Royal Biopics beide Aspekte indem sie fiktive Darstellungen des königlichen Privatlebens mit einem historisch akkuraten Handlungsrahmen kombinieren. Die vorliegende Masterarbeit diskutiert diese Herangehensweise durch die Konzipierung von fiktiver Intimität als Strategie, welche die Erzeugung einer engeren Beziehung zwischen dem Publikum und der geschilderten Handlung fördert, ausgeübt durch die fiktive Darstellung von intimen Momenten. Das vorgeschlagene Konzept wird anschließend im Rahmen von The Crown, der erfolgreichen Serie über das Leben von Königin Elizabeth II aus dem Jahr 2016, angewandt. Ziel dieser Masterarbeit ist die Schaffung eines Konzeptes, welches zum wissenschaftlichen Diskurs des Genres beiträgt und darüber hinaus Relevanz für weitere Produktionen aufweist.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ralph Poole MA, whose office was always open whenever I was facing troubles or needed advice. Thank you for encouraging my enthusiasm for the topic from the very beginning and steering me in the right direction when the challenge seemed too overwhelming.

Thank you also to Isabella Aufschnaiter and Madeleine Quast, not only for taking the time to proof-read the first drafts of my work, but also for your friendship and continuous support. I couldn’t have done it without you!

I would also like to thank my family, especially my parents Rosi and Hans. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to travel, which allowed me to realise my own potential and sparked my love for the subject of my thesis in the first place.

Finally, I would like to thank my brother Andi for selflessly letting me use his Netflix account so I could watch The Crown. I promise I’ll get my own account soon.

Outline

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. The Royal Biopic ...... 3 2.1. Genre Definitions and Concepts ...... 3 2.2. Recent Shifts ...... 7 3. Monarchy and National Identity ...... 10 3.1. The Roots of Royal Fever ...... 10 3.2. The Monarchy’s Place in Popular Imagination ...... 16 4. The Role of Intimacy ...... 19 5. Fictional Intimacy in the Royal Biopic ...... 22 5.1. Concept Definition ...... 22 5.2. Concept Strategy ...... 23 5.3. De-mystifying the Monarchy ...... 28 6. The Crown ...... 30 6.1. Background Information ...... 30 6.2. Peter Morgan’s The Queen and The Audience ...... 32 6.3. Historical Outline and Content Overview ...... 35 6.4. Reception ...... 40 7. Fictional Intimacy in The Crown ...... 43 7.1. Physical Intimacy ...... 44 7.1.1. Nudity ...... 45 7.1.2. References to Sexual Encounters ...... 48 7.1.3. Illness and Physical Conditions ...... 52 7.2. Verbal Intimacy ...... 58 7.2.1. Private Letters as Tool for Intimate Communication ...... 58 7.2.2. Swearing and Other “Unroyal” Uses of Language ...... 64 7.3. Spiritual Intimacy ...... 70 7.3.1. Elizabeth: Monarch or Wife? ...... 72 7.3.2. Winston Churchill: The Dismantling of a Legend ...... 81 7.4. Intellectual Intimacy ...... 85 8. The Crown in the Current Cultural Context ...... 93 9. Conclusion ...... 96 10. Bibliography ...... 99

1. Introduction

With its roots dating back as far as Shakespeare’s Plantagenet plays, the royal biopic has established itself as one of the most historical genres still celebrating great success within the contemporary cinematic discourse. Portraying the lives of monarchs through mass media, royal biopics are faced with the challenge of fulfilling the demand of historical accuracy while simultaneously satisfying the audience’s need for exclusive insights into the lives of ineffable public figures. One of the most well-renowned writers of the genre, Peter Morgan, has described his notion of approaching this challenge in his latest production, the Netflix original series The Crown, as follows:

“Of course, I have to imagine the private conversations, and those are necessarily fiction, but I try to make everything truthful even if you can’t know whether it’s accurate.” (Sulcas, online) Morgan argues for his royal biopic to follow a combined approach of placing the portrayal of private moments against a historically truthful backdrop, which allows for his production to be neither prurient nor too respectful and is thus enabled to achieve both objectives of the genre (ibid). Therefore, employing elements of fiction within a setting that is dominated by historical events of the past, serves as an essential strategy for the successful creation of a biopic. As these elements of fiction are centred only on the private conversations and interactions, their establishment prevails the creation of intimate moments within the narrative.

Taking these prominent genre conventions into consideration, the present thesis argues for a concept of fictional intimacy to be defined as one of the most essential cinematic strategies applied within the genre of the royal biopic. It proposes that, if a fictional representation of four types of intimacy after Piorowski and Cardone is employed, and a suspension of disbelief is generated within the viewer, companionate intimacy is created between the narrative and the audience. In order to illustrate the hypothesis, the present thesis investigates the establishment of fictional intimacy in the Netflix original series The Crown, which portrays the life and reign of the current British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.

Giving insights into the historical development and dynamically shifting conventions of the royal biopic, the genre will firstly be discussed in order to provide a substantial theoretical framework for the ensuing genre analysis. Secondly, the role of the British monarchy in contemporary culture and its influence on national identity will be reviewed, as it fosters a deeper understanding of the audience’s fascination with the monarchical institution as a whole. After a subsequent summary of the most essential aspects of general intimacy theory, the core section of this thesis will be presented as the concept of fictional intimacy in the royal biopic is proposed: At first, the concept will be defined accordingly, as it draws together the previously established theories and combines approaches from all preceding chapters. Secondly, its strategies of application will be explained, simultaneously functioning as the presentation of the methodological approach carried out in the analytical part of this thesis. After elaborating further on society’s quest to de-mystify the ineffability around the concept of monarchy, the corpus of analysis will be presented, introducing the reader to the 2016 television series The Crown. Substantial background information on the series’ production backgrounds will be provided before explaining its story of origin through previous works by Peter Morgan. The first season’s historical context will also be summarised, followed by brief insights into its reception.

Subsequently, the concept of fictional intimacy will be applied to the first season of The Crown, as the establishment of the four defined types of intimacy – physical, verbal, spiritual and intellectual – are investigated in the analytical section of this thesis. This extensive chapter will be supported by detailed discussions of individual scenes exhibiting the employment of fictional intimacy, aided and visualised through the incorporating of transcripts and screenshots. Finally, having gathered a fundamental understanding of the cinematic approaches found in The Crown, the series will be discussed with regards to its contribution to the current cultural context, before drawing all findings together in a final conclusion.

The present thesis aims to contribute to the contemporary academic discourse surrounding the royal biopic by conceptualising an essential cinematic strategy which strives to be applied to similar productions of the genre. It shall thus provide a conceptual framework that aims to find relevance in past productions as well as future contributions to the genre, following the likes of The Crown in re-negotiating the genre conventions on its own terms.

2. The Royal Biopic

The following chapter aims to offer insights into the genre of the royal biopic by providing an overview of definitions and concepts as well as employing recent shifts occurring within approaches towards the genre.

2.1. Genre Definitions and Concepts

The royal biopic has been established as sub-genre of the overarching genre of the biopic, encompassing films depicting “the life of a historical person, past or present”, presupposing the central characters’ real names being used (Custen 5-6). In accordance with its evolvement, the biopic has further shown its traits and genre features to be “shifting anew with each generation” (ibid) and can thus be described as a dynamic genre exhibiting no affiliations to a restricted literary era. Concentrating on the portrayal of the lives of monarchs in particular, the sub-genre of the royal biopic generally follows the majority of these encompassing genre conventions, yet might sometimes display a “stronger emphasis on the past” (ibid). According to Bastin and Custen, royal biopics cinematically render “the tension between the public duty and private life of the monarch” (10), with a special focus on periods of “instability for the monarchy” (315). Consequently, royal biopics can be based on a specific regal era, a particular monarch or both, resulting in the genre creating a pool of adaptations of tangible, real-life events.

When approaching biopics of the British royal family, which will be the focus of the present thesis, from a historical perspective, the genre can be dated back as far as the Elizabethan age, for William Shakespeare is generally acknowledged as “the first to successfully dramatize the monarchy for a mass audience” (Otnes and Maclaran 130). Staging key events during the reign of a monarch, the chronicle-history plays and their main genre of the historical drama are regarded to be the first depictions of English royalty (131). While a variety of playwrights at the time explored the lives of kings and queens in their dramatic work, most of them exhibited a high degree of accuracy to the deception

of historical literalism in the form of disjointed events. Shakespeare, on the other hand, dared to place “artistic integrity” over the portrayal of historic accuracy of his source texts, as discussed by Otnes and Maclaran (132):

“Most significantly, he brought his characters to life by personalizing their struggles and depicting them as individual men and women who experience emotional conflicts to which his audiences could relate.”

Despite Shakespeare’s main objective to establish his artistic integrity, he remained aware of the requirement to please his patron, Elizabeth I, hence no open criticism towards the monarchy was included in the Plantagenet plays in order to ensure the preservation of her favour (ibid). Furthermore, Shakespeare’s works attributed attention to both the private and the public side of monarchy, as his kings struggled with “internal conflicts and passions” which consequently affected their reign and also had direct influence on the country (133). Otnes and Maclaran followingly claim “this emotional realism, juxtaposed as it is with the mystique of the monarchy” (ibid), to be the key behind the success of Shakespeare’s Plantagenet plays at the time as well as today.

Similar to film adaptations based on novels or other works of fiction, adapting the lives of monarchs to the stage or screen exposes these works to a set of expectations employed by the audience. As viewers of book-to-film adaptations often exhibit a certain familiarity with the story portrayed in the production and feel emotionally attached to the characters, Bastin argues that viewers of royal biopics could also feel “let down and betrayed by the film’s lack of similarity to its source text” (35). In the case of royal biopics, unless being directly transferred from biographies or other secluded written works, the role of the so-called “source text” for the adaptation is of particular interest, as usually no actual written source text exists. Rather, biopics are commonly based on research conducted using the royal archives, newspaper and other media reports as well as the public’s impression of the respective events at the time. Thus, when filming not only the public but also the private life of a monarch, subjectivity as well as fiction are usually involved to a certain degree, therefore exacerbating the chances of pleasing the viewers with the film’s “faithfulness” to its source text. Robert Stam, being one of the first scholars to conceptualise film adaptations as a dialogic process, argues that emotions such as infidelity and betrayal occur “when we have loved [a source text], and the adaptation has not been worthy of that love” (54). Thus, based on Christian Metz’s

application of Lacanian theory to film, Stam encourages audiences to interpret adaptations through “introjected desires, hopes and utopias” and consequently “fashion [their] own mise-en-scène”. Such adaptations confront the viewer with real-life events being translated to the screen, and, in case of royal biopics, additionally involve the depiction of the private life of the monarch, which to a certain degree stems from “someone else’s phantasy” (Bastin 35). Consequently, Stam claims that through “the loss of our own phantasmatic relation […] the adaptation itself becomes a kind of ‘bad object’” (54 – 55). Similar to their main genre, royal biopics are therefore based on real life events which function as the source-text as well as the temporal backdrop of the plot while also employing fictional elements, the latter of which inspired the approach of the forthcoming conceptual analysis.

British author and historian David Cannadine argues that, by definition, lives of monarchs tend to concentrate to where they happen to be at any particular time, resulting in biopics of the British royal family to generally be written from the viewpoint of Buckingham Palace or other respective residences (309). Cannadine, however, continues to claim that while this angle might be entirely understandable, it also exhibits certain limitations as “the history of the modern British monarchy cannot properly or plausibly be written from such a constrained geographical perspective” (ibid). Thus, while most contemporary royal biopics are written from the perspective of the palace, they contain an added element of fictional embellishment to their stories, behaving much like oral history “in the way it passes down stories […] from generation to generation” in order to move outside the constrained viewpoint of Buckingham Palace (Otnes and Maclaran, 138).

Until comparatively recently, portraying a living, let alone reigning, sovereign on film or any other dramatic form was also “deemed improper”, as the role of the monarch in the public eye involves a notion of sacredness, making them somewhat “un-filmable” (cf. Weisbrod 38). According to Whittle (in Bastin 35), the relationship between the monarch and the people they engage with is of particular complexity as “it concerns the national unconscious”. Thus, taking into account the importance of the monarch’s representation for the public, which will be further explored in later chapters, as well as the origins of the genre, it appears unsurprising that in the past, despite a recent move

towards sole independence from the palace, royal biopics of living sovereigns used to be approved if not commissioned by the very institution, the palace itself. Cannadine (295) explores the limitations as well as functions of royal biographies connected to the then newly crowned Elizabeth II, and portrays the complexity of the issue regarding the appropriate details to display:

“Many politicians associated with these events were still alive, and so was Edward VIII as duke of Windsor; and George VI and George V were, respectively, the father and grandfather of the new young queen, which further limited what could candidly or critically be said about them Yet this, of course, was precisely what those who commissioned these biographies intended and expected: […] authors were specifically instructed to write nothing that was embarrassing to the institution of monarchy, or critical of the particular individual who was being thus commemorated and memorialized.”

Due to his abdication in order to marry the divorced Wallis Simpson, Edward VIII was particularly caught in the crossfire of the media at the time, hindering the initial popularity of his successor, his brother George VI as well as the young Elizabeth II. Consequently, the British monarchy has always been “as much about institutions as it is about individuals”, requiring for these subjects to be treated “historically as well as biographically, thematically as well as chronologically, analytically as well as anecdotally” (303). Contemporary royal biopics have therefore followed this proposed notion of a combined approach, including the public as well as the private by employing personal events against a historically accurate backdrop.

Saddled with the risk of becoming an “unfaithful” adaptation of the original “source text”, royal biopics about the British monarchy also face challenges by having to transport an “ineffable essence” (Bastin 36) which, until recently, used to be approved and commissioned by the palace itself. Thus, the manner of approaching the British royal family through screen continuously battles the balance of historical accuracy as well as the entertaining function of the biopic, opening up the question as to which of them is most essential to the contemporary audience.

2.2. Recent Shifts

Considering the royal family never gained much influence with proprietors, editors or newspaper journalists (Cannadine 304), asserting control over visual and broadcast images by commissioning certain film productions always remained important to the palace. By deciding to broadcast Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953, the first ever coronation to be televised, the royal family set its own terms on which parts of their lives they wanted modern broadcasting media to present. As already established, aside from live broadcasts and commissioned projects, presenting a living sovereign on screen was deemed highly improper. Weisbrod (38) describes this ineffability of the monarchy to “always [have] been what it was believed to be, but the monarchy as a media event is of rather recent origin”. Today, however, we nonetheless find several biopics which capture the life of the Queen and her family “as the real thing”. The 2005 film The Queen, starring Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II, has been described to stand out as “the first full-length cinematic representation of a living monarch ever made” (Bastin 44). The shift occurring within the genre since the production of this progressive production had been established by the fact that “Elizabeth, and the role she inhabits, has been portrayed seriously” (Whittle obline). Portraying the “most elusive of all lives – the sovereign self”, The Queen has been claimed as one of the first to acknowledge that it works within a dialogic framework (Smith and Watson 3) in the sense that it offers “soap opera” elements about the private aspects of the royal household but with “the added kudos” of not neglecting the importance of the monarchy in terms of its national role (Bastin 44).

As this shift occurs from commissioned works by the palace towards blockbusters portraying a living monarch, it is essential to note that the production of the latter generally functions without access to royal archives or any consultation with the royal household. Due to this lack of access to information coming directly from the palace, contemporary royal biopics, as by genre definition, resort to employing fictional elements in order to fill the gaps between the historical events on an increasing level. Thus, in order to remain and reinforce the “soap opera” aspect of these productions, the depiction of the fictional aspect concerning the exposition of the monarch’s private life has consequently been stepping into the limelight.

By progressively resorting to fictional embellishments, contemporary portrayals of royal figures, or their family members, have diminished the distance between the audience and the monarchy by “making these people seem just like us in a variety of ways” (Otnes and Maclaran 142). Laying bare the humanity behind these “official figures”, current royal biopics dramatically display the monarch’s “passions, turmoil, and temptations to which everyone can relate, rather than distant, cold, institutional figureheads” (ibid). They are shown as flawed, vulnerable people facing challenges often employed by the regal institution itself, taking down the barriers of the monarchy and helping the audience to feel emphatic towards not only the film character, but consequently also the actual royal household. The degree towards these barriers are taken down, however, requires careful balance as, somewhat paradoxically, the audience demands reassurance in the fact “that these figures differ from themselves to allow the mystery that surrounds the idea of royalty to remain” (ibid). Bastin argues that by the changing definitions and genre conventions of the royal biopic, which occur in alignment with the period in which they are made, the genre has as a result altered attitudes towards the overall meaning of royalty (cf. 35). Re-enactments have thus evolved into “a self- reflexive exploration and recognition of the ineffable qualities of royalty and majesty” (ibid) and the “climate of the public opinion [has] become less deferential and more intrusive” (Cannadine 296). Audiences as well as the media encourage the idea of royalty as spectacle, yet employ more critical patterns of behaviour and expectation. While scepticism towards the monarchy was once regarded to be intrusive and inappropriate, members of the royal family are now treated as “individuals rather than […] icons”, as their finances are openly discussed and their highly eventful private lives are pushed into focus. Flaws, failures, tensions and disagreements within the royal family are portrayed and attention is purposefully drawn towards them (cf. ibid). Yet, while these shifts occur within the genre, it remains essential that the royal family are still shown “as existing on a more elevated level than common people”, even though the more recent royal biopics show that “such elevation is not without consequences, often with respect to emotional suffering and loneliness” (Otnes and Maclaran 142). Hence, royal biopics often balance these conflicts by emphasising “a theme of sacrifice to duty, which puts the welfare of the nation above personal desire” (ibid). Consequently, the sense of separation between the monarchy and the public is restored, as this very sense of sacrifice separates “them”

from “us”, and “affords monarchs the authoritarian power we expect them to possess” (ibid). In the case of royal biopics concerning Elizabeth II, whose depiction will also play the focal role in the later analysis, critics (e.g. Cannadine 298) argue that her portrayal is inevitably constrained, as “the time is not yet ripe to attempt an overall appraisal of her life”. However, contemporary biopics do not aim for such overall appraisal, which is why an increasing number of biopics about the currently reigning sovereign have emerged which employ criticism, spectacle and, the focus of the present thesis, fictional intimacy.

3. Monarchy and National Identity

In order to fully grasp the relevance of the royal biopic as genre to the British cultural sentiment, the following chapters offer insights into the reasons behind the global fascination for the British royal family as well as their current place in popular imagination. Establishing a certain understanding of how the British monarchy is perceived globally and has established itself in the cultural discourse proves essential for the forthcoming analysis, as The Crown simultaneously supports as well as diminishes the conventions established below.

3.1. The Roots of Royal Fever

This sub-chapter aims to describe the reasons behind the cultural fascination of the UK as well as the global public for the British royal family. By doing so, the subsequent passages will be based on Cele C. Otnes and Pauline Maclaran’s book titled Royal Fever – The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture, in particular chapter two: The Roots of Royal Fever (44 – 75). In order to exhibit a concise understanding of the monarchy’s consumerist effect on society, Otnes and Maclaran have coined the acronym RFBC, formed by the initial letters of Royal Family Brand Complex. Automatically entailing a notion of consumer culture by referring to the British monarchy as brand complex, Otnes and Maclaran further compare it to the Norwegian royal family and conclude that “no monarchy comes close to achieving the level of commercial and cultural success the RFBC enjoys” (45). Yet, the reasons behind this commercial and cultural success have remained subject to investigation, resulting in Otnes and Maclaran to define the following five internal and five external characteristics as factors “which bolster the commercial uniqueness and appeal of the British variant of monarchy” (ibid)

Internal factors: External factors:

• longevity • nobility • stability • commercial offerings in the • British Commonwealth marketplace • use of professional marketing • Anglophilia strategies and tactics • British humour • ritualized cultural practices • London

As the list presented by Otnes and Maclaran offers the most extensive of all approaches to grasp “the roots of royal fever” and includes most insights proposed by other historians and experts on the subject, such as Cannadine and Bastin, the presented factors will now be summarised and additionally evaluated in regards to cinematic representations of the royal family.

Firstly, internal factors contributing to “royal fever” will be discussed, starting with the topic of longevity (45 ff.): As the origins of the British monarchy trace back to William the Conqueror’s crowning in 1066, it counts as one of the oldest monarchies still existing to this day. Fuelled by the public’s increasing interest in the consumption of their own roots as well as genealogy-related products and services (e.g. the currently popular DNA tests to discover one’s ancestry and ethnic origins), people have also shown a desire for the discovery and reimagination of family narratives. Such stories, dominated by issues of continuity, solidarity and duty, have always been an “integral part of human existence”. Thus, self-evidently, long-standing monarchies such as the British variety function as a brand “laden with compelling narratives”, which have consequently formed the basis of dramatic representations of monarchy, such as royal biopics.

Functioning alongside longevity is also the issue of stability (47 ff.), which is particularly present in the British monarchy. A number of only six monarchs have reigned Britain since Victoria’s accession in 1876, over 140 years ago. For over two-thirds of this substantial amount of time, Victoria and Elizabeth II have occupied the throne and “consistently preached values of duty, family and morality”. As stability of the monarchy

is generally desired by the British public, the big exception of Edward VIII has not only shaken up the British values of succession and continuity, but also provided ample material to be depicted in royal biopics. This “highly dramatic saga” of his abdication and his decision to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, has been depicted in productions such as e.g. The Woman I Love, Edward & Mrs Simpson, To Catch a King, Bertie and Elizabeth, The King’s Speech or The Crown. While this scandal was feared to have diminishing effects on the monarchy’s persistence, it has actually unexpectedly enhanced its resiliency, showing the royal family “were made of gritty stuff and could ‘keep calm and carry on’”.

