‘The Crown’ Boss on Critiques of Diana’s “Ghost” and Return of Claire Foy, Olivia Colman in Series Finale

[This story contains spoilers from the series finale of The Crown.]

The final six episodes of The Crown have arrived on Netflix, concluding a decade of work that culminated in the fictionalized retelling of Queen Elizabeth II’s 70-year reign over the United Kingdom.

Written and created by Peter Morgan in 2016, the six-season series began with the then-princess of York’s (Claire Foy) 1947 marriage to Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and now ends with her son, Prince Charles’s (Dominic West), wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles (Olivia Williams), just as Morgan imagined from the outset.

“Peter knew right at the beginning, 10 years ago, that it would be 2005,” executive producer Suzanne Mackie told The Hollywood Reporter in a previous interview. “He always said, ‘I want to end around the time when Camilla and Charles got married.’”

In closing out the complex love story of the future King and Queen, the series sets the stage for the chronicling of the next successors to the throne, Prince William (Ed McVey) and Catherine Middleton (Meg Bellamy), whose budding romance is explored in part two of the final season of the fictionalized drama.

“In a way, what we were trying to do by reconciling Kate and William at the end of episode nine, was then have the final reconciliation, if you like, between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, in that they would finally be allowed to marry,” Mackie tells THR in the follow-up conversation below about the final episodes. “Those couples coming together felt like a beautiful end to our story. That, in a way, peace is restored to the land.”

Yet the unexpected passing of Queen Elizabeth, who died during filming of the final season on Sept. 8, 2022, added an additional layer of anticipation for audiences who were already curious as to how her personal tale would draw to a close. In the series finale, the three actresses who have portrayed the Queen over the course of the show’s six seasons — Foy (seasons one and two), Olivia Colman (seasons three and four) and Imelda Staunton (seasons five and six) appear onscreen together for the first time as the British monarch reflects on her longevity as the head of state, and embraces her duty to remain in that seat for the eternity of her life.

“That felt like a profound note to end on, that there was something very simple and dignified and gracious, not least because, of course, in the time of Peter writing it, we didn’t know that the Queen would die, and of course she did,” explains Mackie. “So it also felt like a beautifully intended tribute to her to say goodbye, goodbye to our show, goodbye to our story and goodbye to her.”

***

What was the biggest challenge about not repeating what Peter Morgan already did with The Queen when it came to part one of this final season, and how do you think you achieved that in telling Princess Diana’s story?

What he said immediately, and I think he said this not just because he felt he’d trodden this story well already, but because he felt there was another part of that story that he really wanted to examine, which was the Al-Fayeds. Right at the beginning, 10 years ago, he said, “I really want to talk about the Al-Fayeds and the impact of Dodi’s death on them,” and I remember at the time thinking, “Wow, that is so interesting and so bold.” It allows him to explore multiculturalism and how Al-Fayed somehow hadn’t ever been accepted and it’s a sort of classic, in a way, archetypal story of a father wanting so much for his son and by doing so, almost the consequences of that, of wanting it so badly, are tragic. It’s a terrible sense of destiny. It felt almost like a Greek tragedy. So I think, for a long time, that became something that he wanted to explore, so he set that up in season five.

The Al-Fayeds became a very important part of our landscape for the final two seasons because, in many ways, the Al-Fayeds were a dynasty themselves and a family. And in the end, The Crown is a family drama, so you’re colliding two very high-profile, very dynamic, rich, wealthy, privileged families, and all the dysfunction that goes with that. That suddenly felt really interesting and that was the perspective that Peter had found that felt very different to anything he’d examined in the film The Queen. But then when it actually came to telling the story, I think he felt he knew he needed to explore why the Queen didn’t immediately rush down to London to accept or embrace the public hysteria, that she withheld from it. And I think that, in the end, was something he wanted to explore again. It was an interesting journey.

Are there any critical reactions to part one that you’d like to respond to or clear up?

Well, yes. One never wants to sound defensive, and I’m too long in the tooth and philosophical about it, but I’d say the thing that might’ve been slightly misunderstood was the ghosts, because they were never intended as ghosts. I think for anyone that’s experienced sudden grief, or grief generally, and the intensity of grief, the realization that someone is simply not there anymore is so hard to comprehend. You feel a need, and indeed even therapists would encourage a conversation with that person. I think the essence of Diana was so strong; she was such a life force that it was incomprehensible that she simply wasn’t there anymore.

Peter wrote it very spontaneously. I remember it so well, where we were and what I was doing, and he shared it with a couple of us, and I read it in the spirit of what I think was intended. It was Prince Charles having a conversation out of sheer guilt and the intensity of shock. He almost wanted Prince Charles to be able to say, “I’m sorry,” and “goodbye.” So I understood what Peter was writing. I think we all understood it, and certainly the actors understood it.