Thirdly, Otnes and Maclaran (48ff.) define the British Commonwealth as contributing internal factor, as the diversity of its 52 countries as well as their global dispersion increase and contribute towards the visibility of the monarchy and the Commonwealth realm, Queen Elizabeth II, in particular. Described as a “pivotal activity, laden with high-end, symbolic consumption”, the royal tour undertaken by the realm further acknowledges and strengthens the relationship between the Commonwealth nations, while also fuelling the globality of “royal fever”. Hence, most royal biopics also celebrate global rather than national success. Elizabeth II has completed over 180 tours, increasing her presence and visibility on a global scale and heightening the world’s interest in all things royal.

This increased visibility is then further reinforced by the use of professional marketing strategies and techniques (51 ff.), which form the fourth internal aspect to be considered. While news regarding the royal family were formerly distributed to the public through “postings at central places in towns or though court gossip”, the royal family today face the ultimate challenge of maintaining privacy while “enjoying a semblance of normal life”. This issue has been particularly exacerbated since the bloom of mass media culture and the “relentless” British tabloid industry, fishing for any possible scandal through the blatant invasion of privacy. While such displays of the royals’ private lives certainly foster the creation of entertaining royal biopics due to the public’s natural sensation mongering, they have also forced monarchic institutions to go with the times and, for example, launch their own websites and other official social media

profiles. This increased presence online has thus fostered the public’s fascination with the British monarchy and, simultaneously, its desire for royal biopics to be created.

The unique marketing strategies and techniques further culminate in the performance of ritualised cultural practices (56 ff.), such as coronation ceremonies, weddings or the Queen’s annual birthday parade – Trooping the Colour. Such occasions always involve certain rituals and, usually, find their peak of enthusiasm in mass gatherings at the gates of the palace for the anticipated “traditional balcony wave”. As these events are also often declared as bank holidays, the enthusiasm as well as the “sense of occasion” attracts even antiroyalists. Moreover, Elizabeth II has also created the “annual fixture” of the Christmas broadcast, which functions as ritual along the lines of singing God Save The Queen – the country’s national anthem. As previously explained, royal biopics function by placing the private lives of monarchs against historically accurate depictions of events. Thus, such ritualised cultural practices as the above-mentioned occasions actively shape chronological order of what is to be portrayed in productions of the genre.

Having discussed the five internal factors, which the monarchs have created for themselves, the following passages will summarise the five external factors contributing to “royal fever”, meaning they run independently and do not stem from within the royal family itself. The first external factor is the establishment of nobility or aristocracy (60 ff.). The system of awarding such titles seals the gap and diminishes the distance between “the insular world of the monarchy” and the “highly stratified” British class system. William the Conqueror first initiated the system of nobility, which developed from his system to award land to members of his army “in exchange of military support”. Hereditary titles of nobility can only be bestowed by the reigning monarch respectively. For instance, on their wedding day, Prince William and Catherine Middleton were awarded the titles of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. However, titles of nobility can also be honorary, meaning that the public themselves can nominate people for honours and applications for such are now even accepted online. Such honorary knights and dames are also considered to be part of nobility, bringing the “ordinary” folk closer to the ineffable concept of royalty. With the creation of this connecting link between the two parties, the interest in the overall concept of royalty is consequently also enhanced, which

can only work in favour of royal biopics, as the interest in the genre increases simultaneously.

In the respective chapter, Otnes and Maclaran only briefly discuss the external factor of commercial offerings in the marketplace (63), as they later devote an entire chapter to the topic. Grasping the essence of this influential factor, the term generally refers to all sorts of souvenirs and trinkets created to commemorate royal events, such as weddings or Jubilees. While such products greatly appeal to tourists visiting the UK, they have also found success amongst British royalists, collectors and hoarders, and have even been donated to British schools. As such commercial offerings memorialise royal occasions, royal biopics can be claimed to also function within this group in the marketplace, as the productions do, by genre definition, commemorate such events and thus are widely enjoyed.

This global enjoyment of commercial offerings concerning the British royal family have further developed into the phenomenon referred to as Anglophilia (64 ff.). People’s fascination with all things that are quintessentially British and their strong interest in everything connected to this specific culture has certainly also affected and supported the royal family’s popularity across the globe. Anglophilia is particularly visible in the United States, as the phenomenon has its roots in the colonial times when the monarchy was described to be “part of the sentiment and poetry of Britain”. The Americans’ fascination with British culture is certainly also shown in film and television, as cinema-related Anglophilia is said to have “peaked in the 1960s, when British films captured six of ten Academy Awards for best picture”. This foreign admiration for British productions also encompassed the subject of royalty and still remains today, as can be seen when looking at the popularity of monarchy-centred productions overseas, e.g. the BBC series Downton Abbey.

Cinematic representations of Anglophilia and the resulting “royal fever” however do not always approach royalty in a serious, dramatic way. Humorous depictions of the monarchy and its mute consent to these portrayals also form an essential part of the royal family. While most nations have curated a unique sense of humour ingrained in their culture, British humour (69 ff.) is considered vital and essential to the British national identity. This is shown by Otnes and Maclaran in exemplifying how “even UK citizenship

tests now contain questions about humour”. With humour being so central to the British character, the royal family’s appreciation of good comedy certainly comes in the favour of their sense of humour. While they have often been subject to humorous representations themselves, these have scarcely been disrespectful and are generally not commented on by the palace itself. Such representations include sketches by Monty Python or in programmes along the likes of Fawlty Towers, Mr. Bean or The Office. A particularly “memorable” and humorous event occurred during the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, during which the Queen was present in the arena. At the beginning of the ceremony, two stunt performers descended to the arena by parachute, dressed as the infamous James Bond and Queen Elizabeth II. The following day, newspapers and media referred to her majesty as “the eighty-six-year-old Bond girl”. The mere fact this act was staged in the presence of the Queen shows that the royal family certainly can take a joke and do not take themselves too seriously either. Thus, current royal biopics seem to conform less and less to the portrayal of characters of the royal family in a serious fashion. This especially goes for representations of Prince Philip, who is known for his black sense of humour, and is therefore often defined by this particular characteristic.

The fifth and final factor Otnes and Maclaran define is London as the “headquarters” of the British monarchy (71 ff.). Simply by being the capital of a country which has the word ‘kingdom’ in its name, the city is inevitably connected to the monarchy as it is “wealthy, powerful and culture-laden”. Many well preserved and thus aesthetically pleasing sites are scattered across London, with Buckingham Palace being one of the main tourist attractions. Not only are tourists welcome to watch the Changing of the Guard in front of the palace, but the residence has also opened its doors to the public for visitors to see while Elizabeth II is at Balmoral. London therefore provides the ideal setting for royal biopics, as not only the production is focused on the magnificent royal institution, but the audience also watch the productions come to life in one of their most beloved cities.

Having discussed the ten main factors contributing to “royal fever” as defined by Otnes and Maclaran, it is essential to state that none of the above-mentioned points function autonomously, but rather create an interwoven grid of support for the monarchy and the public’s fascination for their ineffability. The consequential creation of the RFBC

– Royal Family Brand Complex – has thus ensured the British monarchy’s place in popular imagination and, despite critical voices, reaffirmed its vitality to the British cultural identity.

3.2. The Monarchy’s Place in Popular Imagination

After establishing the reasons behind the roots of the British royal family’s popularity, the following section aims to fathom the essence of the monarchy’s place in popular imagination. As mentioned above, the British monarchy is known for its stability. Queen Elizabeth II, being the longest-reigning monarch in British history, has certainly continued the tradition of duty to her country, setting herself apart from any other public figures in contemporary British culture. In contrast to prime ministers or presidents elsewhere, Elizabeth II has been “a presence for the entirety of most of her subjects’ lives” (Bastin 46), resulting in her to “occupy a place in the phantasmatic realm of her public’s imagination” (ibid). Due to this emotional sentiment connected to her majesty, the British public have remained “abidingly and fundamentally loyal” to the monarchy and have thus ensured its survival over the past decades (Cannadine 311). This survival, however, meant having to adjust the monarchy’s objectives from a ‘ruling’ to a ‘reigning’ power, shifting the duties of the sovereign alongside the nation’s evolution from an aristocratic to a democratic polity (304). The Queen has hence, for instance, reduced the “role of the crown as a significant patron of the arts”, but has increased her attendance at public events, such as football cup finals and royal variety performances (ibid), occupying a more representative and symbolic function. Other members of the royal family, such as Prince Charles as well as his sons, are often seen “on any given weekday” (305), following public duties all across the country as well as overseas. Cannadine has suspected the increase in official appearances by royal family members other than the sovereign to be “a relatively recent development [which] must be connected with the near- simultaneous extension of the franchise” (ibid).

While such conjectures might indicate that the royal family “franchise” actively utilise media attention in order to present their best selves to the British public, the

sovereign herself does not give interviews or participate in stories the press write about her. Pimlott (91) however argues that in the case of Elizabeth II, a “long-standing agreement” existed between the press and the palace, claiming that “there was no objection to the publication of private details, provided they were the right ones”. Thus, the Queen has also never contributed towards any non-commissioned biopics written about her and has generally shown “little or no interest in using film as a medium for exposing her private persona” (Bastin 45).

Having established that the British public generally remain loyal to the monarchical institution while the younger royals have also turned the media’s attention into favouring their popularity, the monarchy’s “place” in contemporary culture has also been subject to heavy political debates. On a left-to-right scale, the British monarchy is faced with a variety of parties from all political positions. Cannadine (312) argues that the (far) left of the political spectrum claims the idea of monarchy to be “baffling, indefensible, and thus of no significant interest”, yet are forced to still take the topic seriously regardless of individual opinions, as its “been around […] for more than a millennium”. The (far) right, on the other hand, associate monarchy with national unity and community, believing it to “self-evidently be the best of all possible worlds”. However, as noted above, the British monarchy has evolved over time and adjusted its objectives to current cultural and political developments.

It can thus be summarised that Elizabeth II being the sovereign of the United Kingdom has become a symbol of continuity and stability, earning the public’s loyalty towards the monarchy over time. Simultaneously, the younger royals have increased their appearance in the media, upholding the sovereign’s ineffability while also connecting with the public and increasing their popularity as well. While these two approaches towards the monarchy’s place in popular culture appear to be well-balanced and generally favoured by the British public, parliament seem to be torn between them and struggle to agree upon the position of the monarchy in the current imagination: Parties positioned on the left-side of the spectrum might favour the approach taken by the younger royals, having even welcomed commoners into their ranks through the marriage of Prince William to Catherine Middleton. Such a “modern” approach could lead to de-mystifying the royal family, showing they are “just like us” and thus in no need of the great

expenditure they receive. The right side of the spectrum, however, supports the idea of stability and tradition, denouncing any proposed changes to the system and supporting the monarchy not only as great resource of monetary benefit for the country, but also as symbol of strength and continuity within the UK. While the position of the British monarchy in the imagination of the public might prove to be more dependent on the individual rather than the public in its entirety, the fact it will remain a highly-disputed political and cultural issue can certainly be agreed upon.

4. The Role of Intimacy

Before approaching fictional intimacy as concept for analysis, it is essential to gather a fundamental understanding of intimacy as a whole. While the term ‘intimacy’ is known and “frequently bandied about in conversation” (Piorowski 9), it is hardly understood from a conceptual perspective. Particularly in literature and conversation, the feeling of being emotionally intimate will be familiar to most people. Yet, the experience often cannot be put into words. Terms such as ‘close’ or ‘connected’ will be the first connotations coming to mind, however, “the experience of intimacy seems too elusive to capture in language” beyond that (ibid). Moss and Schwebel (33) provide an overarching definition of the term ‘intimacy’, encompassing similarities and shared features from over 60 definitions they have reviewed and summarised:

“Intimacy in enduring romantic relationships is determined by the level of commitment and positive affective, cognitive, and physical closeness one experiences with a partner in a reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) relationship.”

While their definition focuses on romantic relationships only, the notion of closeness and commitment stands at the centre of the idea. Further, it appears striking that while relationships should be reciprocal, they do not necessarily have to be symmetrical in that respect. Piorowski (vii) continues to define intimacy as a concept associated with a range of interactions, “beginning with mother and child, father and child, continuing with friendships and other pairings, and culminating in an adult romantic interaction.” While Piorowski also acknowledges the pinnacle of intimate interactions occurring within romantic relationships, she sheds further light on other forms of intimacy as well. Distinctions are made between passionate and companionate intimacy as well as romantic and conjugal intimacy (9). Passionate/romantic forms of intimacy are seen as rather “intense, sometimes turbulent, emotional and sexual”, while companionate/conjugal varieties concentrate on compassion, “trust, reliability, and friendship” as the calmer ingredients (ibid). Sternberg (cf. Piorowski 10) has further described intimacy as only being one out of three components of love, in addition to passion and commitment. According to his research, intimacy is dominated by “feelings in a relationship that provide closeness, bondedness and connectedness”, regardless of the intensity of their

nature (ibid). Intimacy thus forms an essential dimension in romantic, companionate and filial love, being “at the core of all loving relationships” (ibid). Aiming to divert the focus away from romantic interactions, other writers, such as Douglas Ingram, have placed the focus of intimacy on self-disclosure and dialogue. This has been performed by the establishment of social-penetration theory, “which elaborates how different layers of the personality are permeated by messages varying in depth” and views self-disclosure as essential to the development of intimacy (cf. Piorowski 10). According to this theory, intimacy is best measured by shared beliefs and values from the deepest level of personality.

While these beliefs and values are commonly shared between two human beings, researchers have also delved deeply into the intimate connections formed between media and its consumers. Sennett (cf. Peckham 24) argues that media, such as television, function as tools which have been invented to fulfil human needs. Their purpose is to act as a cultural impulse, enabling an audience to “withdraw from real social interaction in order to feel more like a person abridging social interaction and personal experience” (ibid). Audiences escape and begin to invest their emotions in stories and characters depicted on a screen, attaching feelings of empathy, commitment and thus also intimacy to what they experience. Returning to previously employed definitions, this approach further supports the idea of physical context not being a requirement for intimacy to occur. According to Gumpert and Cathcart (cf. P eckham 24), the potential of relationships forming has expanded through the invention of television media, similarly to books: “where intimate interpersonal relationships once required physical and psychological closeness, these things are no longer necessary” (ibid). With the physicality of intimacy thus becoming dispensable, the previously established definition by Moss and Schwebel, arguing that intimate relationships must be reciprocal, yet not symmetrical, is also supported, as viewers of television programmes will invest more on an emotional level than they individually receive in return. Consequently, a “communication paradox” has been created, where people might be less in touch with their immediate communities and surroundings, but “more intimate with those who live […] on a studio set” (Peckham 24).

Reflecting on these employed definitions of intimacy and taking into account a variety of approaches towards the topic, the forthcoming conceptualisation of fictional

intimacy will be based on Piorowski and Cardone’s (cf. Trauer and Ryan 482) conclusive distinction of four different types of intimacy:

1) Physical intimacy: actual contact 2) Verbal intimacy: exchange of words and communication 3) Spiritual intimacy: sharing values and beliefs 4) Intellectual intimacy: sharing reflection and disclosures of knowledge

This definition has been selected due to its separation of physical intimacy from three other forms. It consequently exposes applicability to both romantic and companionate intimacy as well as the required possibility to analyse relationships between television series and their audiences as well as interhuman bonds.

5. Fictional Intimacy in the Royal Biopic

Based on the previously described definitions of the royal biopic as genre (2) as well as the concept of intimacy (4), the following chapter aims to combine these approaches in conceptualising the employment of fictional intimacy within the royal biopics, with further regards to the role of the monarchy in British national identity (3). Firstly, fictional intimacy will be defined, based on evidence presented in literature. This is followed by a subsequent elaboration on the strategies and models, which the concept of fictional intimacy applies in order to achieve its goals: the establishment of companionate intimacy between audience and biopic as well as the general de-mystification of the monarchy; the latter of which will be expanded upon in 5.2.

5.1. Concept Definition

Having introduced a variety of conventions for British royal biopics, the approach of conveying private insights as well as public events has proven to be the most dominant theme re-occurring within the genre. The historical background – the public timeline of these productions – is accessible to research and portray truthfully. The depiction of private insights into the monarch’s life, however, is much more difficult to fathom and almost impossible to depict to its full accuracy, due to the myth and ineffability surrounding the sovereign. Cannadine (303) argues that current interest in the monarchy is “at best historically underinformed, and at worst historically uninformed”, stressing the impossibility of grasping every aspect concerning the sovereign’s personal life. Whittle further claims that

“[so] little is known about the current sovereign’s life behind her public façade that one reviewer has quipped “that constructing a convincing portrait of the world she inhabits would seem to be a harder task than recreating Middle Earth” (Whittle in Bastin 45)

Yet, as demonstrated in chapter three, the global fascination for the British monarchy remains undiminished by the ineffability surrounding the RFBC, but is rather

enhanced due to the public’s desire to acquire as much knowledge about their private lives as possible. In order to gain such insights, the consumption of different types of media surrounding the British monarchy conveys emotions of familiarity and intimacy, fostering the perception of personally knowing her majesty without having actually met her. This intimacy is particularly sought by television audiences, who are increasingly “looking for moments of authenticity in an “unreal” environment” (Peckham 25).

Thus, in order to sustain these moments of authenticity for an audience purposefully seeking to know more about the life of the sovereign, television creators employ strategies of fictional intimacy.

Fictional intimacy refers to the bridging of the gap in substantial cinematic research regarding the monarch’s private life, executed by employing fictional private scenes, events and conversations against a historically accurate backdrop. In applying this concept, royal biopics combine the genres of the historical film as well as costume drama: they achieve to be both truthful in history while also being entertaining and fulfilling to the audience’s desire for intimacy and private insights. Hence, the employment of fictional intimate scenes within the royal family circle not only heightens intimacy amongst the characters within the biopic itself, but also establishes another type of intimacy between the characters and the viewer – a non-fictional, companionate intimacy.

Concisely put, intimacy now functions on two different levels: Firstly, we find intimacy enclosed within the biopic, which is created through fictional depictions between the characters in the production; and secondly, the a therein resulting intimacy between the characters and the audience is created.

5.2. Concept Strategy

The strategy of establishing fictional intimacy in royal biopics involves a variety of approaches. As illustrated, the general concept of intimacy in itself has proven to be challenging to grasp. Researchers and critics have employed a range of definitions for the concept, repeatedly emphasising its elusiveness and dependency on individual

interpretation. Due to its ability to encompass a variety of intimate relationships on divergent levels, the present thesis argues that, for the genre analysed, fictional intimacy is established by purposefully portraying Piorowski and Cardone’s four types of intimacy within the biopic (cf. Trauer and Ryan 482):

It is essential to remark that Piorowski and Cardone refer to actual, emotive types of intimacy in a realistic, non-fictional environment. Yet, in royal biopics, these strategies become fictional and imagined by the production writers in order to transmit intimate insights into the monarch’s life to an audience.

Fiction as tool for delivering such intimate emotions does, however, come alongside the difficult aspect of the audience’s awareness of said fictionality of events, knowing the private insights portrayed stem from the writers’ imagination. Any production’s ultimate goal, to move and entertain an audience, could thus be hindered by the audience’s doubt in the story’s believability, as the constructed elements of fiction are placed against a historical, real backdrop of events. Entirely fictional cinematic works do not tend to face such a critical audience: If a series or film depicts a story which is openly and exclusively fictional, an audience finds it easier to ignore certain less-believable aspects and, simply put, will know what they are in for. Royal biopics, however, combine elements of fiction with historic events familiar to an audience: Bastin (36) claims that once the lives of the RFBC are onscreen, the audience feels their “phantasmatic relationship with them is threatened […] by the invention of other people’s interpretations of our own cherished stories”. Thus, for the successful establishment of fictional intimacy in combination with such stories, the concept of the (willing) suspension of disbelief becomes an essential requirement.

The (willing) suspension of disbelief is a term coined by British poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817, describing it as a “poetic faith”, “a transfer from our inward nature, a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure shadows of

imagination” (cf. Ferri ix). Böcking (1) argues that the suspension of disbelief is “understood to be an audience’s tolerance of the fictionality of media content”. When disbelief is suspended, an audience thus “accepts limitations in the presented story, sacrificing Realism, and occasionally logic and believability […] for the sake of enjoyment”. Initially, Coleridge argued for the suspension of disbelief to be “a stance a user has to adopt willingly”; yet, this aspect of willingness is often omitted in later publications (ibid). Peckham (28) relates this theory by Coleridge to television audiences and further argues that “the more a viewer is able to suspend disbelief […], the greater the likelihood the viewer will observe the program interpersonally [becomes]”. As a result, “the gulf between para-social relationships and interpersonal relationships diminishes and the lines of reality and fiction are blurred” (ibid). Hence, the concept is not only highly relevant, but becomes an essential requirement for the successful establishment of fictional intimacy in royal biopics.

Having defined the concept strategies of applying fictional intimacy in royal biopics, as well as its requirements for success, it becomes inevitable to also investigate the purpose of the concept, asking what its “success” entails. As previously mentioned, fictional intimacy is created through the application of four types of intimacy within the story. If a suspension of disbelief is also present, the present thesis argues that its outcome includes the creation of intimacy on an additional level – between the production, its characters and the audience. Returning to Piorowksi’s approach towards intimacy (9), her distinction between romantic and companionate forms of intimacy becomes vital to the success of fictional intimacy. Drawing all three approaches together, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

If a combination of four types of fictional intimacy after Cardone and Piorowski is employed, and a suspension of disbelief is generated within the viewer, companionate intimacy is created between the narrative and the audience.

Figure 1: The process of fictional intimacy in royal biopics

Empirically analysing the success of the present approach’s goal, the creation of companionate intimacy between character and viewer, would go beyond the scope of the present thesis. Particularly in the case of The Crown – the biopic analysed – an empirical study regarding audience perception would prove difficult to conduct, as the series is just in its beginnings and thus forms a relatively new contribution to the genre (see chapter 6.1.). However, the exceedingly positive reception towards the series indicates it being an overall success (see 6.4.). The present thesis will therefore place its focus on depicting the establishment of Piorowski and Cardone’s types of intimacy throughout the first season of the series.

In order to additionally manifest the presented hypothesis, however, closer insights into the goals of royal biopics and the therein evolvement of fictional intimacy shall not be overlooked. Thus, the following paragraphs will antedate the forthcoming chapter introducing The Crown and provide anticipatory insights into the goals which the series is aiming to achieve, presuming its objectives reflect the entirety of the genre.

In a Netflix-produced Featurette of the series, titled “The Weight of the Crown”, producers, writers, directors and also actors of the show shed light on the aim of The Crown and its intentions for audience response. Executive producer Stephen Daldry, for instance, elaborates on the series’ combined approach of depicting both aspects – the public and the private:

“We are putting the audience at the heart of this family and the crisis and the trials and the tribulations and the struggle of the family in relationship to government. So, it’s not just the story of a family but the story of Post-War- Britain.” (Daldry, YouTube-Featurette “The Weight of the Crown”)

Placing the audience “at the heart of this family”, as Daldry argues, certainly supports the series’ intention to create companionate intimacy between audience and characters, further emphasising the family’s important place in the story of Post-War- Britain. This notion is further fostered by Churchill-actor John Lithgow, who expands on the series going “right into their [the royal family’s] lives”, claiming that “the monarchy and politics are just this vast backdrop to a very intense and very personal story” (Lithgow, YouTube-Featurette “The Weight of the Crown”). Matt Smith, portraying the character of Prince Philip, further indicates a notion of exposure regarding the royal family:

“They’re pretty good at going out in public, the Queen particularly and wearing the mask of the Queen. But I think what our series does is it strips it away and we get to see them be human and exposed.” (Smith, YouTube-Featurette “The Weight of the Crown)

His approach of figuratively “stripping away” the mask of the Queen implies the revolutionary intimate approach towards the RFBC in the series and manifests the intention of establishing intimacy, closeness and an extraordinarily private image of the sovereign. Smith’s commentary on the series projects the idea of demasking Elizabeth II – a de-mystification of the British monarchy. Hence, before delving into the analysis of the series, the following sub-chapter will elaborate on the myth and mystery surrounding the RFBC as well as the public’s desire for it to be dismantled.

5.3. De-mystifying the Monarchy

Ineffability, myth and privacy – these reoccurring themes have been established as key motifs surrounding the British monarchy, inducing the publics yearn for every-day insights and exclusive information. This desire evokes attempts to de-mystify the sovereign as well as the monarchical institution as a whole, executed through mass media such as biographies, documentaries and biopics. The question as to what initiates this de- mystification of monarchy thus arises, seeking for an explanation why mystery and ineffability have remained such vital components of the British royal family’s image and stability in the first place.

As previously stated, the media’s ‘invasions’ of the living royal family’s privacy, fictional or not, are something of fairly recent origin. Giselle Bastin (34) argues that in the past, the majority of people “felt strongly […] that the existence of the royal system depended on its unknowability, its mystique”. However, the respective mystique around the institution was not to be invaded and “anything that threatened this almost sacred cordon sanitaire […] was to be resisted at all costs” (ibid). In her article, Bastin further continues to support this notion of mystique surrounding the monarch by elaborating on the establishment’s symbolic function, as the royal family “convey stories about individuals whose raison d’être is to retain a sense of mystery and illusion” (36). According to her, the function of royalty is to be the “public symbol of constitutional monarchy”, meaning that the entire family, but “the sovereign in particular, exist as embodiment of that symbol, so much that the Windsor’s private selves remain secondary to their public selves” (ibid). This distinction between the two selves of the monarchy – the private self and the public self – becomes vital when approaching the analytical part of this thesis, as it argues that while the public self of the monarch is known, fictional intimacy is used in order to portray a picture of carefully-researched assumptions, reflecting what the private self of the monarch might be like.

These approaches towards biopics in general, as well as the media’s overall objective to expose and reveal all about Britain’s royalty, have however not always distinguished between the private and the official aspects of monarchy. While the public

nowadays seek to gain insights into the lives of the RFBC they would want to be as intimate as possible, back in 1867, for instance, Walter Bagehot asserted the exact opposite in his influential text The English Constitution. In his works, the economist and social commentator argued that “royalty’s mystery is its life”, emphasising that nobody must “let daylight in upon magic” (Bagehot 76). Nowadays, however, the definition of this “magic” has altered, as the public seem to be increasingly fascinated with observing the royal family in mundane situations and are curious to discover their human nature rather than the representative institution, as Nicolson (online) also claims:

“Since Bagehot, however, the brightest arc lamps – or rather tell-all books, prime-time interviews and excruciating taped phone conversations – have succeeded in illuminating some of the monarchy’s most guarded secrets. And yet, we remain infatuated. What does the Queen carry in her Launer handbag? Where can we buy the Duchess of Cambridge’s Breton tops? Interest in the royal family is as British as an addiction to soaps and complaining about the weather […] We feel amused as well as strangely guilty knowing that the Queen and Prince Philip, when alone in Buckingham Palace and without royal engagements, like nothing better than to tuck into their Eggs Drumkilbo from lap trays as they watch the cricket on television.”

Nicolson’s notion of feeling “amused as well as strangely guilty” concisely summarises the contemporary approach towards gaining such personal insights, as the public feel the desire to know as much private detail as possible about the sovereign while simultaneously being aware of the fact that it is still deemed inappropriate to a certain extent. Thus, being too intimate with such an iconic and powerful family can sometimes evoke emotions of discomfort, which becomes evidently significant throughout the analysis of The Crown, which aims to dissect the paradox of people’s desire of intimacy while also needing “to know that these figures differ from themselves to allow the mystery that surrounds the idea of royalty to remain” (Otnes and Maclaran 142).

6. The Crown

The present thesis aims to not only conceptualise fictional intimacy as cinematic strategy, but also intends to successfully apply the concept to a contemporary royal biopic. Released in 2016, the “Netflix Original” series The Crown has been chosen as corpus of analysis for a variety of reasons: While the series exceeds in popularity and success, partly due to its wide audience reach through the streaming website Netflix, it is also revolutionary in the sense of being the first royal biopic on a living British sovereign, which is further also published as a series rather than in film-format. As only one season of The Crown has been released at the current point of analysis, the series additionally provides an ideally sized corpus for in-depth analysis without exceeding the feasible scope of this thesis. Its recent release in November 2016 furthermore enables the analytical aspect of this thesis to reflect upon cutting-edge attitudes towards the British monarchy as well as royal biopics in contemporary culture.

The following sub-chapters will firstly introduce the corpus to the reader by supplying essential information regarding the series’ production background in 6.1. as well as its origin through previous works by writer Peter Morgan in 6.2. Additionally, a brief historical outline and content-overview of The Crown’s first season will be presented in 6.3., in order to familiarise the events discussed throughout the analysis. Finally, chapter 6.4. will reflect on the series’ success and reception by discussing both appraisal as well as criticism towards the first season of The Crown.

6.1. Background Information

The Crown is a Netflix Original television series produced by Left Bank Pictures and Sony Pictures Television. It portrays the life and reign of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and has released its first season in November 2016, with its second season to be released in December 2017. Regarding its genre, the series has been described to fall into the categories of biographical drama as well as royal biopic. While it also features strong elements of the costume drama, similarly to the high-rated television series Downton Abbey, which critics have compared it to on several occasions, The Crown is

only limitedly labelled as part of the genre. As costume dramas, or historical period dramas, are generally set in an earlier time period, The Crown does not fulfil this genre- requirement, since the era of Elizabeth II’s reign is still ongoing at the moment of the series’ production.

The series has been written to run over a total amount of six seasons with ten episodes each, intending to have covered the Queen’s entire sovereignty by the conclusion of its final season. Thus, each season aims to cover approximately one decade of Elizabeth II’s reign, with flashbacks providing insights into her childhood and life prior to her role as Queen throughout. The Crown has been written by Peter Morgan and been directed by Stephen Daldry, Peter Morgan, Andy Harries and Philip Martin, amongst others, as executive producers. In an interview with the New York Times, Daldry reported the initial pitch already demanding a total of six seasons, which would cover both, “the personal events within the royal family circle and the political events of the time” (Sulcas online). Daldry further continued to explain the production team’s early assurance of the series’ success, prompting them to sign a contract which would go against the usual process of shooting a pilot episode:

“We wanted to do the first two seasons straight up, no pilot. […] It was demanding from us, but we felt confident and excited about the material and we wanted a serious commitment.” (ibid)

In a 2016 Press Conference prior to the release of The Crown’s first season, writer and creator of the show, Peter Morgan, stressed Daldry’s early involvement in the series, seeking his guidance in grasping the essence of the series:

“I thought: “What a hand full […] as a woman, as a family, as a marriage and as a country.” The ripples stretch in so many ways that I kept trying to figure out with Stephen [Daldry] what the show is actually about, because it is about all these things and it’s not just Elizabeth’s story, it’s about who we all are at the second half of the 20th century at some level.”

This stresses The Crown’s emphasis on historical impact and accuracy of the show, establishing the political events of the time being as much part of it as the private insights into the royal family circle. Sulcas (online) argues The Crown to be more focussed on historical facts and accuracy than i.e. Downton Abbey:

“As the success of “Downton Abbey” displayed, there’s a global fascination with the British royal family and aristocracy. But where “Downton Abbey” was fiction, “The Crown” is based on fact, with a far weightier dose of history and politics, including nuanced issues of constitutional duty and complex political infighting. And that raises the stakes for both its creative team — headed by the writer Peter Morgan and the director Stephen Daldry — who must balance seriousness of intent against popular appeal.”

This claimed balance between “seriousness of intent against popular appeal” further emphasises the previously-mentioned genre-balance The Crown needs to conquer: Compared to other biopics and reports on the British royal family circle, The Crown greatly delves into private portrayals of conversations and other aspects of their lives which the public are excluded from through the establishment of fictional intimacy, as the subsequent analysis illustrates. Yet, analysing The Crown in a more sensational context, the show exhibits a strong focus on historic accuracy than other costume dramas, which heavily focus on the popular appeal and are often fictional in their entirety (i.e. Downton Abbey). Such elaborate attention to detail regarding the political and historical aspect of The Crown has caused the series to “resound with authenticity” (Nicolson online). This is due to research trips undergone by production designer Martin Childs and art director Mark Raggett, who went “to Buckingham Palace and forensically analysed pictures and film footage for accuracy” (ibid), in order to make the historical backdrop, which fictional intimacy is placed against, as historically accurate and familiar as possible.

6.2. Peter Morgan’s The Queen and The Audience

The following sub-chapter discusses the life of Peter Morgan, writer and creator of The Crown, as well as his previous works on the British monarchy as well as Queen Elizabeth II respectively, which inspired the creation of the series.

Born in 1963, Peter Morgan is a British playwright and film writer, who was awarded the British Film Institute Fellowship in 2017. Morgan is best known for writing historic films and plays as well as biographical dramas, such as Frost/Nixon, Rush or The Damned United. He is the creator and writer of the subject of this thesis, the Netflix

television series The Crown. However, the creation of this production is preceded by two earlier royal biopics on Queen Elizabeth II written by Peter Morgan: The 2006 film The Queen as well as the 2013 play The Audience.

Morgan’s most renowned production to this date is his 2006 biographical drama The Queen, for which he earned highest acclaims and recognition. The screenplay has been written by Peter Morgan himself, who collaborated together with director Stephen Frears in the production. Its principal action is set in the year of 1997, during the week following the fatal accident of Princess Diana and concentrates on the royal family’s response to these tragic events. It further tells the story of the current Prime Minister “Tony Blair supposedly [being] caught in the public mood with the talk of ‘the people’s princess’ and the Royal Family […] trying to pretend this was a private affair,” vividly portraying the commonly depicted conflict between the public and the private as part of a royal biopic (Hanks online). In an extraordinarily respectful manner towards the royal circle, The Queen does however also not shy away from returning to the critical voices the monarchy was facing at the time, as the crowds kept swelling in front of Buckingham Palace, “with a sense of grievance against a monarchy ‘out of touch’ with their feelings” (ibid). This sense of propriety and respect which Morgan and Frears have shown towards the royal family within the course of the production of the film, further exhibits their skill of showing accuracy while also aiming to diminish the subject’s ineffability, as Bastin (46) argues:

“Frears and Morgan understand implicitly that the success of their biopic will depend, in part, on getting the Queen “right.” However, the film suggests also that Frears and Morgan are aware of the impossibility of such an aim because of the illusory quality of the idea of the Sovereign in the first place. The irony that they are indeed making “The Queen,” that they are deconstructing the notion of royal ineffability, is not lost on either producer or director of this film.”

Another essential contribution towards achieving “getting the Queen right” was the extraordinarily well-received portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II by the British actress Dame Helen Mirren. Her performance not only earned the film high appraisal and great success through the media, but was also awarded with an Academy Award, Golden Globe, BAFTA and Screen Actors Guild Award in the categories “Best Actress in a Leading Role.” The film furthermore won all its nominated categories at the Toronto Film

Critics Association Award. Moreover, Morgan and Frears both received Academy Award and Golden Globe nominations, of which Morgan won the Golden Globe for “Best Screenplay”.

The great success of his royal biopic The Queen led Morgan to continue his work on the subject of Queen Elizabeth II and eventually resulted in the production of an often- called “stage adaptation” of the film – The Audience. Inspired by the audiences, the weekly private meetings, between the Queen and her Prime Minister Tony Blair, Morgan decided to focus this play merely on these meetings over the course of Elizabeth II’s reign:

“The Audience not only provides the illusion of observing, first-hand, how Queen Elizabeth operates behind the scenes, as she meets with British prime ministers from Winston Churchill to David Cameron in weekly sessions of which — the script assures us — only the two participants know what really happened. The show also allows the smashing Ms. Mirren to demonstrate her quick-change virtuosity in becoming the queen at different ages, from 1951 to the present, before our very eyes.” (Brantley online)

As Brantley explains, The Audience focussed on the evolution of Elizabeth II in her role as Queen, as she grows with her prime ministers, which the play portrays in a non-chronological order. Since Helen Mirren had, at this point, already achieved a, to a certain degree, “iconic” status for her portrayal of Elizabeth II, she returned to her role for the premiere production on the West End in 2013 as well as the play’s Broadway debut in 2015. Mirren’s critically appraised performance in The Audience continued to foster her becoming a Hollywood symbol of the Queen, as by 2015 only Dame Kristin Scott Thomas had also starred as Elizabeth II in the production’s West End revival. Her success as this iconic figure continued, as Mirren received a Tony Award for “Best Actress in a Play” as well as an Evening Standard Award, Laurence Oliver Award and Drama Desk Award.

Similar to the evolvement from The Queen to The Audience, Peter Morgan continued to be driven by his own works, as he kept drawing inspiration from his previous productions on Queen Elizabeth II in order to write another one. This has eventually led to the creation of the Netflix television series The Crown, which was particularly inspired

by the audience scenes between Elizabeth II and Winston Churchill, as Morgan has elaborated upon in one of the series’ Press Conferences:

“It all started, I suppose a few years ago with the film, with Helen Mirren […] and then I so enjoyed writing those audience scenes that I then wrote a play based on those audience scenes which Helen was also in. And of those scenes the one I most enjoyed writing was the one between young Elizabeth and Churchill, because it just felt so surprising and shocking to be writing about her as a young woman, and that relationship, you know, the, young woman and the, you know, a very fragile and frail Churchill clinging onto power. I sort of thought “well maybe there’s a film in this” and I started tinkering with the idea and it sort of grew and evolved and grew and grew.” (Peter Morgan, The Crown Press Conference)

The Crown further explicitly cites Morgan’s play The Audience as inspiration for the seventh episode of its first season, “Scientia Potentia Est,” in the episode’s credits. While Morgan might continue to work on other projects focussing on Queen Elizabeth II, the subject with has undoubtedly earned him the majority of his success, the series in royal-biopic format, The Crown, aims to span over a total of six season, thus becoming Morgan’s greatest royal project to date. He, alongside director Stephen Daldry, have been quoted to offer “an unprecedented invitation to spy on royalty and watch, rapt by the very ordinariness of this extraordinary family” (Nicolson online).

6.3. Historical Outline and Content Overview

In order to facilitate the contextual understanding of the forthcoming analysis of The Crown, the following section aims to map out the historical events depicted in the first season of the series by providing a concise summary of such. As previously remarked, The Crown has been highly acclaimed for and also prides itself in being truthful to the historic events occurred, which Morgan has further stressed in a 2016 interview with The New York Times:

“Everything, he stressed, was based on fact. “I really don’t make much up,” he said in horrified tones, after being asked whether the queen, who was educated at home, had really hired a tutor to help improve her general knowledge after her accession. “That stuff is all absolutely true.“ Mr. Morgan added that the series employed seven full-time story editors to check everything he wrote. “Of

course I have to imagine the private conversations, and those are necessarily fiction, but I try to make everything truthful even if you can’t know whether it’s accurate,” he said.” (Sulcas online)

Morgan’s deliberate play with fictional private conversations has thus led to an extensive historical research team to investigate the events depicted in The Crown in order to convey them to the audience in a manner both as truthful and realistic as possible. The outline of the first season generally spans over the course of nine years, beginning with the 21-year-old Elizabeth’s marriage to Phillip Mountbatten and ending with Elizabeth’s decision not to allow her sister, princess Margaret, to marry a divorced man in 1956 (ibid). In the earlier episodes, Morgan establishes various central storylines, which then become extensive themes setting the tone for the remaining episodes of the series: “the tensions in Elizabeth and Philip’s relationship after she becomes queen; Margaret’s ill-fated affair with Group Captain Peter Townsend; Churchill’s tenacious hold on power — are threaded throughout” (ibid).

In order to aid, readers unfamiliar with the portrayed events, through possible contextual difficulties within the subsequent analysis of fictional intimacy, the following timeline has been created using Infogram:

Figure 2: Historical timeline of the first season of The Crown, created by the author using Infogram

The colour-code above intends to indicate how many episodes have been devoted to the respective historical events. For instance, while the first episode, highlighted in green, covers a series of events which have occurred over the course of three years, the separate storylines, of e.g. 1953, span over several episodes. Morgan has thus made use of The Crown’s earlier episodes to establish settings, characters and the historical context in order to be able to devote more screen-time to the private difficulties, and thus also fictional intimacy, throughout the later course of the series.

The series’ first episode, “Wolferton Splash”, sets off in 1947 as Prince Philip denounces all his royal titles as Prince of Greece and Denmark in order to become “a naturalised British subject” and consequently be able to marry Princess Elizabeth on the 20th of November of the same year (Heald 77). Following the newlywed royal couple’s honeymoon, Elizabeth gave birth to their first two children, Prince Charles in 1948 and Princess Anne in 1950. The episode further depicts the young family’s blissful time in Malta, where Philip was stationed from 1949, as well as their return to London due to

Elizabeth father’s, King George VI, ill health. Aside from the defining royal events, light is also shed on the political events shaping the United Kingdom of the early 1950’s, with the iconic Winston Churchill’s return to power as he was elected for his second premiership as conservative prime minister (Gilbert 711).

The events of 1952 continue to span over the series’ episodes E02-E04, “Hyde Park Corner,” “Windsor” and “Act of God”: Referring to the pre-established code to discuss the death of the king, the second episode “Hyde Park Corner” focusses on George VI succumbing to his poor health and his passing away in February of 1952, during Elizabeth and Philip’s stay in Nairobi as part of their royal tour. Upon receiving the tragic news, the couple return to London and face their new life as Elizabeth has just become the new sovereign. “Windsor” continues in the same year, exploring Elizabeth adapting to her new role, involving tasks such as the funeral arrangements for her father. The episode further touches upon the rather complex relationship between the royal family and Elizabeth’s uncle Edward, the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated and was succeeded by George VI. Winston Churchill also has his first audience with Queen Elizabeth II, discussing her coronation as well as other royal arrangements regarding the royal household’s name as well as their main residence, all of which evolve into highly disputed themes, carrying the dramatic tension of the series forward. The fourth episode, “Act of God,” is set around a timespan of only about five days in December of 1952, covering the time of The Great Smog of London, the worst air-pollution in London history which caused the death of several thousands (McKie and Townsend online).

“Smoke and Mirrors” then continues the storyline through the year of 1953 as the season’s fifth episode. It focusses on Elizabeth’s coronation at Westminster Abbey in June 1953, by exploring the ceremony preparations with Prince Philip chairing the coronation committee and delving further into the role of the “new crown” in a modernised British society, as the ceremony is discussed to be televised. 1953 also marks the year of Queen Mary’s death, which tragically happened only three months ahead of Elizabeth’s coronation and is also touched upon in E05. The following sixth episode, “Gelignite,” continues subsequently and, as the title suggests, elaborates on explosive and controversial events within the royal circle. At the centre of this episode stands Princess Margaret’s love affair with the divorced group captain Peter Townsend, which is said to

have been “a powder keg of scandal only weeks after Elizabeth’s coronation” (Sadlier online). Margaret and Townsend announce their decision to marry to Elizabeth, which triggers a number of logistic and aristocratic difficulties for the Queen and her relationship to Margaret as sister. It is suggested for the couple to marry in Scotland, as this would leave them as well as Elizabeth out of the jurisdiction of the Church of England, which does not allow for divorcees to remarry. As this plan fails, the Queen Mother suggests that Margaret and Townsend wait two years to marry, as at the age of 25 Margaret “would circumvent needing the sovereign’s approval” (ibid). Further, in order to trivialise the rumours, Margaret and Townsend would spend these two years in separate countries. At the end of E06, Townsend accompanies the Queen on her royal tour to Northern Ireland and is later seen heading off to Brussels.