I think somehow the word “ghost” was misunderstood and it therefore would be very easy to think, “well, that’s a bit of a cheap gimmick,” and yet it was so the opposite. It was written from a place of deep connection to Peter, who has lots of this experienced grief. Peter always writes from a very deep place within himself. He never writes casually; he never writes superficially. It’s always very connected into something he would feel profoundly aware of. So it felt like we were having our nose rubbed into something that wasn’t intended.

When I spoke with Annie Sulzberger, she said she didn’t feel it was her right to pass on any feedback from the royal family on the series. Have you received any response that you’d be open to sharing, either from them or the Spencer family?

No, we’ve always had, I hope, a healthy distance between us and them in what, I hope, again, is intended as a very respectful distance. That it would be somehow wrong of us to talk to them directly or for them to talk to us directly. I think it’s a sort of tacit understanding that we do what we do. We would never do it to cause offense or to be disrespectful. We’ve always been very respectful. Peter, simply as a writer, just writes and wants to tell the story as he perceives it. And in the end, it is an interpretation. It’s Peter Morgan’s interpretation of this monarchy, this family of people. I’ve been involved in lots of true stories in my career and it’s hard to be too close to the false material because you’re then beholden. But equally, Peter’s writing is based on a lot of very rigorous research from people like Annie. He builds up a picture that does, I feel, have an approximation of truth. It’s his interpretation of the family, the monarchy and the institution as he perceives it.

Harry has been forthcoming about The Crown, but this second part really focuses on William. How do you imagine he might react to that spotlight being placed on him?

I remember, again, a moment where Peter wanted to start talking about the boys. And when you think about the fact that The Crown is actually about the crown and the destiny of the line of descension from the Queen to Prince Charles, to Prince William, and, looking even beyond that, to Prince George, that they are the future Kings of England, what does that mean? How does that affect you knowing that you are next? And of course, what he also wanted to examine, to an extent, was history repeating itself. We set that up in season one with the brothers, with the King and the abdication, and the brother happened to become the king because his brother had abdicated for love and how hard that was, and the burden of the crown, the duty that you can’t lead the normal life you might’ve led. And that repeated itself again with Margaret and Elizabeth in a sense of the heir and the spare. And that one, by accent of birth, is in line to throne, and the crown lands on their head, not on the sibling’s head, and what’s that duty to you? And to an extent, that was slightly explored with Prince Charles and Princess Anne, but it was very much there to be deconstructed again with Harry and William.

We didn’t want to impose what we know now on then, because we’re not telling the story now, we were telling the story then. So Peter didn’t want to start writing knowingly where we are now. That would feel manipulative, I think. He wanted to write about the brothers and William meeting Kate in a very objective way, and a lot of research had gone into it. After Diana’s death and the first four episodes, which are very intense and very much one story which we’d never done before — we’d always done standalone stories — this was the first time that each story was very much linked as one story. Therefore, the second half of the season, from episode five onwards, it felt like we needed to leave that behind to, figuratively speaking, lay the ghost of Diana and start a new chapter, and it felt really exciting to us.

It felt really lovely and fresh to be able to explore William as the future king that one day will be wearing the crown, and how he has to recalibrate and pick himself up from the devastation of losing his mother at such a young age and recover from it and that meeting Kate at university felt like a beautiful new, fresh start in his life. It therefore felt like a beautiful, fresh new start for the second and final part of our story. In a way, what we were trying to do by reconciling Kate and William at the end of episode nine, was then have the final reconciliation, if you like, between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, in that they would finally be allowed to marry. Those couples coming together felt like a beautiful end to our story. That, in a way, peace is restored to the land.

There’s a great deal of interest in seeing how William and Kate’s relationship is explored. Can you talk about the research that went into getting that right? One of the things that struck me was Kate’s mother’s role in sort of orchestrating their initial connection.

I think it was all very well intended, and she’s obviously a fantastic mother. We knew that there had been a university change, and that things had changed because of where William was going, but I hope it doesn’t come across as a too-cynical portrayal of her imagination. I think she, like a mother, is ambitious for her daughter, and we set that up in the very opening scene of episode seven where she says, “I went for it in my life. I went for it, and I’ve succeeded. And I want the very best for you. You deserve it. You’re special.” And I think that’s a really lovely positive thing for any mother to say to their child, whether it’s a boy or a girl, that you can have what you want in life and that you must go for it. Never underestimate yourself, never let anyone tell you you can’t have what you want. And we know, looking at Kate, there’s such self-determination, and she has such clarity of being. She’s very self-assured, and we all have a lot of respect for her. I just think she’s great, and we wanted to depict that. We wanted to depict a great Kate.