While episode 07, “Scientia Potentia Est,” does not depict any momentous historical events in British history but rather focusses on private affairs and Churchill’s increasingly ill health, E09, “Pride and Joy,” is framed by anti-British riots in Gibraltar, Elizabeth and Philip’s tour of the Empire as well as Margaret’s stepping into her sister’s shoes over the duration of the Queen’s travels. The ninth episode, “Assassins,” explores the 1954 portrait painted of Winston Churchill in honour of his 80th birthday, which he had later destroyed as it made him look old and frail. At the end of the episode, Churchill decides to retire and gives way to Anthony Eden as the new prime minister in 1955.

“Gloriana,” the season finale, shows Princess Margaret celebrating her 25th birthday in 1955, meaning whom to marry is entirely her choice from this moment forward, and she still intends to have Peter Townsend as her husband. However, Margaret is informed about the Royal Marriage Act, which holds that both houses of Parliament need to declare their approval before a marriage can actually take place. The new P.M., Anthony Eden is seen informing Margaret that she can only marry Townsend if she denounces all her rights, financial support and stays abroad. Eventually, they are forced to break off their engagement and Townsend returns to Brussels in 1956. In the same year, Prince Philip is preparing for his travels to Australia in order to open the Olympics and goes on a five-month long royal tour, which marks the end of the first season as well as the exact point where season two is set to continue.

6.4. Reception

As the first season of The Crown was released on Netflix in November 2016, it received raving reviews from the most-renowned television critics and journalists, praising its script, acting as well as historical accuracy. Critical comments regarding the series are hard to find, as they only seem to appear as side notes of the critics’ appraisal.

The Guardian, for instance, writes how the very beginning of the series’ first episode already sets an intimate tone, conveying an unusual picture of an iconic figure in British history:

“A man coughs bloodied lung lining up into a toilet bowl. Later, he asks his doctor if he should be concerned about “a spot of blood in my spittle”. You could only be in England, and so it very much turns out we are. The year is 1947, the toilet bowl is in Buckingham Palace and the man spattering it with sanguineous sputum is King George VI.” (Mangan online)

This intimate as well as often less glamorous portrayal of the British royal family has also been positively remarked and acknowledged by the German national weekly newspaper Die Zeit, as they call the royal pomp to be guaranteed to be broken, at times when i.e. Prince Philip is shown topless while rowing or standing nude from behind, admired by his young wife Elizabeth (von Münchhausen online). Such comments indicate the journalists’ certain ability to recognise The Crown being revolutionary intimate, as in particularly scenes of physical intimacy have continued to receive explicit mentions amongst a large variety of series reviews.

While the notion of intimacy and privacy certain stand at the centre of the vast majority of reviews, the historical accuracy and truthfulness carried out by the production team has not been left out of the series’ appraisal, as i.e. The Guardian acknowledge The Crown to hit “all the historical markers” (Mangan online):

“There’s Churchill’s re-election and battle with ill-health, the toxic London smog of 1952, Commonwealth tours as anti-British sentiment gathers round the globe, the coronation, the refusal to let Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend marry, the beginning of Anthony Eden’s premiership

(and Benzedrine habit), but so – more cleverly and infinitely more pleasingly – are the less tangible changes undergone by the people at their hearts.” (ibid)

Die Zeit has further praised Peter Morgan’s portrayal of these less tangible, emotional changes as well as his resistance against the palace to influence the creation of the series. In their review, they acknowledge the emotional tangles of an old-fashioned family caught between tradition, duty and love are carefully to be orchestrated, while Morgan’s dialogue appears upper-class without being too stiff (ibid). Julia Raeside, also writer for The Guardian, on the other hand, has uttered criticism towards Morgan’s dialogue as part of an otherwise gripping script:

“They speak to each other like nurses on an amnesia ward, but that aside, the story is an absorbing one if you can find it in your heart to care about the crucial tension in the script: namely, the fight between public duty and personal freedom […] It is, undoubtedly, a huge, ocean-going blockbuster shot in multiple stunning locations, starring superb actors in the most beautiful costumes. If you can get past the sometimes-crunchy dialogue, it works rather well as an escape from the coming transatlantic Armageddon.” (Raeside online)

While the dialogue has been exposed to scepticism by some critics, its execution by the leading cast, Claire Foy in particular, has been extensively applauded. Raeside i.e. continued her review by acclaiming Foy’s “unendingly expressive Princess Elizabeth [leading] a cast dripping with almost every jewel in the national treasury” (ibid). Mangan has further commended Foy’s performance with regards to Elizabeth’s transformation from Princess to Queen, stating that she

“[…] manages to register every layer of misery and frustration as Elizabeth Ordinarius evolves into Elizabeth Regina, seeking a way to reconcile the conflicts of personal freedom and desire, wifehood and queendom and to work out quite what to do with advice such as the prime minister’s: ‘Let them see only the eternal in you’”. (Mangan)

While the script, content and performance have been claimed to be, above all, revolutionary to the genre, particularly with regards to the representation of the British royal family, another aspect of the series has been the subject of, at least, a brief mention in almost all published online reviews: the budget. With the production costs of the first season rumoured to exceed the £ 100 million mark, The Crown is undoubtedly one of the most high-priced Netflix Original productions created to this date. However, sometimes

with a certain tone of cynicism, the majority of critics have approved the “gamble on the Queen to pay off royally” (ibid). The Crown’s hence possible blockbuster-flair has not only attracted UK viewers, but has similarly sparked interest in the streaming service’s transatlantic target group:

“As we saw from the success of “Downton Abbey”, the reassuring rigidities of the British class system can do wonders for angsty Americans. If you’re grossed out by the utter charmlessness and moral squalor of a year’s worth of debased political self-indulgence, a perfect antidote is “The Crown”.” (Brown online)

The series’ raving reviews and popularity, however, have not only helped to attract a more global audience to British royal biopics, but are further expected to win new audiences to Netflix itself. According to von Münchhausen and Die Zeit (online), critics speculate for The Crown to pull the middle-aged and older generations away from their comfortable television channels and towards streaming services. Thus, it can be concluded that the first season of The Crown has not only been revolutionarily successful with regards to the series’ genre and contents, but further promotes a change in audience behaviour and generational shifts, as it attracts a wider range of viewers to a relatively recent form of entertainment consumption.

7. Fictional Intimacy in The Crown

The following analysis of fictional intimacy in The Crown is divided according to Piorowski and Cardone’s four types of intimacy (cf. Trauer and Ryan 482): physical, verbal, spiritual and intellectual intimacy. The first chapter concerns the portrayal of physical intimacy in the series and, after a general introduction into its strategies, explores three distinctive features of physicality in greater detail: nudity, sexual encounters as well as physical illness. This is followed by a chapter investigating verbal intimacy, which analyses the employment of private letters as tool for communication as well as swearing and other “unroyal” uses of language. Spiritual intimacy, which is challenging to grasp in itself, will be explored through the inner strife and exposure of vulnerability within two main characters: Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill, who are both shown to struggle in reconciling the juxtaposing aspects of their lives and personae. Finally, intellectual intimacy will be considered regarding references to Elizabeth’s relationship with education and knowledge, particularly focussing on the seventh episode, “Scientia Potentia Est”.

Otnes and Maclaran have argued that when history is personalised, feelings about events and people are intensified “using dramatic effects such as facial close-ups and poignant music to evoke an emotional response from [the] audiences” (137). Thus, while the subsequent analysis will draw insightful references to the series’ script and embed contextual passages of dialogue, screencaps will also be inserted in order to analyse the employed intimacy from a cinematic approach. Presuming the willing suspension of disbelief to occur within the viewer, the presented analysis will further comment on the evoked effects of companionate intimacy created between audience and narrative, accordingly to the previously presented concept.

7.1. Physical Intimacy

The following chapters aim to dissect moments of physical fictional intimacy in The Crown, by analysing a variety of approaches that subsequently foster the creation of companionate intimacy between the series’ text and its audience. Before delving into more detailed means of its employment in the following sub-chapters, a general introduction into the display of physical intimacy will be given.

As physical intimacy refers to actual contact and touch (cf. Trauer and Ryan 482), witnessing closeness and affection between members of the royal family will appear unfamiliar to the audience, as such emotions are otherwise not displayed publicly. This is exhibited as, for instance, the viewers witness the first scene between Elizabeth and Philip. Set only weeks before their wedding ceremony, the young couple share a conversation about the upcoming events and experience an affectionate exchange of words. After Philip has placed a gentle kiss on Elizabeth’s cheek (see Figure 3), the couple examine the room and realise they are surrounded by staff at Buckingham Palace and thus do not find themselves in an intimate environment. Up until this point, not much will appear surprisingly unconventional to the audience, as such minimal affectionate exchanges between the members of the royal family can be publicly observed on occasion. Nevertheless, the next sequence shows Philip holding Elizabeth’s face and giving her a passionate kiss on the lips (see Figure 4). Such romantic gestures are something unheard of to be publicly portrayed by members of the royal circle, let alone an unmarried couple.

Figure 3: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 04:28 Figure 4: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 04:40

While Elizabeth and Philip are furthermore not alone in this moment, their privacy is invaded on two levels: within the narrative, as the couple are exposed to their staff witnessing this private moment, as well as by the audience, who experience their passionate kiss through a close-up shot. In alignment with the previously suggested concept, intimacy is created on the same two levels: between Elizabeth and Philip, through the portrayal of physical fictional intimacy within the setting, as well as between the narrative and the audience, who are encouraged to experience companionate intimacy by observing this romantic, private moment.

Such moments of romantic intimacy within the couple occur on multiple occasions, thus ensuring the maintenance of an intimate portrayal throughout. The following sections, however, aim to go beyond this rather general display of affection and analyse physical intimacy through three different lenses: nudity, references to sexual encounters as well as illness and physical conditions.

7.1.1. Nudity

Based on the previously established conventions of royal mystery, it appears unsurprising that members of the royal circle are never publicly shown in their barest forms, as promiscuity and nudity are deemed to be largely inappropriate within the context of a monarchy. Hence, it can be assured that exhibiting nudity in The Crown certainly exceeds the intimate limits of the context in which the royal family are publicly seen.

The first, explicitly striking, incident of nudity occurs as King George decides to surprise Prince Philip by taking him shooting in the early hours of the morning. As Elizabeth and Philip sleep in separate bedrooms, George is able to step into Philip’s bedroom unannounced and orders the staff to strip off the sheets. The viewers are now exposed to Philip lying on his front, fully nude (see Figure 5), followed by this dialogue:

GEORGE: Morning! PHILIP: Bugger off! GEORGE: Yes, I'm not sure that's the correct address for the King of England. [pause] It's a beautiful morning for duck. PHILIP: What? GEORGE: I thought Wolferton Splash. PHILIP: Christ. (E01 “Wolferton Splash” - 49:55 – 50:30)

As Philip realises the king appearing in his room, he gets up and stands in front of the him (see Figure 6). While standing in the presence of a monarch would normally be the appropriate address, it now fully exposes Philip’s bare front to the king’s gaze. Due to the camera angle in this particular shot, the audience are simultaneously able to see Philip’s behind, which however, through the careful application of lighting techniques, is not exposed in an overly illuminated way. A low-key, chiaroscuro lighting is employed in this scene, as it fits the mood of the early mornings and thus only presents Philip’s nudity in a rather reduced form. Yet, from the viewpoint of King George, Philip’s body is fully illuminated by the bedside lamp standing on George’s right-hand-side.

Figure 5: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 50:01 Figure 6: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 50:11

King George, however, does not appear to be overtly bothered by intruding Philip’s privacy in such a forceful manner, as he prefers to joke about the situation in acknowledging its inappropriateness (“I’m not sure that’s the correct address for the King of England”). While the brevity of this scene further limits the exposure of Philip’s nudity, it however also underlines the embarrassing nature of the situation, as such uncomfortable moments are usually desired to be escaped from as soon as possible. The embarrassment is also established on the same levels which intimacy is created at: within the narrative, Prince Philip encounters embarrassment through the exposure of his nudity in front of the king; regarding the audience-narrative-relationship, embarrassment occurs as the audience are confronted with Philip’s nudity, as it is considered promiscuous and highly inappropriate. Thus, fictional intimacy is created on a physical level between Philip and King George, on a companionate level between the audience and the context of the cinematic situation.

Another acknowledgeable incident of nudity occurs in the series’ second episode, “Hyde Park Corner,” as Winston Churchill first meets his new secretary Venetia. Churchill calls specifically for Venetia to come and talk to him while he is taking a bath, reading the news and enjoying a glass of Scotch. Venetia and Churchill have a conversation through the bathroom door and do not actually meet face-to-face. As Venetia realises the privacy and also momentary absurdity of the situation – her talking to the infamous Winston Churchill while he is taking a bath – she starts to feel increasingly nervous and uncomfortable. Being in the presence of such a legendary man as Churchill in such private circumstances startles her without even having to directly see him in this intimate environment. Even though both are still separated through a bathroom door, Venetia exhibits insecurity and tension. The viewer, on the other hand, is given a look behind the bathroom door and able to witness Churchill in the midst of having a bath. While, in this scene, nudity is not depicted on such an explicit level as in the previously mentioned scene, a feeling of intimacy and discomfort could still be created for the audience. Despite only portraying the upper half of Churchill’s nude body (see Figure 7), the viewer still recognises the essence of the situation through object permanence: Even though not the entire nude body is displayed, the viewer is aware of its presence and thus able to complete the initiated picture in their mind. The henceforth created intimacy between audience and narrative can, again, be elevated onto the text-based level, as object permanence also becomes apparent in Venetia’s point of view. As she realises the intimacy of the situation, involving Churchill’s nudity in the bathtub, discomfort is created without his nudity actually becoming an object to Venetia’s gaze. The immediate distance between the two characters is thus broken through object permanence and culminates in the following sequence: Venetia sits down by the bathroom door in order to read Churchill the report from the Exchequer. As he listens, he fidgets in the full tub, causing it to overflow through the door crack and splash Venetia (see Figure 8).

Figure 7: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 06:39 Figure 8: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 07:13

Venetia shrieks up in discomfort, yet continues to now perch by the door and read Churchill the report. This overflowing of the tub through the door can thus be seen as cinematic metaphor for overstepping the line of propriety, causing Venetia to feel embarrassed by the intimacy of the situation. It further appears striking that while nudity would usually be connotated to issues of vulnerability and exposure, Churchill remains the more powerful character in this situation. Paradoxically, it is actually the fully-dressed character of Venetia who feels intimidated by Churchill’s nudity through object permanence. This reinforces the strength and formidability of Churchill as icon, who cannot even be intimidated even in his barest, most physically vulnerable form.

7.1.2. References to Sexual Encounters

The second striking facilitator of physical intimacy to be analysed are the references to sexual encounters within the narrative. Similar to the issue of nudity, sex functions as another taboo topic within all conversations surrounding royalty and the British monarchy, as they are declared to be improper and inappropriate matters for members of the royal circle to discuss. However, some delicately crafted references to such intimate sexual encounters are scattered throughout the first season of The Crown, which exhibit the human sexual desire within the royal figures without portraying them in a crudely disrespectful way.

As the portrayal of nudity appears to be one of the most visibly obvious indicators of sexual encounters, this aspect of the cinematic strategy has deliberately been left out in sub-chapter 7.1.1. In order to be significant within a sexual reading of the series, nudity

has to occur within the according setting, usually a bedroom scene, which also involves a second person. The first depiction of this combination of indicators can be detected in the second episode, “Hyde Park Corner”, as Elizabeth and Philip are currently undertaking the royal tour of the Commonwealth. The couple are shown in the early hours of the morning, Elizabeth being already awake while Philip is still fast asleep (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 26:57 Figure 10: E05 “Smoke and Mirrors” – 14:18

As Figure 9 illustrates, the audience are presented with a second sighting of Philip’s nudity, as he lies flat on his stomach completely uncovered. Elizabeth is furthermore clothed in merely a loose white shirt rather than one of her usual, rather conservative, nightgowns, which could be speculated to belong to her husband. This comparatively generous showing of skin places the royal couple in a sexual context, which is furthermore supported by the intimate bedroom setting. Since, however, no explicit statements are made with regards to Elizabeth and Philip having slept with each other the night before, it is left entirely up to the audience in order to complete the picture in their own phantasmatic realisation. Thus, by skilfully indicating sexual tension through the setting, both characters are humanised without any crude or blunt statements.

Another intimate bedroom scene involving nudity occurs in the fifth episode, “Smoke and Mirrors,” as David and his wife Wallis can be observed lying in bed together as they share a cigarette (see Figure 10). Wallis is shown wearing an enticing set of lingerie, while David appears to be fully nude underneath the sheets. The setting in this scene does not seem to be much different from the previously analysed incident between Elizabeth and Philip. Yet, the slightly dishevelled look of the bedding as well as the sharing of an assumedly postcoital cigarette, indicate that the sexual encounter might have

already taken place. As David and Wallis have a serious conversation in this intimate setting, the mood is suddenly broken in a much more direct manner as in the previously analysed reference, as David bluntly asks his wife “shall we fuck?”. This suggestion is met by Wallis with a giggle as she puts out the cigarette, before the scene cuts back to Buckingham Palace. In this case, the reference to the sexual encounter is thus much more explicit, as it is not just indicated through nudity and setting, but also through dialogue and the use of “unroyal” language (see sub-chapter 7.2.2.)

The third scene indicating a sexual encounter does not involve any form of nudity whatsoever, but is rather dominated by setting and dialogue. After a stern yet successful, reproof with Winston Churchill (see sub-chapter 7.4), Elizabeth returns to her bedroom full of newly-gained confidence, as she bumps into her husband who has just returned from a charity sports match. Philip notices the changes in his wife’s attitude and seems to be attracted by her self-assurance, as the following conversation between the couple manifests:

PHILIP: You look nice. ELIZABETH: Do I? PHILIP: Something's different. ELIZABETH: What? PHILIP: I don't know. You seem… ELIZABETH: I advise you to choose your next words very carefully. PHILIP: …taller, somehow. Or is it just that I've shrunk? ELIZABETH: There's nothing shrunken about you, dearest. PHILIP: Where are you going? ELIZABETH: I've got an appointment with my new Private Secretary. PHILIP: Oh, God. Tell him to bugger off. ELIZABETH: I can't do that. And do what instead? PHILIP: Two options: either I get some stilts so I can reach the heights of my new, tall woman… ELIZABETH: Or? PHILIP: … or she could get on her knees. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 55:42 – 56:33)

As Philip and Elizabeth exchange seductive smirks in the bedroom setting (see Figures 11 and 12), him suggesting that his wife “could get on her knees” functions as reference for her to pleasure him orally. As Philip talks to Elizabeth about her in the third person, he is being rather indirect with the initiation of a sexual encounter, thus skilfully

playing with the figurative language he employs. Through the use of the euphemism, Philip creates a moment of sexual tension between the couple, which is interrupted with a cut to the next scene of Elizabeth meeting her new Private Secretary. How much time has passed between the conversation and the next scene as well as any indication of what had happened in the meantime are left out entirely, again placing the audience’s phantasmatic realisation in control.

Figure 11: E07 “Scientia Potentia Est” – 56:24 Figure 12: E07 “Scientia Potentia Est” – 56:33

Comparing all three scenes which include possible references to sexual encounters, it becomes apparent that the bedroom setting functions as the unifying feature which can be detected in all occasions. Considering the combination of this fundamental characteristic with the usage of dialogue, it can also be concluded that the further away the concerned figure stands from the sovereign, the cruder and more explicit the verbal reference to the sexual act becomes. This is shown through the fact that David and Wallis employ coarse phrases in order to initiate a sexual encounter, while Philip, on the other hand, resorts to the indirect use of a euphemism. Furthermore, Elizabeth responds merely through a seductive smirk, which stands in contrast to Wallis putting out the cigarette in order for the passionate encounter between her and David to occur. Thus, whether or not Elizabeth and Philip have actually shared an intimate moment is left up entirely to the audience’s phantasy.

Even though the indications for sexual encounters occur through a variety of approaches and degrees of explicitness, the simple employment of those references pushes the norms surrounding the conversations about monarchy, as it breaks the taboo of placing members of the royal circle within a sexual context. As the audience get to observe these scenes of physical intimacy, they are placed in an unfamiliar situation, which might evoke feelings of discomfort and having overstepped the mark of propriety.

Nevertheless, particularly through the encouragement of the audience’s own phantasmatic realisation, these revolutionary insights into the sexual activity creates companionate intimacy, as it places the royal figure outside of the familiar context and thus brings fictional impressions of their private lives closer to the audience.

7.1.3. Illness and Physical Conditions

Concerning the third indicator of physical intimacy, the portrayal of illness, physical conditions and health issues, The Crown focuses on three main characters who battle fragility in this respect: King George VI, Queen Mary and Winston Churchill. While King George and Mary physically succumb to their poor health, Churchill’s issues with his old age evoke more of a spiritual exposure, which shall be analysed in sub-chapter 7.3.2.

Health conditions of such public figures are never vividly portrayed to the outside world, as they are of a highly private matter. Showing signs of fragility and weakness would attack the monarchy’s sentiment of stability and are thus shunned from the public eye. King George’s illness stands at the centre of the series’ first two episodes, as it sets the tone for the forthcoming plot of Elizabeth stepping into her father’s shoes as sovereign. In fact, it is the very first subject matter the viewer is exposed to as the first episode begins:

“As the film opens, George VI is observing the most private of personal morning rituals. But his brushing, scraping and shaving is soon interrupted by a coughing fit and, bent double, he hurls himself over the loo as the camera pans into a pool of blood.” (Nicolson online) As the camera pans towards King George VI in this fragile moment, it occupies the angle and point of view of a spy, prying about through the bathroom door behind the king’s back (see Figure 13). Functioning as the series’ establishing shot, the viewer is further informed about the scenes’ setting through a minimalist line of information at the bottom of the screen, reading “Buckingham Palace, 1947”. By receiving this information in the establishing shot while, simultaneously, observing a man in uniform coughing up blood into the toilet, the audience is enabled to immediately identify the character of King George in his position. In combination with the secretive cinematic point of view, the

audience finds itself in the position of an intruder, invading the privacy of the king in such an intimate moment of ill health.

Figure 13: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 00:24 Figure 14: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 00:50

After showing a comparatively graphic shot of George’s phlegm (see Figure 14), the camera pans back to a close-up of the king with a concerned expression on his face. This conveys the impression of George himself being surprised by his current condition and further supports the creation of intimacy, as the audience learn about these alarming issues at the same time as him.

As the actions of the episode continue, George’s medical situation becomes increasingly worse, resulting in him having to undergo surgery in order to have his cancerous left lung removed. Taking place within the rooms of Buckingham Palace, the viewers find themselves in the midst of George’s surgery through a sequence of close-up and extreme-close-up shots. Being under anaesthetic (see Figure 15) and at his most vulnerable, the king’s ill health is graphically exposed to the viewer. While the surgery takes place, the other members of the royal circle are shown waiting for the surgeons to come forward with the news of the procedure’s results, positioned at far distance from the operating room.

This indicates the matter of George’s procedure being so extraordinarily intimate as well as delicate that not even his closest family are entitled to observe the king in this momentarily vulnerable position. Concurrently, detailed shots the surgeon’s carrying out the procedure on the king’s organs are exposed to the audience (see Figures 16 and 17), who thus find themselves in a position of greater propinquity as the waiting family. Thus, a sentiment of “overstepping the line” is created, as viewers might be made to feel uncomfortable watching such detailed and graphic images of the procedure. As not even

the king’s closest family are supposed to observe him in such a fragile position, the audience gain a much more private insight than any characters within the narrative are entitled to.

This sentiment is then further supported and confirmed as Prince Philip steps into the room post-surgery and witnesses the king’s removed lung being taken care of by a nurse, while George still lies on the operating table after the successful procedure (see Figure 18). Through an undoubtedly awkward and uncomfortable expression on Philip’s face, the audience’s impression of intruding on the king’s privacy is thus validated, while companionate intimacy between the text and the audience is created.

Figure 15: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 21:26 Figure 16: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 21:29

Figure 17: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 21:35 Figure 18: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 23:57

While George’s health, at first, seems to have improved after the successful surgery, the audience quickly learn that his issues are not resolved as expected while they observe the king coughing and spitting up blood once again. Later, Churchill approaches his wife and they discuss the king’s ill condition. As the first character in the series to name George’s blockages as “cancer”, Churchill replies to his wife’s question as to who is informed about the king’s critical situation: “No one. Least of all him” (E01 “Wolferton Splash”, 23:19 – 23:36). As the audience are now ahead of the king in finding out about

the seriousness of his own health conditions, the strategy of tragic irony is employed. Thus, the audience are enabled to feel more sympathetic towards George as he learns of his fate through a private conversation with his doctor, since they already know:

GEORGE: You told me that, after the operation, I might expect some soreness, some difficulty breathing. But you didn't tell me about this. DOCTOR: The coughing has returned? GEORGE: Yes. DOCTOR: How often? GEORGE: All the time. DOCTOR: At the time of the operation, as you know, structural alterations were discovered. GEORGE: Of course. The blockage in the lung. DOCTOR: It's time we gave that blockage a name, sir. It was a tumour. A malignant tumour. GEORGE: I see. But we removed it? DOCTOR: We did. GEORGE: So, what is this? DOCTOR: We removed the left lung, sir. But the right has fewer, but still significant, blockages. GEORGE: So, what's next? DOCTOR: Next? [pause] I argued that His Majesty should be told at the time. A patient has a right to know the full picture. But I was overruled. The theory was that, if His Majesty felt he'd been cured, he could throw himself into his work without undue stress and, and, and worry. GEORGE: I have two questions. Who knows the full picture? DOCTOR: Apart from the surgeons? Perhaps the Prime Minister, sir. GEORGE: Of course. But not the queen? Nor anyone else in my family? DOCTOR: No, sir. And the second question? It's impossible to say, sir. My understanding is the surgeons did everything they could. GEORGE: And? DOCTOR: It could be years. More likely months. GEORGE: Thank you. (E01 “Wolferton Splash”: 36:40 – 40:02)

As King George discovers his fate, the audience are made to feel sympathetic towards him through the fragility in his voice as well as his inability to even utter the question regarding how much time he has left to live. The maintenance of the official tone between George and Doctor Weir further emphasises the audience’s sympathy towards the king, as even in such moments of pain and desperation, he is required to pull himself together without appearing too emotional. This becomes particularly evident when George stands facing away from the doctor and replies to his prognosis with a brief and fragile “Thank you” (see Figure 19). The king attempting to hide his desperation by

turning his back towards the doctor also fosters the creation of intimacy between the series and the audience. As the camera exhibits George’s emotional reaction through a frontal close-up shot, the viewers are let into the king’s vulnerability while observing his attempt to hide this vulnerability at the same time.

Figure 19: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 36:16 Figure 20: E01 “Wolferton Splash” – 49:40

From this point forward, George is repeatedly portrayed coughing up in a secretive environment (e.g. Figure 20) and becoming emotional in certain situations, such as singing with carol singers, realising it will be his final Christmas. While the other members of the royal family seem to reply with mostly disarray and concern, the audience are fully aware of the king’s fate and thus able to sympathise to a greater extent, fostering the generation of companionate intimacy.

The companionate intimacy culminates when King George is shown to have passed away in his sleep, as his confidants and servants find him lifelessly lying in his bed one morning (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”). Emphasised by the use of dramatic and theatrical music, emotions of grief and sorrow are evoked amongst the audience as they witness the royal family reacting to the tragic news. In general, it can be argued that the series’ does not shy away from confronting the issue of death in a rather explicit manner, as it becomes a re-occurring theme throughout.

Aside from King George, the deaths of Churchill’s secretary Venetia and Queen Mary are also depicted in the first season of The Crown. While the death of Venetia in itself does not occupy much screen-time, as she abruptly died in an accident during the Great Fog, Queen Mary’s fragility and aggravation are repeatedly shown. Nicolson (online) has specifically commented on the scene of Queen Mary first meeting the newly

crowned Queen Elizabeth, stating that “as Queen Mary greets her newly acceded granddaughter, curtseying deeply to her for the first time, the audible creak of ageing knees makes you wince.” Her character seems to be fully aware of her time on earth being limited, as she continuously slips in realistic and, to a certain degree, cynical commentary regarding her own health. While other characters in her environment prefer to treat Mary as if her health was just fine, her hard-headed nature does not appear to fall for any well- intended but unveracious statements. One instance particularly emphasising the cynicism and realism in Queen Mary’s attitude towards her health occurs in the series’ fourth episode, as she is paid a visit by her doctor while Grenadier Guards are playing music outside:

DOCTOR: The air's a little stuffy, ma'am. It might help to open the window a crack? MARY: Not while they’re rehearsing. DOCTOR: What are they rehearsing? MARY: My funeral. (E04 “Act of God”: 07:15 – 07:40)

By making such a blunt statement in a thoroughly factual and unemotional tone of voice, Queen Mary exhibits the fact that she has come to terms with her fate and is aware of her upcoming death, which eventually takes place during the fifth episode. This stark contrast between her bedridden physical conditions and her full mental capacity despite her old age certainly exhibits physical intimacy, as publicly observing members of the royal circle in their final stage of life is something beyond the realms of possibility. However, as the viewers now gain insight into these complicated and strenuous stages of Mary’s life, they are made to feel sorry for her in her poor condition, evoking companionate intimacy and emotional attachment.

7.2. Verbal Intimacy

The subsequent chapters analyse the employment of physical intimacy through a verbal point of view, paying close attention to the communication between the characters in The Crown. Merely being able to gain insights into the personal conversations between members of the royal family generates intimacy in itself, as their mode of speech amongst their closest circle will differ greatly to their articulation on official occasions. By being distinctive in certain speech situations, the characters generate intimacy in their private conversations. In many scenes during the first season, these private conversations are further supported by a private setting, as they often take place in a bedroom or dressing room. As the audience, however, would usually gain insights into neither the conversation nor the setting, being able to observe these particular fictional employments of intimacy also creates feelings of exclusiveness and closeness amongst them, thus generating companionate intimacy.

Since the portrayal of simple, private conversations organically creates intimacy, the following analysis aims to delve into two more detailed approaches to the generation of verbal intimacy. Firstly, the establishment of private letters as tool for intimate communication will be discussed, as the cinematic strategies used within their representation have been discovered to create intimacy by overtly placing the audience in an omniscient position. Secondly, swearing and other “unroyal” uses of language, such as communicational faux pas and the use of nicknames, are investigated in regards to their implication of intimacy within their usage.

7.2.1. Private Letters as Tool for Intimate Communication

The following section aims to analyse the series’ employment of private letters as tool for personal communication; a tool frequently established in order to for both types and levels of intimacy to be created. Public exposure of private letters is automatically connotated to crossing the boundaries of privacy, as such an enclosed piece of writing is usually marked with high delicacy and precarious information. It is assumed that most humans would feel uncomfortable having insight into the private letters, journal entries and enclosed thoughts of even their most immediate circle. Thus, while being exposed to the

personal writing of a public figure provides insights into their most private selves, it can simultaneously conjure emotions of inadequacy and inhibition. Fictional intimacy within the narrative is conveniently created through showcasing personal letters, as their nature of communication is dominated by privacy and secrecy: If the enclosed information were not delicate, a different – more effortless – medium could have been chosen to communicate the message. The approaches taken in The Crown in order to employ these letters to create intimacy underline their privacy in a variety of ways.

The first letter which the viewers encounter is written by Queen Mary to Elizabeth, upon the tragic news of King George passing away and Elizabeth thus becoming the new Queen. The letter is brought onto the plane by one of the Queen’s courtiers and handed to Elizabeth as she changes from her everyday clothing into a black dress:

MARY [LETTER]: Dearest Lilibet, I know how you loved your papa, my son. And I know you will be as devastated as I am by this loss. But you must put those sentiments to one side now, for duty calls. The grief for your father's death will be felt far and wide. Your people will need your strength and leadership. I have seen three great monarchies brought down through their failure to separate personal indulgences from duty. You must not allow yourself to make similar mistakes. And while you mourn your father, you must also mourn someone else. Elizabeth Mountbatten. For she has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina. The two Elizabeths will frequently be in conflict with one another. The fact is, the Crown must win. Must always win. (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 51:56 – 53:22)

As the its content shows, the matter of the message’s subjects certainly is highly delicate and personal, since Mary uses it as medium in order to warn Elizabeth about her new role as Queen. Instead of merely offering advice, Mary takes it upon herself to utter words of caution and confront Elizabeth with the fact her private persona, Elizabeth Mountbatten, shall now be mourned, as the crown always takes presence (cf. sub-chapter 7.3.1.). Furthermore, the letter conveys an instructional tone of voice, as the liberal use of the imperative form emphasises the seriousness of the situation.

In terms of translating the written letter onto the screen, The Crown employs a strategy which is contradictory to the nature of the medium. Instead of actually being able to read the written letter themselves, the audience are exposed to its content through the establishment of an internal diegetic sound source: While Queen Mary’s voice can be heard reading the letter aloud as if it were coming from inside her character’s mind, a montage of her composing and Elizabeth simultaneously reading the letter is shown (see Figures 21 and 22).

Figure 21: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 36:16 Figure 22: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 49:40

Thus, both stages, the production and the reception of the letter are presented while simultaneously conveying its content through an off-screen sound source. The intensity of the message is further supported through a dramatic musical overlay, affirming the situation’s seriousness and severity.

The character of David, Elizabeth’s uncle and formerly known as King Edward VIII, can also be witnessed using written letters as tool of intimate communication on multiple occasions. Since he and his wife, Wallis Simpson, were living abroad, David continuously drafted letters to his wife in order to keep in touch, as she was hardly ever allowed to accompany him during his visits back home. This is due to their difficult history, since being able to marry Wallis, a divorcée, was the reason for David’s abdication. Consequently, the relationship with his family is shown to be of a thoroughly difficult and distant nature. The rest of the Windsor’s appear to have not quite forgiven David and, at the point after George’s passing away, partly blame him and his selfish attitude for the rapid decline in the king’s health. As David returned for his brother’s funeral, he composes the following letter to Wallis:

DAVID [LETTER]: My dear darling Peaches They say hell is an inferno. What a sunless, frozen hell we both escaped in England. And what a bunch of ice-veined monsters my family are. How cold and thin-lipped, how dumpy and plain. How joyless and loveless. The way Cookie treated me looking down at me through her dumpy nose, it was as much as I could do not to let her have it with both barrels. And Shirley Temple, who has the rank now to silence her common mother, sadly, has no mind of her own. But I remained civil because I am following your advice to keep them on side, keep a foot in the door and see what we can get out of the wretched circus. Perhaps even a raise on the allowance, who knows? It's the only revenge I can think of for the insult of your non-invitation, to drain their coffers to our benefit. Thinking always of you and counting the minutes until I am back in your arms. Your loving David. (E03 “Windsor”: 21:48 – 23:19)

The establishment of fictional intimacy in this letter becomes inevitable, as David is shown to display not only a colloquial writing style, reinforced through the use of nicknames “Cookie” and “Shirley Temple” (cf. sub-chapter 7.2.3), but also a coarse and contemptuous attitude towards his family. In the above-quoted transcript of the letter, David does not voice a single affectionate word towards the other royal family members, but instead speaks of revenge and exploitation. Due to his “remaining civil”, he manages to stabilise the allowance he receives from his family, or aspires to perhaps even achieve getting “a raise”. Throughout the course of his visit during the third episode, David is shown doing exactly that: remaining civil. Thus, it appears that he is utilising his letter to Wallis in order to blow off some steam and finally get all the hatred towards his family off his chest, as his financial dependency on them inhibits him from being crude and honest towards them. Through the following representation of the private letter, however, the viewers find themselves in an omniscient position and get to experience both sides to David: his suppressed civil actions in the presence of his family as well as his crudely judgemental feelings towards them, which, within the narrative, he only expresses towards Wallis by the means of his writing.

Moreover, the letters exposure of the fact that David’s civil behaviour in the presence his family were not sincere, is emphasised by the cinematic portrayal of the letter: While a similar strategy is used in regards to conveying the message through David’s internal diegetic narration, David and Wallis are only briefly shown as they respectively write and read the letter (see Figures 23 and 24). Including such establishing shots appears essential in order to assure the audiences awareness of another private letter

being employed at this moment. However, for the vast majority of the letter’s establishment, David’s narration overlays different shots of the royal family attending King George’s funeral (see e.g. Figures 25 and 26).

Figure 23: E03 “Windsor” – 22:51 Figure 24: E03 “Windsor” – 21:55

Figure 25: E03 “Windsor” – 22:12 Figure 26: E03 “Windsor” – 23:19

Since David himself attended his father’s funeral and can be seen as he joins his family in mourning, the dishonesty of his behaviour as he stands by their side is reiterated (cf. on the far-right of Figure 26). Particularly through times of loss and grief, one is supposed to honour the loss of a person and display emotions of condolence and affection towards the mourning family. As David can be witnessed being by their side and supposedly honouring the memory of his brother, King George, the viewer simultaneously is able to hear David’s voice uttering hateful expressions such as “what a bunch of ice-veined monsters my family are”. Thus, through the intimate tool of presenting a private letter, the audience obtain an insightful position of being able to look through David’s mask and learn about his honest opinions. Evidently, the audience now appear to know more about David than the other characters within the narrative do, which consequently fosters the creation of companionate intimacy.

In the series’ fifth episode, “Smoke and Mirrors”, David composes another letter to Wallis as he returned to England for Elizabeth’s coronation and, somewhat unexpectedly, also in time for Queen Mary’s passing away:

DAVID [LETTER]: My own darling sweetheart. Well, at last it's all over. Mama took ill in the afternoon, then began haemorrhaging in the early hours. Doctors plied her with tranquilisers and morphine to ensure there was no suffering. In the end, she passed in her sleep. I was sad, of course, but let's not forget how she clung to such hatred for me, her eldest, till the last. I'm afraid her blood ran as icy cold when she was alive as it does now she's dead. Later in the day, all the members of the family assembled to identify which of her personal possessions they would most like. Not entirely. I told Shirley Temple what I had my eye on. Because I shan't be there when the jackals descend I don't suppose it will do much good. What a vile, tawdry rabble my relatives are and what a sad, desiccated bunch of hyenas most of them have become. But I'm tired of talking about it. I yearn for our perfect life together, away from the snarling and the sniping of the Court. I adore you, my sweetheart, more deeply than you will ever realise, and I am furiously mad that you aren't here with me as you ought by right to be. (E05 “Smoke and Mirrors”: 26:39 – 28:13)

This second letter, again, conveys David’s honest and disgraceful towards his immediate family, as he does not even spare his dead mother an insult by saying that “her blood ran as icy cold when she was alive as it does now she’s dead”. With the previous letter established the viewer in an omniscient position of knowing of David’s insincerity, the cinematic strategies employed as this second letter is presented strongly reaffirm this image and display his foul attitude in an open manner: As the letter is read aloud by David through another internal diegetic sound source, the viewers are shown a close-up shot of Queen Mary’s dead body for the very first time. Through the camera continuing to zoom out, they can now furthermore see Elizabeth, Margaret as well as David standing by her side as the narration of the letter continues (see Figure 27). Now, the audience are able to simultaneously watch David supposedly mourning his mother while also speaking ill of her in his composed letter. This devious portrayal of David is reaffirmed as the letter reads: “[w]hat a vile, tawdry rabble my relatives are and what a sad, desiccated bunch of hyenas most of them have become”. As these words are uttered, David is shown watching his family members arranging for Mary’s belongings to be passed on (see Figure 28). The restrained expression on his face as well as his body language, folding arms behind his back, convey a suppressed but also emotionally laden image of his character. It appears

that while David is shown remaining civil for his own protection, he wishes to speak the words he had to put in his writing. Again, the letter becomes a vessel for his resentment; an emotional outlet he embraces in order to maintain the obliging attitude towards his family, as he needs their support for the continuity of his financial allowance.

Figure 27: E05 “Smoke and Mirrors” – 27:10 Figure 28: E05 “Smoke and Mirrors” – 27:50

Hence, the viewers obtain an omniscient position, as they are aware of David’s false humility and thus able to correctly judge the representation of his character. His letters to Wallis thus not only function as a tool of fictional intimacy and private conversation within the narrative, but also foster the creation of companionate intimacy between the narrative and the audience, as it places the viewers in an omniscient position, exposing another layer to David’s already complex character.

7.2.2. Swearing and Other “Unroyal” Uses of Language

One of the most prominent characteristics of royal family members, is their gift for eloquence and rhetoric in public situations. When addressing a wider audience while being under the attention of high media exposure, being able to say just the right words, which have usually been carefully crafted and prepared by professionals, appears to come simply natural to the royal family, as they have hardly ever slipped up in this respect. Thus, being able to see behind this skilfully created façade and witnessing these people speak just as we do, supports the creation of intimacy as it makes them feel more alike to the audience.

The first striking incident of swearing within the royal circle can be observed in the first episode, as King George gets dressed for Elizabeth and Philip’s wedding day. As his valet is attempting to button up his shirt and struggles, George loses his temper and Group Captain Peter Townsend steps in, whom the king is very fond of. In order to calm his majesty’s nerves and distract him, Townsend recites a Limerick rhyme in order to amuse King George:

TOWNSEND: There was a young lady named Sally, who enjoyed the occasional dally, she sat on the lap of a well-endowed chap and cried, "Sir! You're right up my alley!" (E01 “Wolferton Splash”: 07:38 – 08:01)

As Townsend utters the lines “she sat in the lap of a well-endowed chap”, the audience are able to observe an unsure and nervous look on his face, as he wonders whether this type of rhyme and language are appropriate to use in front of the sovereign. As his attempt is met with the king chuckling and feeling visibly amused, a sigh of relief escapes Townsend and he joins the common merriment. Thus, an intimate moment between King George and Townsend has been created, as the risky recital has brought them closer together as they join in in laughter. By rule, King George is now required to also recite a Limerick rhyme and utters the following:

GEORGE: Right… There was an old Countess of Bray, and you may think it odd when I say that despite her high station, rank and education she always spelled cunt with a K. (E01 “Wolferton Splash”: 08:04 – 08:33)

The king’s reply using the word “cunt”, one of the most frowned-upon swearwords to be used in British culture, elevates the created intimacy between George and Townsend onto the companionate level between narrative and audience. In no publicly displayed situation would a member of the royal family make use of such disparaged vocabulary, which thus creates a surprisingly comic as well as intimate moment for the audience to witness.

Another incident of profane language use can be observed in episode five, as David is portrayed in bed with his wife Wallis, as they discuss his upcoming travels back to England in order to attend Elizabeth’s coronation, but also the increasingly ill health of his mother, Queen Mary:

DAVID: I forgot to mention, I had a call today from Sir John Weir. WALLIS: Who? DAVID: My mother's doctor. Telling me that, in his opinion, she was in her final days now, and my sister and I should make our way over. WALLIS: With me? DAVID: Probably best without. WALLIS: Even if she dies? DAVID: Let's hope she does. Couldn't bear to go over twice. I shall have to be brave… WALLIS: My darling one. DAVID: …and go without you. To cold London. Brutal London. Hellish London… Shall we fuck? (E05 “Smoke and Mirrors”: 13:06 – 14:30)

After their conversation regarding several serious matters and difficult relationships, which is marked by a sombre tone of voice on both parties, David’s abrupt change of topic as he utters “shall we fuck?” certainly comes as a surprise in this particular situation. While the couple are observed in an intimate bedroom setting from the onset of this scene, this explicit and crude use of language breaks the otherwise demure mood created through the seriousness of the discussed subject matters. As the audience watch the scene and the conversation between Wallis and David, they are placed within the couple’s most private setting as they are not only let into their bedroom, but also observe them discussing personal family difficulties. Yet, this mood to the scene is suddenly broken by David’s crude topic change, further supporting the previously made argument that he exhibits a severe lack of affection towards his family.

As this indisputable invitation and suggestion for intercourse is said aloud, the audience will be surprised to hear such a direct and unpolished phrase to be uttered by a member of the royal family. Not only is the word ‘fuck’ regarded as highly profane and thus also unroyal, David’s statement would certainly be considered to be blunt if it were uttered by any other non-royal character in this particular setting. Nevertheless, in alignment with the previously mentioned incidents of swearing and crude language, it

becomes evident that, as most other human beings, members of the royal circle use profane expressions only in the presence of their most-trusted confidants, thus creating moments of fictional intimacy between those characters. Since, however, the audience are also invited into this intimate setting and observe the royals’ use of obscene vocabulary, they are instantly brought closer to the character. As they obtain this intimate position, placed on the same level of closeness as the respective confidant, the creation of companionate intimacy is fostered between the audience and the narrative.

The character of Prince Philip further provides a platform for the series to induce intimacy through not necessarily profane, but certainly “unroyal” uses of language. Amongst media and the public, Prince Philip is known to be a person of witty nature who enjoys the occasional joke, sometimes involving a questionably inappropriate sense of humour. Even though this could be known amongst the audience of The Crown, they will unlikely have been in the immediate presence of the Prince uttering a joke or putting his foot in his mouth, as his reputation for being witty was entirely created through hearsay and the media. In the series, however, such incidents are scattered throughout the episodes and introduced to be part of Prince Philip’s nature. One of the most prominent, clumsy incidents on Philip’s behalf occurs when the couple are in Nairobi for the royal tour. As they meet members of the city’s and Kenia’s indigenous royalty, Prince Philip spots one of the introduced people wearing a variety of prestigious war medals and emblems. Philip becomes curious, points at the man’s medals and amusedly utters the following:

PHILIP: Oh, gosh, look, I've got that one, and that one, actually. Oh, Christ, I've got that one too. Look! Oh, come off it, where did you steal that one from, eh? (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 02:12 – 02:30)

His insinuating that the medals must have been stolen, instead of earned, is met by a stern look on the man’s face, who appears to be far from being amused by the situation. Philip, however, cheerfully continues to meet people and compliments another man standing in line by saying that he liked the “hat” (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 02:37 – 02:44). As the second man also responds with a serious facial expression and no comment, Philip is corrected by his wife Elizabeth, explaining to him that the hat was in fact a crown (see Figures 29 and 30).

Figure 29: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 02:18 Figure 30: E02 “Hyde Park Corner” – 02:40

This conscious exhibition of inappropriate behaviour on Philip’s behalf consequently establishes intimacy between the audience and the narrative, as such incidents and characteristics of Philip’s nature will have only been known to them through a third media-party and hearsay. With the elimination of this third element in conversation, however, a gap of distance is bridged and intimacy can be fostered. Such steps against the royal etiquette evidently also humanise the royal figure which Philip represents, as it makes his utterances appear to not always be fully prepared and tailored to the occasion. While the writers deliberately scripting the narrative in order for Prince Philip to have inappropriate ad-lib lines might seem paradoxical, it also generates familiarity and appeal between the series and the narrative, as it generates room for companionate intimacy to be created.

The third final aspect regarding “unroyal” language uses to be considered is the use of nicknames in the series. Members of the royal family using a nickname for a person within their immediate circle usually exhibits feelings of intimacy and closeness, as it indicates them spending a great amount of time together. Although some nicknames might convey affectionate emotions towards a loved one, others can be used in order to mock somebody who is not held in high regards. Nevertheless, nicknames certainly are of an intimate nature and their display invites the audience into an intimate setting.

In The Crown, nicknames displaying affection are generally based around the receptive persons’ fist names, which are shortened or minimised in order to transmit loving emotions. Queen Elizabeth, for instance, can be witnessed being called ‘Lilibet’

on multiple occasions, such as in the previously-cited letter she receives from Queen Mary upon her new role as Queen of England. Elizabeth’s father, King George, is also called by his nickname on several incidents. Despite his reginal name being George, he was formerly known as Albert and is thus sometimes lovingly referred to as ‘Bertie’.

His brother, David, on the other hand, becomes known for using a rather scornful variety of nicknames for some of the characters within the series, as the following conversation between Elizabeth and her mother shows as they discuss seating arrangements for the upcoming coronation:

ELIZABETH: Why not put him there? Close to the Prime Minister. BISHOP: Thank you, madam. QUEEN MOTHER: Cry-baby. ELIZABETH: What? QUEEN MOTHER: That’s what he calls Winston. He and his wife have nasty little nicknames for all of us. I’ll tell you yours if you ask me nicely. ELIZABETH: No thank you. QUEEN MOTHER: Shirley Temple. (E05 “Smoke and Mirrors”: 09:08 – 09:30)

By referring to a legendary and hugely-popular political figure such as Winston Churchill as ‘cry-baby’, David and Wallis certainly display courage in their choice of nicknames, as they mock their character through the use of an openly-ridiculous vocabulary. Furthermore, the couple refer to Elizabeth as ‘Shirley Temple’ and the Queen Mother as ‘Cookie’. Even though the source and reasoning behind these nicknames are not distinctively explained within the context of their usage, the audience are still invited into a setting of commonly executed mockery and slander.

As both varieties of nicknames are ensured to be used only amongst a trusted group of people, regardless of whether they are of affectionate or ridiculing nature, the audience get to experience the fictional intimacy created through their usage. Thus, in alignment with the previously depicted uses of “unroyal” language, nicknames also place the viewer in a special position as they observe their usage, creating companionate intimacy between the audience and the narrative as it continues.

7.3. Spiritual Intimacy

Before elaborating on the establishment of spiritual intimacy, the definition of the term within the context of analysis needs to be addressed. While the term ‘spiritual’, on the one hand, commonly refers to “[r]elating to religion or religious belief”, it also concerns matters “affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things” (OED online). In regards to the royal family, it becomes evidently difficult to find room for spiritual growth in the first, more religious, sense of the term, as the sovereign primarily functions as the head of the Church of England, and thus all people within their circle are required to share the same devoted belief. However, when approaching the topic from the more emotional and personal angle, one is able to detect many unresolved issues of vulnerability and internal struggle.

One of the most dominant themes throughout the first season of The Crown presents the conflict between the monarch and the different aspects of their roles. The private persona with all its individual beliefs, ideas and opinions continuously stands in conflict with the public persona, determined by duty, order and obligations in the national interest. In the series, this becomes particularly apparent to the audience, as even the monarchs themselves tend to talk of their internally opposing sides in the third person. As King George, for instance, is asked by Anthony Eden to speak to Winston Churchill about his retirement, as George and Churchill had been good friends before George’s claim to the throne, he presents the difficulty of these clashing roles he occupies to Eden in a vivid yet undoubtedly convincing manner:

GEORGE: I no longer am Albert Windsor. That person was murdered by his elder brother when he abdicated. And, of course, Albert Windsor would dearly love to say to his old friend, Winston Churchill, "Take a step back. Put your feet up. Let the younger generation have a go now." But he is no longer with us and that void has been filled by George the VI who, it turns out, is quite the stickler, and [clears throat] no more allow the sovereign to interfere with the Prime Minister than stand for office himself.

(E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 12:15 – 13:13)

This explicit and metaphorical exposition of his internal struggles and spiritual conflicts demonstrates the difficult role monarchs and other people in the public interest have to face on a daily basis. George’s description of how his former private persona,

Albert Windsor, was murdered by his brother within the course of his abdication, becomes an allegory for his personal and private interests suddenly being inferior to his duties as King of England. In his case, this is also particularly highlighted by the two different names his two personae are referred to: Albert Windsor, the private person, father and good friend versus George VI, the monarch who had to provide continuity after his brother failed to fulfil his role as sovereign for a country during troublesome times of war.

Although the transition from private person to sovereign clearly appears to have had its toll on King George, it becomes difficult for the general public to grasp, as they are usually not let into observing the private person in the first place. When presented to and interacting with the public, members of the royal family and other people of public interest obtain an official function, usually highlighted by their use of language (see sub- chapter 7.2.2.), and act accordingly. Thus, particularly before the heights of British tabloid media, this had been the only representation of these people to the public eye. However, by presenting the spiritual struggles behind the public façade, the audience are able to gain fictional insights into the private person behind the official figure and consequently invited to allow for companionate intimacy between them and the narrative to be created.

As the character of King George sets the tone for spiritual conflicts and struggles to be presented throughout the course of the series, the following analysis is divided accordingly to the two main characters who can be observed in facing these difficulties to the largest extent: Firstly, Elizabeth will be the focal point of discussion as her transition from private to public is investigated with regards to her different roles – monarch, sister and wife – as well as the responses to the people within her surroundings. Secondly, the analysis will centre around the legendary figure that is Winston Churchill, a man who has become a symbol of stability and continuity, but is shown to be dismantled and presented on a much more emotionally vulnerable level than the audience will be familiar with.

7.3.1. Elizabeth: Monarch or Wife?

Investigating the spiritual intimacy and internal struggles occurring within the character of Elizabeth, it becomes apparent that she certainly had to adapt to her new role as Queen of England, as many incidents of her differentiating between her different personae can be founds throughout the series. In the first episode, before her transition, Elizabeth seems to be a self-assured, independent young woman who is fully aware of what she wants in life. However, as she was hoping to have longer until she had to occupy the throne, she embarked on her new role unprepared and, from the second episode onward, is shown to sometimes be seemingly overwhelmed with certain situations.

As her father, King George, has indicated in the previously quoted script, the change from private person to a ruling monarch usually involves a name change. He, for instance, changed his name from Albert to George, in order to re-establish feelings of stability and continuity after his brother’s abdication, thus taking up his father’s reginal name. When Elizabeth is confronted with the same question shortly before her arrival back in England, she discusses the matter with her courtier Martin as well as her husband Philip:

MARTIN: Though it would help if we could decide here and now on your name. ELIZABETH: My name? MARTIN: Yes, ma'am. Your regnal name. That is the name you'll take as Queen. Your father took George. Obviously, his name is… was, Albert. And, before he abdicated, your uncle took Edward, of course. His name was David. ELIZABETH: What's wrong with my name? PHILIP: Nothing. ELIZABETH: Well, then, let's not overcomplicate matters unnecessarily. My name is Elizabeth. MARTIN: Then, long live Queen Elizabeth. (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 37:29 – 38:26)

Elizabeth’s decision to keep her name and not change it for the course of her reign can be argued to foreshadow the difficulties she is going to encounter when trying to combine her private and reginal personae. At this point in the narrative, her desire to “not overcomplicate matters unnecessarily” shows a certain degree of unpreparedness regarding the upcoming events as the new Queen, as she seemingly tries to avoid any

bureaucratic processes which would change her life from the way it has been before. Elizabeth does not feel the need to change her name, which indicates that she also intends for not much to change in all other aspects of her life. She wants to remain her private self, Elizabeth, and does not seem to anticipate the fundamental changes she is about to encounter. Such apparent obliviousness regarding what lies ahead as well as her negligence in the realisation of her upcoming duties are shown through an astounded expression on both her and Philip’s face, as Martin utters the words “Long live Queen Elizabeth” for the first time. As her understanding of this new situation grows, she comes to terms with her spiritual struggles and conflicting personae.

The first time Elizabeth partly realises the drastic changes which lie ahead through the strenuous process of adapting to her new life as Queen, is through the letter from her grandmother, Queen Mary, which she receives moments before departing the aeroplane. As previously mentioned (see sub-chapter 7.2.1.), Mary uses this letter to utter words of warning and picks up on the figurative language which has also been used by George’s conversation with Antony Eden:

MARY [LETTER]: And while you mourn your father, you must also mourn someone else. Elizabeth Mountbatten. For she has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina. (E02 “Hyde Park Corner”: 51:56 – 53:22)

Both, Mary and George, have now used the death of the private persona as allegory for the transition to becoming the sovereign. Having to “mourn” Elizabeth Mountbatten implies that Elizabeth will no longer be able to act upon her private intentions and opinions, as her duties as monarch now take presence in contrast to her motives as wife, mother, sister and her own self. Over the course of the following episodes, up until her death, Mary becomes an essential advisory figure for Elizabeth, as she continuously seeks her help. In front of Mary, Elizabeth is not inhibited in voicing her issues of having to distinguish between her different personae, telling her that sometimes her view as private person do not align with her duties as sovereign. In the series’ fourth episode, Act of God, Elizabeth faces the burden of having to watch the government act irresponsibly during the Great Fog of London. She wonders if anything could have been in her power and seeks Mary’s advice as to what she should have done:

ELIZABETH: But what if the fog hadn't lifted? And the government had continued to flounder? And people had continued to die? And Churchill had continued to cling to power and the country had continued to suffer? It doesn't feel right, as Head of State, to do nothing. MARY: It is exactly right. ELIZABETH: Is it? But surely doing nothing is no job at all? MARY: To do nothing is the hardest job of all. And it will take every ounce of energy that you have. To be impartial is not natural, not human. People will always want you to smile or agree or frown. And the minute you do, you will have declared a position. A point of view. And that is the one thing as sovereign that you are not entitled to do. The less you do, the less you say or agree or smile ELIZABETH: Or think? Or feel? Or breathe? Or exist? MARY: The better. ELIZABETH: Well, that's fine for the sovereign. But where does that leave me? (E04 “Act of God”: 53:38 – 54:53)

In this conversation, the differences between Elizabeth’s personal intentions and her objectives as sovereign become distinctively apparent: Even though she has strong opinions on certain matters, as the monarch she is not entitled to declare any position which would reflect those opinions. Following Mary’s advice to not do, say, agree and smile much, Elizabeth can be seen continuing Mary’s sentence by exaggerating it, arguing that she apparently also should not think, feel, breathe or exist. Not being entirely serious in her exaggeration, Elizabeth is however confronted with Mary’s agreement, saying that the less she does of those things, the better it would be. Visibly surprised, Elizabeth contemplates for a moment before asking Mary “Well that’s fine for the sovereign. But where does that leave me?’. This particular sentence captures and summarises Elizabeth’s attitude towards her role concisely, showing that she clearly does not completely identify with her occupation as Queen. She talks of “the sovereign” in the third person, evidently distancing herself from this persona, arguing that the sovereign is not actually her.

Even though she previously appears to have fought against the conception that her private and reginal personae are not compatible, she now appears to agree with the notion of having to sacrifice her personal life for her public duty. Mary, her confidant in the matter, always defended the opinion that now Elizabeth has become the Queen of England, she had to “mourn” her old, private self in order to fully function as a successful monarch. Not yet fully able to grasp the impact this change would have on her life, Elizabeth had previously opposed this idea or at least ignored any indicators implying

that her personal life would have to take a setback. However, this particular scene between her and Queen Mary, manifests Elizabeth’s realisation that these spiritual struggles are not as compatible as she had hoped. It sets a calm and intimate tone, as grandmother and granddaughter enjoy a drink in front of the fire while discussing internal struggles, Elizabeth expressing vulnerability and doubt in her role as Queen.

Being able to observe the two women sharing these thoughts in such an intimate environment enables the audience to also delve into the personal struggles which Elizabeth is facing. In the public eye, sovereigns are never seen expressing issues of self- doubt or discontent. Regardless as to whether the presented struggles are partly truthful or entirely fictional, the fact that Elizabeth is unable to function as both, private persona and queen would have never caught the attention of the public, as all the affected people and institutions would have ensured for this issue to be hidden. As established in the theoretical part of this paper concerning monarchy and national identity, the reginal system is marked and characterised predominantly by stability. While Elizabeth had to face much doubt due to her young age as well as the fact the trust in the monarchy had not yet been fully restored after Edward’s abdication, any notions of self-doubt would have been prohibited from leaving the insides of the palaces, as they would have undermined the feelings of strength and stability it was striving for. Hence, being able to gain such inclusive insights into the personal struggles and spiritual conflicts within such a strong symbol of stability, places the viewer in a powerful as well as highly knowledgeable position, resulting in these observations being one of the strongest generators of companionate intimacy founds in the entire series.

Although Elizabeth appears to confide with Mary without any notions of inhibition, her relationship with her husband Prince Philip seems to not only suffer the most under these dynamic circumstances, but Philip’s attitude towards his wife’s role is shown to be altering through the course of Elizabeth’s reign. The character of Philip is generally dominated by a great amount of self-confidence and self-awareness, as he is sure of his ambitions and demands as well as unafraid to voice these in front of the people in his surroundings, regardless of whether they are his superiors or not. As Elizabeth becomes Queen, Philip is the one delivering the tragic news to his wife and ensuring that she has his unwavering support. Where Elizabeth is still marked by self-doubt and

uncertainty in her new position, Philip is portrayed to elevate her self-assurance and confidence on several occasions, as the following conversation between them exemplifies:

PHILIP: Now, don’t forget the two things we discussed. ELIZABETH: I won’t. PHILIP: The children keeping my surname -- ELIZABETH: Yes. PHILIP: -- and us staying in Clarence House not moving to Buckingham Palace, both very important. ELIZABETH: I won’t forget. PHILIP: And don’t be nervous. ELIZABETH: I’m not nervous! PHILIP: You look nervous. Be firm. Just lay down the law. I know he’s Winston Churchill and all that but remember who you are! You’re – ELIZABETH: Nobody. PHILIP: -- the Queen of England. (E03 “Windsor”: 14:40 – 15:10)

Although Elizabeth is trying to show confidence by reassuring her husband that she is fully aware of her tasks leading up to her first audience with Winston Churchill, Philip detects nervousness in her behaviour, which is further supported by her replying to Philip with rather brief answers. As he reminds his wife of the issues to be discussed with the Prime Minister, he further utters words of encouragement, claiming that she has no reason to be intimidated by Churchill as long as she remembers who she is. Elizabeth’s immediate mask of trying to seem confident is now undermined by her arguing that she is just “nobody”. This, again, conveys an image dominated by self-doubt and uncertainty as she is about to face her first public test in her new role as Queen. Philip, on the other hand, is shown to be confident in his wife’s abilities, reminding her that she is the Queen of England, thus occupying a position of great influence and world power, which Philip approves of, providing his demands for the Prime Minister are also met.

However, Philip’s demands were not met, as Elizabeth was unable to convince both cabinet and Churchill for the children to keep Philip’s surname as well as Clarence House remaining their main residence. Both issues have become crucial to Philip’s identity and their denial has thus shaped the perception of his role in their marriage. Prior to Churchill’s disapproval, Philip had devoted much time and effort into the renovations

of Clarence House, while his father had already been seen toasting to the “Royal House of Mountbatten”. Yet, as the family were urged to keep the name Windsor in order to provide and restore stability, Philip’s position as the strong head of the family was severely undermined. The pride in their family name as well as Philip’s masculinity is evidently shown to be hurt, as the following conversation held between Philip and his father in the presence of Elizabeth portrays:

LOUIS: So… PHILIP: Oh, is this a meeting with Elizabeth your niece, my wife? Or the Queen? LOUIS: The latter, I'm afraid. PHILIP: Right, then I know my place. (E04 “Act of God”: 39:35 – 39: 54)

Even though not much time has passed in terms of the plot duration, since this conversation only takes place one episode after Philip was presented full of confidence in his wife, his attitude and self-pride have almost shifted from one extreme to the other. Now, Philip has also taken up the figurative language which George, Mary and Elizabeth are using, as he speaks of Elizabeth’s different roles as if the private and the public actually were different people. Further, as Lord Mountbatten indicates that he had official matters to discuss with Elizabeth, thus neither meeting his niece nor Philip’s wife but the Queen, Philip appears to be offended and rejected by his father. Declaring that “he knows his place” and immediately leaves the room. The fact that Louis did not feel like he could discuss matters with his own son, as they only concerned Elizabeth as Queen left him feeling “grounded and ignored”, as Elizabeth carefully phrased it. Thus, the spiritual strife between Elizabeth’s personae is now not centred on herself, but has also affected the people within her closest circle; her husband first and foremost.

As Elizabeth is becoming aware of Philip feeling disempowered and inferior, she decides that assigning him a new, executive function would be best in order to restore his confidence and consequently their marital happiness. Hence, in the episode’s fifth season, Elizabeth asks Philip to chair the coronation committee and take major responsibilities in the organisation of the ceremony. Philip excitedly accepts this task and appears visibly encouraged by this challenge, as he visions for the ceremony to be modernised and taken into the 20th century. In order to move with the times and connect

more with the public, he decides upon certain emancipated shifts, i.e. for the spouse of the sovereign to stand beside her instead of kneeling in front of her. He seems to be convinced in this change in tradition, as Elizabeth had previously also insisted that her wedding vows would include that she should “obey” her husband (E01 “Wolferton Splash”). Moreover, Philip arranged for the coronation to be televised, as within the narrative he also believed in the creation of companionate intimacy between monarchy and its people through the use of modern media. However, Elizabeth and cabinet are not remotely convinced by Philip’s suggestions to break with the rules, resulting Philip to once again feel undermined. This disagreement eventually culminates in the following argument between Elizabeth and Philip, which also involves to become one of the key moments in the entire series:

PHILIP: What is this? Hide and seek? ELIZABETH: I told you not to overstep the mark. PHILIP: I made it clear, carte blanche or nothing at all. ELIZABETH: Trade Unionists and businessmen? In the Abbey? PHILIP: If you want to stay on the throne, yes. ELIZABETH: In a trimmed-down televised coronation? PHILIP: If you want to avoid a revolution, yes. You forget. I have seen first- hand what it is like for a royal family to be overthrown because they were out of step with the people. I left Greece in an orange crate. My father would have been killed. My grandfather was. I'm just trying to protect you. ELIZABETH: From whom? The British people? You have no idea who they are or what they want. PHILIP: Oh, oh, I'm just Johnny Foreigner, again, who doesn't understand. Fine, fine. You want a big overblown ceremony costing a fortune while the rest of the country is on rations, have it. But don't come bleating to me when your head and the heads of our children are on spikes. ELIZABETH: If the people are hungry, they want something that lifts them up. PHILIP: And how do you propose lifting them if they cannot see it? ELIZABETH: The people look to a monarchy for something bigger than themselves. An inspiration. A higher ideal. If you put it in their homes, allow them to watch it with their dinner on their laps. PHILIP: It will democratise it, make them feel that they share in it. Understand it. ELIZABETH: Alright! Alright. I'll support you in the televising. PHILIP: You won't regret it. ELIZABETH: On one condition… That you kneel. PHILIP: Who told you? ELIZABETH: My Prime Minister. He said you intended to refuse. PHILIP: No, I merely asked the question. Whether it was right in this day and age that the Queen's consort, her husband, should kneel to her rather than stand beside her.

ELIZABETH: You won't be kneeling to me. PHILIP: That's not how it will look. That's not how it will feel. It will feel like a eunuch, an amoeba, is kneeling before his wife. ELIZABETH: You'll be kneeling before God and the Crown as we all do. PHILIP: I don't see you kneeling before anyone. ELIZABETH: I’m not kneeling because I'm already flattened under the weight of this thing. PHILIP: Oh, spare me the false humility. Doesn't look like that to me. ELIZABETH: How does it look to you? PHILIP: Looks to me like you're enjoying it. It's released an unattractive sense of authority and entitlement that I have never seen before. ELIZABETH: In you, it's released a weakness and insecurity I've never seen before. PHILIP: Are you my wife or my Queen? ELIZABETH: I'm both. PHILIP: I want to be married to my wife. ELIZABETH: I am both and a strong man would be able to kneel to both. PHILIP: I will not kneel before my wife. ELIZABETH: Your wife is not asking you to. PHILIP: But my Queen commands me? ELIZABETH: Yes. PHILIP: I beg you make an exception for me. ELIZABETH: No. (E05 “Smoke and Mirrors”: 37:50 – 41:09)

In this striking scene between the couple, they vent their frustrations with one another and release the tension which has been building up inside them. The intimacy is further underlined by the fact they step away from other staff preparing the abbey for the coronation, as they do not want anybody to witness their heated discussion. When Elizabeth firstly does not agree with Philip’s decision to televise the coronation, she argues against her husband by claiming that he knows neither the British people nor their needs and desires. This attack against Philip thus clearly undermines his role as the Duke of Edinburgh as well as the husband of the Queen of England, two supposedly highly influential roles which, according to Elizabeth, he fails to fulfil. Philip retaliates against these accusations by calling himself ‘Johnny Foreigner’ and arguing that it will not be by his fault if the monarchy is thus overruled. In this argument, he uses an ancient metaphor of heads being on spikes in the course of a revolution, but only talks of Elizabeth and their children being affected. As he leaves himself out of this equation, he deliberately distances himself from his family, reaffirming his stance in the argument. Philip clearly argues for the democratisation of monarchy, thus supporting the creation of intimacy

between the sovereign and her nation, and eventually manages to convince Elizabeth by gaining her support in televising the coronation ceremony in order to achieve these goals.

Just as the argument appears to have been resolved, Elizabeth requisitions for Philip to compromise by kneeling in front of her during the ceremony as he swears his oath. The confrontation, once again, evolves into a heated argument as Philip states kneeling would make him feel like an ‘eunuch’ and an ‘amoeba’ – two symbols of emasculation and inferiority. This honest statement is the first time Philip actually confronts his wife with his issues of inequality, as, at the time, he was supposed to take on the principal, more dominant role in their relationship. Although Elizabeth tries to reassure him that he will be kneeling in front of God instead of his wife, Philip takes the opportunity to confront Elizabeth with a “new sense of authority and entitlement” he had not seen in her before, followed by the climactic point in the argument as he angrily asks her: “Are you my wife or my Queen?”. By this moment, the pace of the argument has highly accelerated, as Elizabeth and Philip are firing against each other through quick and intense allegations. By saying that a “strong man would be able to kneel to both”, wife and Queen, Elizabeth indirectly accuses Philip of being weak, thus deliberately pushing his already existing feelings of emasculation. Consequently, Philip and Elizabeth reutilise the figurative language of differentiating between Elizabeth’s personae, as they claim that the wife-persona is not asking Philip to kneel, yet the Queen-persona is commanding him to. Through this heated exchange, Elizabeth and Philip now both agree on this spiritual division and the fact these two aspects are not compatible. In their argument, they can be witnessed openly re-negotiating the royal persona, as Elizabeth clearly distances herself from her role as Philip’s wife but commands him to kneel as Queen without any exception. Despite Philip walking away furiously, he later eventually kneels during the ceremony, succumbing to his wife’s demands and reaffirming his emasculated position.

Being invited into one of the most intimate types of settings, a heated argument between husband and wife, once again places the audience in a viewpoint of knowing more than they are “supposed to”, especially since the couple deliberately hid away to have their discussion. While this might convey feelings of discomfort, they witness the royal façade crumbling as the argument heightens, which fosters the creation of intimacy between audience and narrative in alignment with Philip’s vision behind the coronation

being televised. Thus, Philip’s side in the argument is indirectly reaffirmed by the creation of spiritual and companionate intimacy, which sub-consciously evokes the audience to feel more sympathetic towards Philip as he eventually yields in kneeling, even though the couple have actually achieved a compromise.

7.3.2. Winston Churchill: The Dismantling of a Legend

The following section is concerned with the portrayal of spiritual intimacy in regards to the character of Winston Churchill and aims to touch upon his presentation of vulnerability and emotional struggle, which occur in a contrasting form to the spiritual strife previously discussed within Elizabeth.

Where emotions of self-doubt, internal conflict and turmoil dominate the spiritually intimate representation of her character, Churchill is marked by vulnerability and a hurt sense of pride. While writing the first audience-scene between Churchill and Elizabeth, Morgan has spoken about his fascination for the contrast between “a 77-year- old prime minister and this 25-year-old new Queen […] a man at the end of his life, a woman at the beginning of hers . . . and she has to outgrow him” (cf. Brudenell-Bruce, online). Through his status as hero of the Second World War and by being re-elected as Prime Minister, Churchill has become an image of stability and strength for an entire nation. Thus, at the initial moments in the series, including his first audience, he is shown as confident, self-assured man who is thriving in his political empowerment compared to the young, benighted Elizabeth (see sub-chapter 7.4.). Thus, when we find the glib and confident Churchill exhibiting emotional vulnerability, a surprising and unknown picture is portrayed to the audience.

One of the first incidents of spiritual exposure on Churchill’s behalf occurs through his relationship with his secretary, Venetia. Her fascination and affectionate behaviour towards Churchill as well as their mutual sentiment of fondness, which could be speculated to expose romantic desire, appears to soften Churchill’s mask as a strong and stable leader. During the fourth episode, “Act of God”, which is devoted to the Great Fog of London and criticises Churchill’s leadership during that time, he finds comfort in Venetia’s presence as they share the following intimate conversation:

CHURCHILL: You are too important to all of us. VENETIA: Hardly. All I do is bring you things to sign. Then take them away again. CHURCHILL: And so the wheels keep turning, and the business gets done, and the country is governed. VENETIA: But what's my personal contribution? CHURCHILL: You improve the quality of life for all that deal with you. VENETIA: An ornament. A flower. By comparison at my age you were a published writer, and a cavalry officer, posted to India, fighting local tribesmen on the North-West frontier. CHURCHILL: Who told you that? VENETIA: You asked me to engage in a relationship with a young man, my own age. So I have been reading your autobiography. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes. That's not quite what I had in mind. VENETIA: "Hear this, young men and women everywhere, and proclaim it far and wide. The earth is yours and the fullness thereof. Be kind but be fierce. You are needed now more than ever before. Take up the mantle of change— CHURCHILL: Stop. VENETIA: - for this is your time." You were 24. All energy and hope and passion and fire. It's remarkable. CHURCHILL: You found something you liked in that young man? VENETIA: I did. (E04 “Act of God”: 23:51 – 25:54)

In expressing her admiration for him, Venetia admits that she has been reading the old works of the young Winston Churchill, who has been known for his poetry and writing, during a moment of her own vulnerability and self-doubt. As she quotes one of his works, Churchill is visibly touched by hearing the voice of his younger self, who has been thriving in his enthusiasm for life, “for this was his time”. Moved by Venetia’s affection and fascination with his past, Churchill’s otherwise strong voice becomes frail as he exposes his emotional vulnerability to Venetia. In spite of experiencing these emotions of positive melancholia and nostalgia through Venetia’s adoration, Churchill is however also presented to be hurt by the fact he does no longer experience the same strive and enthusiasm which he used to. Painfully aware of his cabinet and party trying to get him to retire, Churchill is fragilely clinging onto power in the fear of becoming obsolete.

As Churchill’s battle with his political environment as well as his own sense of pride is portrayed, his fragility and spiritual exposure appear to increase throughout the course of the series. This struggle, however, seems to culminate in the ninth episode, “Assassins”, which covers the occasions surrounding his 80th birthday. In the honour of

Churchill, a portrait by Graham Sutherland has been commissioned and is due to be revealed as part of his birthday-speech in front of parliament, which is also televised. Churchill and Sutherland seem to emotionally bond over their shared interest in art as well as difficulties in their past throughout the course of Churchill’s posing for the portrait, assuring Churchill’s confidence in Sutherland and his work. However, as the painting is revealed, Churchill is noticeably furious at the way he has been presented (see Figure 31). In front of the people in his presence, he is seen keeping a straight face and joking about the occasion. Yet, as Churchill and Sutherland later meet at his home, Churchill angrily yells at the artist for presenting him in such an insultingly frail image, even accusing the political left of having a hand in the attack (see Figure 32).

Figure 31: E09 “Assassins” – 43:20 Figure 32: E09 “Assassins” – 44:49

Churchill’s accusations of having been portrayed in an insultingly old image are, however, met by oppositions on Sutherland’s behalf, who argues that he painted a realistic image of Churchill, thus defending his own integrity as an artist:

SUTHERLAND: I showed those sketches to your wife throughout. She remarked on how accurate they were. CHURCHILL: That is the whole point. It is not a reasonably truthful image of me! SUTHERLAND: It is, sir. CHURCHILL: It is not! It is cruel! SUTHERLAND: Age is cruel! If you see decay, it's because there's decay. If you see frailty, it's because there's frailty. I can't be blamed for what is. And I refuse to hide and disguise what I see. If you're engaged in a fight with something, then it's not with me. It's with your own blindness. CHURCHILL: I think you should go. (E09 “Assassins”: 45:26 – 46:54)

In his defence, Sutherland crudely and, to a certain degree, impolitely confronts Churchill with his old age and weakness, describing the legendary man to be marked by ‘decay’ and ‘frailty’. Through their previously built relationship of trust, Sutherland does not hesitate to directly confront Churchill with his emotional repression, arguing that he be in a fight with his “own blindness”. Churchill, who was full of rage before Sutherland’s stern reproof, is now shown speechless and visibly taken aback by these words as he slumps down on the sofa, slanting his head forward in bereavement. Sutherland’s argumentation has noticeably stuck a core within the legendary figure, who can now be witnessed as he ponders in self-reflection at an incisive moment of realisation.

As the character of Winston Churchill is shown to undergo such a striking transformational process – from the self-assured hero to the fragile incumbent – the audience gain insights into the narrative dismantling of a legendary political figure, who, to this day, is still majorly presented as the symbol of strength and leadership he embodies at the beginning of the series. By witnessing Churchill’s phases of both repression and realisation, an emotional process of spiritual exposure is presented as his character is presented during such intimate moments of vulnerability. Discovering such a fragile side to an otherwise praised and legendary national hero thus encourages emotional attachment and sympathy towards Churchill, which furthermore fosters the generation of companionate intimacy between audience and narrative.

7.4. Intellectual Intimacy

Analysing the fourth type of intimacy defined by Piorowski and Cardone, the following section is aiming to grasp the fictional employment of intellectual intimacy. According to Piorowski and Cardone’s concept, intellectual intimacy is defined as the “sharing reflection and disclosures of knowledge” (cf. Trauer and Ryan 482), which evokes mutual understandings and exposes a lot about a person’s strengths and weaknesses. While the sharing of knowledge becomes an essential theme in The Crown, the series actually devotes an entire episode to the initial lack of it and the thus exposed inferiority, as well as the process of overcoming this issue. The seventh episode is dominated by the implications of its title, “Scientia Potentia Est”, which is Latin for “knowledge is power”, as it explores the importance of Elizabeth’s education within her role as sovereign.

The tone of the episode is set by a flashback into Elizabeth’s childhood, as the young girl is shown attending a private tutoring lesson at Eton college. During this establishing scene, Elizabeth is taught the essential elements of the constitution by the college’s Vice-Provost, who explains to her the role of government and monarchy according to the previously-cited Walter Bagehot:

VICE-PROVOST: There are two elements of the Constitution: wrote Walter Bagehot in 1867. The efficient and the dignified. Which is the monarch? Your Royal Highness? YOUNG ELIZABETH: The dignified? VICE-PROVOST: Very good. The efficient has the power to make and execute policy and is answerable to the electorate. What touches all should be approved by all. The dignified gives significance and legitimacy to the efficient and is answerable only? YOUNG ELIZABETH: To God. VICE-PROVOST: Precisely. Two institutions, Crown and government, dignified and the efficient, only work when they support each other. When they trust one another. You can underline that. YOUNG ELIZABETH: Do you teach this to your other pupils? VICE-PROVOST: No, just you. This is what I teach them. These are exam papers. ELIZABETH: Shouldn't I know all of this, too? VICE-PROVOST: No, Ma'am. All very undignified. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 01:50 – 03:39)

Even though by this point Elizabeth had not yet been aware of her fate as future Queen of England, she was taught only the “dignified” subjects and materials which the Vice-Provost had approved of. By inquiring what other students were taught, it becomes evident that, as a child, Elizabeth had a curious mind and wanted to be taught general education just as any other children at her age. Yet, she was prevented from doing so by the institutions around her, thus further elevating her from a public sphere and exacerbating the already existing gap between dignified and efficient. This conversation between Elizabeth and the Vice-Provost underlines the primarily representative function occupied by the monarch within the ruling of a country, as the sovereign is only supposed to intervene if the efficient government fails to put laws into action: a monarch reigns, while the government rules. By preventing Elizabeth from acquiring the necessary knowledge, she is thus unable to politically act upon anything beyond her duties.

Returning to the story’s 1953 setting, Queen Elizabeth has now slowly become aware of her lack in knowledge, as she finds it difficult to follow conversations regarding current affairs and important issues discussed within government. Following this realisation, Elizabeth voices her concerns to her mother for the very first time:

QUEEN MOTHER: You can't be expected to know everything. ELIZABETH: Well, no, that's the point, Mummy. I know almost nothing. QUEEN MOTHER: You know when to keep your mouth shut. That's more important than anything. ELIZABETH: And that would've been fine if I'd gone on to live a normal life. But now I spend so much time with politicians and statesmen. You know, I live in dread of being left alone with them. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 06:20 – 06:50)

In admitting her lack of knowledge and the consequently generated feelings of inferiority and fear portray Elizabeth in a rather insecure position with regards to her role as queen. Regardless of the degree of the conversation’s fictionality, such information would be ensured to stay within the walls of the palace. A reigning monarch not knowing enough about government and politics in order to keep up with the discussions between the statesmen would have triggered great concern amongst the public, as the institution’s stability would be once again put at risk. Elizabeth would have been accused of being inexperienced and not fit for her role, as, despite the fact she did not occupy much ruling power at the time, was still assumed to have the sufficient knowledge in order to carry out her position as a reigning queen.

Elizabeth’s feeling of being too uneducated for her position is reaffirmed within the course of her weekly audience with Winston Churchill, who seeks the Queen’s attention and approval with regards to the current crisis in the Soviet Union:

CHURCHILL: I have always been the person everyone wants in a room with the Russians because Stalin would only talk to me. With him gone, there is a great danger that Eisenhower will take it upon himself to run the show. ELIZABETH: And that would be bad? CHURCHILL: Oh, a disaster, Ma'am. For all the obvious reasons. ELIZABETH: Of course. Remind me. Of the obvious reasons. CHURCHILL: Russia is a great old empire which demands and deserves respect. Americans like to wave the big stick and speak with a loud voice. In the matter of world governance, they are not yet ready. They need an experienced and elder power to guide them, school them. ELIZABETH: Yes, we could all do with some school. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 09:19 – 10:34)

As Churchill is evidently rushing to explain the urgency of the matter as well as the pressure for Britain to undertake military action, he is left without time to explain much of the reasons behind the subject matter. Elizabeth, on the other hand, appears bewildered by the issues explained by her Prime Minister, yet is curious and enquires aspects she is unsure of. Yet, the fact that Elizabeth even seems unaware whether great involvement on Eisenhower’s part would be bad or good for the country’s situation, illustrates that all the present affairs happening within the current political crises overwhelm her. As Churchill replies that it would be disastrous “for all the obvious reasons”, Elizabeth asks him to remind her of such, her quiet and fragile voice marked by feelings of shame and self-doubt. After the Prime Minister continues to elaborate on the situation, implying that Britain should occupy an educating function for the Americans, Elizabeth is shown at a moment of realisation. When she quietly mumbles “we could all do with some school”, her character is shown at the verge of a transformative process of becoming more educated. Upon this audience, Elizabeth asks for a private tutor in general education to be hired, as she wishes to expand her understanding in the matters of her concern.

As her tutor, Professor Hogg, arrives at Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth ensures for all doors to be closed so they can share a private moment, as she is evidently embarrassed by her lack of knowledge and the fact she needs to seek help in order to fulfil

her role as Queen to her own demands. Trying to explain the nature of their meeting to Professor Hogg, Elizabeth is shown uttering her concerns and thus admitting flaws and mistakes on her own part:

ELIZABETH: During the course of my new daily life, I have to spend a great deal of time alone with statesmen. Men, like yourself, of exceptional intellect, who've risen to the very top of their profession by virtue of their intelligence and their ability. There are frequently times when I am discussing agendas of the day with these people that I find myself on the back foot. At something of a disadvantage. Because I… I can't keep up. Or I don't know what lies behind something. HOGG: And that's no way to live. To be uninformed and entirely at someone else's mercy. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 18:38 – 19:34)

Having to confess these issues to a complete stranger exhibits a high degree of nervousness within Elizabeth, who is seen stumbling over her own words and restlessly fiddling with her pearl necklace. Letting somebody outside of the royal circle let in on the fact that the sovereign is neither perfect nor all-knowing evokes feeling of anxiety within Elizabeth, as she risks her public status as immortal icon to be undermined. Professor Hogg, however, proves to be understanding and sympathetic towards these issues and happily agrees to tutor her. In order to know the current status of her education, Hogg enquires whether she has taken and passed any of the most basic school exams, which Elizabeth reluctantly has to negate. Having no certificate of her academic level greatly shakes her confidence once again. Thus, Elizabeth angrily returns to her mother in order to receive clarification as to why her parents would let her embark on her role as sovereign completely unprepared:

ELIZABETH: I came because I wanted to ask you a question about my education. QUEEN MOTHER: What about it? ELIZABETH: The fact that I didn't receive one. QUEEN MOTHER: You did. ELIZABETH: Sewing, needlework and saying poems with Crawfie. That is not an education. QUEEN MOTHER: Darling, you also spent years one-on-one with the Vice- Provost of Eton College. ELIZABETH: Being drilled in the Constitution. QUEEN MOTHER: Which is far more than your sister ever got. ELIZABETH: Mummy! I'm talking about a normal education. In normal subjects.

QUEEN MOTHER: You received an entirely appropriate education for a woman of your background. ELIZABETH: Which has entirely failed to prepare me for the life I lead now. QUEEN MOTHER: We taught you how to be a lady, a princess. What do you want? A degree? No one wants a bluestocking or a college lecturer as sovereign. They want a Queen. ELIZABETH: Yes, a queen who is hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with the people that she has to meet. QUEEN MOTHER: What has this to do with me? ELIZABETH: How could you have let me down like this? QUEEN MOTHER: Is this a criticism of my motherhood? I would've thought you'd think twice before throwing stones on that score. ELIZABETH: What's that supposed to mean? QUEEN MOTHER: I hardly see you blazing a trail in that department. ELIZABETH: That's not fair. QUEEN MOTHER: Besides, I thought we were past the age now where we take cheap shots at our parents. I educated you as your father and I saw fit. Why didn't we push harder? No one advised that we should. That includes the Vice- Provost. Oh, don't force something that doesn't come naturally, dear. That's what I've learned. We all have to accept our limitations in life. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 20:51 – 22:57)

In this argument between mother and daughter, Elizabeth is visibly upset with her mother and her opinion regarding her daughter’s education. Because she still has to prove herself in her new role as sovereign, Elizabeth angrily criticised the fact that she was only educated for the representative function of her role, entirely preventing her from engaging in serious conversations about current affairs and urgent political matters. She continues to judge and denounce the lack of attention her general education received during her childhood, thus openly criticising her mother’s parenting as she tells her feels being “let down”. While the Queen Mother at first seems to be upset and hurt by these accusations, she continues to ascribe notions of hypocrisy to Elizabeth, arguing that she does not appear to do much differently from the treatment she received herself and now criticises. Elizabeth’s mother continues to explain that she did not push her daughter to acquire any higher academic achievements as they were not advised or told it was necessary. This lack of advice also concerned the Provost, who certainly agreed with the sentiment that Elizabeth shall not be concerned with any subject matters that go beyond the “dignified”. Thus, the deficiency in general knowledge appears to be an inevitable vicious circle running within the royal family, as Elizabeth’s parents did not know to provide Elizabeth with an appropriate education because they did not receive one themselves. While the Queen Mother faces this issue with the acceptance of her own

limitations, Elizabeth, on the other hand, is now encouraged to break with these traditions as she continues her tutoring with Professor Hogg.

Being able to not only witness such a reputable and idealised figure admitting her flaws, but also acting upon them in order to improve herself humanises the character of Queen Elizabeth to the audience as they experience this transformative journey alongside her. Hence, companionate intimacy is generated through the fictional exposure of intellectual intimacy through Elizabeth’s transformation from an insecure novice to a self-assured, intelligent monarch who is capable of fulfilling her position on her own terms.

The results of this educational journey Elizabeth has undergone become particularly striking when comparing her audiences with Winston Churchill. During their first ever official meeting, Elizabeth is portrayed as a clueless young woman, who does not understand the etiquette of the situation, as she offers Churchill a cup of tea:

ELIZABETH: Do sit down, Prime Minister. I've ordered tea. Or something stronger, perhaps. CHURCHILL: Oh, dear. Did no one explain? The Sovereign never offers a Prime Minister refreshment. Nor a chair. The precedent set by your great-great- grandmother was to keep us standing like Privy Councillors. To waste time is a grievous sin. And, if there is one thing I have learned in 52 years of public service, it is that there is no problem so complex, nor crisis so grave, that it cannot be satisfactorily resolved within 20 minutes. So, shall we make a start? (E03 “Windsor”: 16:09 – 17:00)

Upon this faux pas on Elizabeth’s behalf, Churchill does not hesitate to occupy the position of a lecturer, complacently educating the young Queen on how she ought to go about these audiences in the future. Even though the sovereign is supposed to take the lead in these occasions, as she is the one to grant the visit rather than be called, Churchill dominates the situation through his self-assured character, resulting in Elizabeth to feel visibly overwhelmed and unprepared (see Figure 33). Subsequently to her private tutoring with Professor Hogg, the audience are met with an entirely different character, as the Queen calls Churchill into Buckingham Palace for another meeting. Having discovered Churchill’s attempt to hide his poor health conditions from her, Elizabeth is now self- confident enough in order to give her Prime Minister a stern reproof regarding this issue of mistrust and deception:

ELIZABETH: I am just a young woman, starting out in public service. And I would never presume to give a man, so much my senior, and who has given this country so much, a lecture. However, you were at my Coronation. CHURCHILL: I was. ELIZABETH: And you therefore heard for yourself as I took the solemn oath to govern the people of my realms according to their respective laws and customs. Now, one of those customs is that their elected Prime Minister should be of reasonably sound body and mind. Not an outrageous expectation, one would've thought. CHURCHILL: No. ELIZABETH: But it seems that you have not been of sound body and mind these past weeks. And that you chose to withhold that information from me. A decision which feels like a betrayal, not just of the covenant of trust between us and the institutions that we both represent, but of our own personal relationship. [Elizabeth picks up her school notebook]. In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote: "There are two elements of the Constitution: the efficient and the dignified. " The monarch is the dignified and the government, the efficient. These two institutions only work when they support each other, when they trust one another. Your actions, your breaking of that trust was irresponsible and it might have had serious ramifications for the security of this country. Is your health better now? CHURCHILL: It is. ELIZABETH: Good. But is it sufficiently better? Fit for office better? I would ask you to consider your response in light of the respect that my rank and my office deserve, not that which my age and gender might suggest. CHURCHILL: Ma'am I look at you now and I realize that the time is fast approaching for me to step down. Not because I am unwell or unfit for office, but because you are ready. And therefore, I have discharged my duty to your father. With your blessing and your forgiveness, I shall continue to serve as the leader of Your Majesty's government. (E07 “Scientia Potentia Est”: 55:42 – 56:33)

By acknowledging Churchill’s position to be much more senior in contrast to her still having to settle in her role as Queen, Elizabeth strategically gains the Prime Ministers trust and attention, ensuring him that the matters about to be discussed are of great sincerity. As she continues to voice her disappointment in Churchill’s actions, Elizabeth furthermore remains calm and clear in her intonation, conveying the impression of a self- assured woman, while Churchill initially only replies with scant utterances, dropping his head in shame (see Figure 34). The roles have thus evidently been reversed, as it is now Churchill who finds himself in an inferior and unprepared position.

Figure 33: E03 “Windsor” – 16:32 Figure 34: E07 “Scientia Potentia Est” – 53:02

The conversation is thus clearly dominated by Elizabeth, who voices her concerns in a composed manner and even recites her school notes about the dignified and the efficient. As previously established, the episode opens with Elizabeth being taught this very subject matter by the Vice-Provost at Eton. However, she now finds herself teaching the very same lesson to the otherwise much more dominant figure of Winston Churchill. With this scene taking place towards the end, the episode’s storyline of intellectual intimacy has now come full-circle and gives closure to Elizabeth’s transformation. Even Churchill himself agrees to the completion of this transformation, as he claims that Elizabeth is now “ready”, having realised that he has fulfilled his duty in preparing her to continue a long and successful reign as Queen.

Receiving the opportunity to witness the Queen, a figure dominated by stability and endurance, undergo such an emotional and intellectually intimate journey places the audience in a close environment with her character, as they are the only ones being able to follow her transformation from the very beginning all the way until its completion. Thus, watching Elizabeth evolve from a curious little girl into a young woman who is able to admit her flaws and take action upon them as she transforms into a self-assured sovereign, creates emotional attachment between the viewer and the narrative as companionate intimacy is fostered.

8. The Crown in the Current Cultural Context

Having analysed the approach taken in The Crown to establish the concept of fictional intimacy within the genre of the royal biopic, the following chapter aims to touch upon the series’ position in the contemporary context of royalty and media, by considering the gathered findings as well as anticipating the series’ perception in the future.

The analysis has proven that presenting fictionally intimate insights can sometimes evoke feelings of overstepping the marks of propriety with regards to the audience’s perception of how intimate the presentation of a monarch ought to be. This impression of pushing the boundaries and the thus created guilt can be explained through the previously established mystery around monarchy as a concept. Being such an essential national icon, most information regarding the Queen as well as the rest of the royal family is released and controlled by the palace itself. Therefore, the British monarchy is now hardly ever affected by scandal or public outrage, but rather swells in global enthusiasm within the course of royal celebrations.

Nevertheless, considering the cultural context around the release format of The Crown, major contradictions with the carefully controlled image around the RFBC can be detected. The theoretical part of this thesis has illustrated that most cinematic media, documentaries and reports about the royal family used to be commissioned by the palace. However, ass the popularity of the royal biopic as genre has increased, the monarchical institution has become less influential in its representation through film and television. Yet, as film-format has been the most common form used to present these portraits of the royal family, their release as well as their consumption have still been mediated by the nature of the medium: Watching one of the more recent feature films about the British monarchy at the cinema requires the conscious decision of the audience to purchase tickets during a limited amount of time, before the film would stop being shown. Thus, more effort on the consumer’s part would be expected and the experience would be limited by the length of the film. Comparing this format to the position of The Crown, one is able to detect a vastly different approach: Published on the streaming website Netflix, the series is released in seasonal intervals, as the audience are given ten episodes to watch at a time – over 500 minutes of footage in total. Thus, the control as to how

many of these ten episodes are being watched within one sitting is left entirely within the authority of the consumer. While one might expect for the audience to pause this consumption after one or two episodes, as they are dealing with such weighty material, writer Peter Morgan has actually admitted to being fully aware of the possibility to binge- watch an entire season of The Crown from a very early stage:

“As Mr. Morgan mapped out the season, he took into account changing viewing habits, understanding that the audience could binge all 10 episodes at once rather than wait a week for its appointed time. “The main thing to avoid is a rhythm of repeating the same thing,” he said. “You want to change who your protagonists are, what your focus is. I don’t want anything to be predictable.” (Sulcas online)

This awareness of audience behaviour during the creation process also reflects in many of the series’ reviews, as Mangan (online) describes The Crown might not be binged as quickly as some other Netflix offerings, as the storyline is dominated by “crown, state and church [favouring] small, subtle nudges of each other and loaded silences, rather than loaded guns and pile-driver plots.” However, she added to this argument by claiming that the pace of the series is not “sluggish.” Hence, it can still be argued that due to its release format and Morgan’s awareness in creation, binge-watching the Queen is neither encouraged nor discouraged, thus holding exciting anticipations for the consumption of royal biopics as audience attitudes shift along with changes in media technology.

Another aspect which shall be briefly considered is the series’ intention to span over a total of six seasons, covering the life and reign of Queen Elizabeth from her marriage to the present day. From an actor’s point of view, taking up such a grand task, which would occupy them for more than six years, might appear frightening and restrictive, as they are faced with the risk of being reduced to only that role for the rest of their career. On the other hand, agreeing to play the same person for over six years would also give actors the opportunity to become an icon with regards to the figure they embody, following the likes of Helen Mirren, who has starred as Elizabeth II in two previous productions by Peter Morgan (see sub-chapter 6.2.). However, the nature of The Crown is designed to prevent both outcomes from taking place: As the second season is released in December 2017, it has been announced that the series would change its cast every two season in accordance with the Queen and everybody around her ageing. Thus, The Crown is able to celebrate another revolutionary trait, as having to replace cast members is

usually a television series’ biggest fear. Yet, by employing this conscious decision and controlled strategy of cast-replacement, the producers give every actress starring as Elizabeth II the opportunity to shine in their role for their two-season-period, while simultaneously preventing any of their performances to ever become as iconic as Queen Elizabeth II herself. As her reign is dominated by stability and longevity (see sub-chapter 3.1.), The Crown consciously plays with this sentiment surrounding Elizabeth II, as it purposefully contradicts these characteristics. In doing so, the series is able to re-negotiate the terms within its genre as it is driven forward while simultaneously honouring its subject in ensuring that no production, actress or performance will ever exceed the iconic status of the Queen herself.

9. Conclusion

Having reviewed the conventions of the royal biopic as it operates within the context of the British monarchy and its influence on national identity, the genre has been discovered fulfil two simultaneous functions: Firstly, royal biopics are supposed to accurately portray historical events of the past, which are familiar to the genre’s audience. Secondly, the productions’ objective is also to entertain an audience in grasping the ineffable essence of the monarch and presenting it through cinematic media. Contemporary royal biopics have therefore followed the proposed notion of a combined approach, as they employ personal events against a historically accurate backdrop. This establishment of private insights into the life of a sovereign derives from the audience’s desire to dissolve the mystery and unknowability surrounding monarchy as a concept, which quests for a more intimate relationship between them and the ineffable royal figure.

Combining this variety of influences gathered from the significant literature, the present thesis has proposed the concept of fictional intimacy as essential cinematic strategy used within the genre of the royal biopic. It argues that if a combination of four types of fictional intimacy after Piorowski and Cardone is employed, and a suspension of disbelief is generated within the viewer, companionate intimacy is created between the narrative and the audience.

Due to its revolutionary genre conventions with regards to its release and distribution format, but also as it is the first long-run television series to depict the life of a living sovereign, the first season of the Netflix series The Crown has been chosen as the corpus of an in-depth reading of fictional intimacy within a contemporary royal biopic. Thus, incidents of the four defined types of intimacy – physical, verbal, spiritual and intellectual – have been analysed with regards to their fictional employment within the series as well as the therein resulting elevation of intimacy and its companionate application onto the relationship between audience and narrative.

The analysis has shown that presenting fictionally intimate insights into the lives of a monarch can prove to alter the perceptive relationship between the narrative and the audience, as they place familiar figures outside of the familiar context. Fictional instalments of physical intimacy in The Crown drastically set the tone for a more private

portrayal, as characters familiar to the audience are sometimes shown in their barest and frailest moments. Consciously including scenes of nudity, sexuality and ill health places the audience in a position which can possibly be too close for comfort, as it conveys a crude imagery in which the ineffable figure is not supposed to be seen. Verbal intimacy has also facilitated the creation of companionate intimacy between audience and narrative, as has been shown through the presentation of private letters. By gaining such inclusive insights into one of the most confidential forms of written conversation, the audience are placed in an omniscient position and thus able to showcase emotions of sympathy towards the issues discussed. Furthermore, verbal intimacy has been found through the depiction of swearing and other “unroyal” uses of language, which contrast the usual eloquent and well-prepared image of royalty that is transported to the public and makes these transcendental figures more human. Depictions of spiritual intimacy have been shown to expose a high degree of vulnerability with regards to figures who are usually dominated by a sentiment of stability and strength. Thus, feelings of sympathy and affectionate attachment are encouraged amongst the audience as they experience members of the royal family through a much more personal lens. Finally, the fictional employment of intellectual intimacy has proven to evoke similar notions, as the audience were enabled to accompany Elizabeth on her journey from self-doubt due to her lack of knowledge to her character’s rebirth as self-assured sovereign, which has fostered the creation of emotional attachment.

Summarising, it can be argued that exposing fictionally crafted scenes of intimacy within a context that is usually dominated by its adequate portrayal towards the public sphere, generates a variety of opportunities for companionate intimacy to be fostered. However, this can occasionally evoke feelings of overstepping the mark of inappropriateness with regards to the audience’s perception of how intimate the presentation of a monarch actually ought to be. Placing such events, which are sometimes marked by vulnerability and discomfort, against a familiar and revolutionary personal setting can be regarded as one of the major factors fostering the creation of companionate intimacy. Thus, if royal biopics employ the strategy of fictional intimacy as done in The Crown, the audience’s curiosity into a private portrayal of the royal family is satisfied while simultaneously ensuring their awareness that these figures differ from themselves, in order to allow for the mystery around the concept of royalty to remain. With additional

regards to its position in the contemporary cultural discourse, The Crown can thus certainly be claimed to have successfully re-negotiated the conventions of the royal biopic on its own terms. It will therefore be of high interest for future studies of the relationship between monarchy and media to observe how The Crown continues to revolutionise its genre over the highly-anticipated seasons which are yet to come.

10. Bibliography

“Act of God”, The Crown: series 1, episode 4. Dir. Julian Jarrold, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. “Assassins”, The Crown: series 1, episode 9. Dir. Benjamin Carron, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. Bagehot, Walter. “The English Constitution. Second Edition.”. 1873. Web. 31 Oct 2017. Bastin, Giselle. “Filming the Ineffable: Biopics of the British Royal Family.” Biography Studies. 24.1 (2007): 34-52. Project Muse. Web. 20 September 2017. Bertie and Elizabeth. Dir. Giles Foster. Perf. James Wilby, Juliet Aubrey and Adam Bates. ITV. 2002. DVD. Böcking, Saskia. “Suspension of Disbelief”. 2008. Web. Wiley Online Library. 18 October 2017 Brantley, Ben. “Review: Helen Mirren Stars in ‘The Audience’ on Broadway”. New York Times. 08 March 2015. Web. 12 December 2017. < https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/theater/review-the-audience-with-helen- mirren-opens-on-broadway.html> Brown, Tina. “’The Crown’ Episode 1 and 2: Stiff Lips, Warm Heart”. The New York Times. 04 November 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. Brudenell-Bruce, Alice. “Inside ‘The Crown’, Netflix’s Rumored $100 Million Royal Drama. Vanity Fair. September 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. Cannadine, David. “From biography to history: Writing the modern British monarchy.” Historical Research. 77 (2009): 289-312. Wiley Online Library. Web. 20 September 2017. Custen, George. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1992. Print. Edward & Ms Simpson. Dir. Warris Hussein, Wr. Francis Donaldson and Simon Raven. ITV. 1978. DVD. Ferri, Anthony J. Willing Suspension of Disbelief: Poetic Faith in Film. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2007. Print. “Gelignite”, The Crown: series 1, episode 6. Dir. Julian Jarrold, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. Gilbert, Martin. Churchill: A Life. London: Heinemann, 1991. Print. “Gloriana”, The Crown: series 1, episode 10. Dir. Philip Martin, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix.

Grigg, John. Is the Monarchy Perfect? London: John Calder, 1958. Print. Gumpert, Gary and Robert Cathcart. Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Web. Hanks, Robert. “The Queen: Our Jewel in The Crown”. The Independent. 14 September 2006. Web. 12 December 2017. < http://www.independent.co.uk/arts- entertainment/films/reviews/the-queen-12a-415993.html> Heald, Tim. The Duke: A portrait of Prince Philip. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991. Print. “Hyde Park Corner”, The Crown: series 1, episode 2. Dir. Stephen Daldry, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. Mangan, Lucy. “The Crown review – the £100m gamble on the Queen pays off royally”. The Guardian. 04 November 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. McKie, Robin and Mark Townsend. “Great Smog is history, but foul air still kills”. The Guardian. 24 November 2002. Web. 12 December 2017. Morgan, Peter. The Audience. London: Faber & Faber, 2015. Print. Moss, Barry F. and Andrew I. Schwebel. “Defining Intimacy in Romantic Relationships”. Family Relations. 24.1. (1993): 31-37. Jstor. Web. 07 October 2017. Nicolson, Juliet. “On The Crown And Our Fascination With The Royal Family”. UK Vogue. 02 November 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. Otnes, Cele C. and Pauline Maclaran. Royal Fever. The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015. Print. Peckham, Renee Ruth. Audience Interpersonal Identification with the Television Series Friends as it is Reflected in Avid Viewers within the Twixter Life Stage. MA Thesis. Liberty University. 2006. Web. 05 October 2017. Pimlott, Ben. “Monarchy and the Message.” The Political Quarterly. 69.B (1998): 91– 107. Print Piorowski, Geraldine K. Too Close for Comfort. Exploring the Risks of Intimacy. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 1994. Print. “Pride & Joy”, The Crown: series 1, episode 8. Dir. Philip Martin, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. Raeside, Julia. “The Crown: a huge ocean-going blockbuster – the Americans will love it”. The Guardian. 03 November 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. Sadlier, Allisson. “The Crown recap: Season 1, Episode 6”. Entertainment Weekly. 04 November 2016. Web. 12 December 2017. < http://ew.com/recap/the-crown- season-1-episode-6/>

100

“Scientia Potentia Est”, The Crown: series 1, episode 7. Dir. Benjamin Carron, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc, 1977. Web. “Smoke and Mirrors”, The Crown: series 1, episode 5. Dir. Phillip Martin, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. “spiritual”. OED. Oxford University Press. 2017. Web. 23 December 2017. Stam, Robert. “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2000. 54–76. Print. Sulcas, Roselyn. “In ‘The Crown’, a Young Queen, but a Young Woman, Too”. The New York Times. 26 October 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. The King’s Speech. Dir. Tom Hooper. Perf. Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter. Momentum Pictures. 2010. DVD. The Queen. Dir. Stephen Frears. Perf. Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell and Helen McCroy. Pathé 2005. DVD. The Woman I Love. Dir. Paul Wendkos. Perf. Richard Chamberlain, Faye Dunaway and Patrick Macnee. ABC. 1972. To Catch a King. Dir. Clive Donner. Perf. Robert Wagner, Teri Garr and Horst Janson. HBO. 1984. Trauer, Birgit and Chris Ryan. “Destination image, romance and place experience—an application of intimacy theory in tourism “. Tourism Management. 26 (2005): 481-491. Web. 07 October 2017. Von Münchhausen, Anna. “The Crown. Zum Niederknien.” Die Zeit. 04 November 2016. Web. 26 September 2017. Weisbrod, Bernd. “Theatrical Monarchy: The Making of Victoria, the Modern Family Queen.” The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World 1500– 2000. Ed. Regina Schulte. New York: Berghahn, 2006. 238–53. Print. Whittle, Peter. “The Queen on the Big Screen: Peter Whittle on the Biggest Royal Taboo.” Sunday Times. 3 Sep. 2006. The New Culture Forum. 12 September 2017. < http://newcultureforum.blogspot.co.at/2006/09/queen-on-big-screen-peter- whittle-on.html> “Windsor”, The Crown: series 1, episode 3. Dir. Phillip Martin, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix. “Wolferton Splash”, The Crown: series 1, episode 1. Dir. Stephen Daldry, Wr. Peter Morgan. 2016. Netflix.

101