Episode nine, “Hope Street,” heavily delves into the inquisition around Dodi and Diana’s death. How crucial were the results of that investigation to not only clearing up the allegation of blame against the royal family, but in guiding the storylines in this last season overall?

The Stevens inquiry is a really important story that, in many ways, I needed to be reminded of, because I remember at the time of Diana’s death there was such a blaming of the press and paparazzi that felt a bit disproportionate, if I dare say. There’s no doubt that she was hounded, but the truth was that the security protocol for her was lacking, to say the very least. They changed their mind too many times, and that was the biggest mistake they made, coupled with the biggest contributor, which is that the driver was over the limit. I think we undersold that in the episode. He was so over the limit. It’s staggering when you read about it, and we read every book, every letter, every article. When you look at the pieces of that final day of her life, it’s shocking actually. I remember reading a very good account of exactly what happened, and apparently the car went by so fast, it almost left the ground. He was drunk and they weren’t wearing seat belts and it was, in the end, tragic.

We see a bit more of Camilla in the series finale as Prince Charles pleas for his mother to grant him permission to marry her. The way he talks about her and the way she presents feels like a stark contrast to the way Camilla’s been portrayed in the media.

Olivia Williams is a fantastic actress. She was a great choice for Camilla, and she plays it beautifully. She loves Camilla, and she thinks Camilla, as we do, is very earthy and warm and fun and quite real and good for Charles — frankly, very good for him — and that they loved each other. I think that in the past, particularly after Diana’s death, the press were quite cruel to her and cruel about her. There felt like a conspicuous sort of not wanting to accept her and a brittle attitude towards her, which I think must’ve been very hard. So I think Peter wanted to illustrate how steadfast she’d been and how she hadn’t ever tried to create publicity around her. She just quietly waited and was very patient. But after Diana’s death, I think the love for Diana was so vivid and big, the sentiment was, how could you possibly feel a regard for Camilla? Which is hard and unfair, because it’s not her fault.

Later, I remember watching the wedding and I think we all saw a slightly different side to her. I don’t know what that precisely was, but there was something about her. The way she held herself, the way she looked, the way they obviously seemed so in love, and I think that was a moment of acceptance; it was an unspoken acceptance of her. It felt like the landscape changed from there on and you see where we are now, where she’s the Queen and she’s married and he’s the King. It’s very different, but I remember feeling years before I would even know that I was going to work on The Crown that she’d finally been accepted.

In the final episode we also see the Queen grappling with potentially stepping down and allowing Prince Charles to assume the monarchy. What evidence shaped that story arc?

That is very much a moment of Peter Morgan’s, again, dramatist imagination. Of course, she would never have that conversation with anyone else, and she didn’t. We deliberately, very consciously didn’t let that happen because she wouldn’t, that would be disingenuous and doing her a disservice. She would never abdicate. Of course she wouldn’t. Her duty and her pledge was to serve till the day she died, and that’s what she did. She did it beautifully.

But at this time, there had been a couple of abdications that happened in Europe, so it was in the air. It had been talked about. It was being speculated, so what Peter decided to do, then, was to allow that conversation to happen in her. To imagine if she had had that conversation, what direction would it take? And to have this spirit, if you like, of her younger self saying, “No, you must never.” And then the spirit of her middle-year self with Olivia Colman saying, “It’s knackering, and you’re a mother, but you’re also the mother of the nation,” how do you square that? So it was an imagined, internal conversation that she would simply not have with anyone else, because the truth is she would never abdicate. But, again, in the context of the time, knowing that there were these abdications going on, it felt like an interesting thing to unpack and explore, but never with the intention of saying she really was going to. That’s important, and Peter would hate for that to have been the case. That’s why it was an imagined conversation. And I delicately dawn that we all have massive dilemmas at times in life, but you wouldn’t necessarily share those dilemmas with people. There are conversations you might have only with yourself.

What was it like bringing Olivia Colman and Claire Foy back for those moments and having all three of your queens on set together?

It was amazing. In fact, we were there together for the very final moment of episode 10 when the queen walks the length of the hall. We were in York Minster, which was an extraordinary moment, and we only had one minute left to film. If we’d gone over, it would’ve been expensive, frankly, and it was a technically difficult shot to get. I could feel Claire and Olivia behind me watching the monitor, as we anxiously knew we only had one more minute, so we had to get it. And at the end of it, we all just knew we had got it. All the stars had aligned at that moment. It felt very pure and very moving and a sort of tremendous spectacle in so far as the building we were in. It was so magisterial and beautiful and awe-inspiring, but at the same time, it was a very intimate moment with the queen, a very solitary moment. A very still moment.

That felt like a profound note to end on, that there was something very simple and dignified and gracious, not least because, of course, in the time of Peter writing it, we didn’t know that the Queen would die, and of course she did. So it also felt like a beautifully intended tribute to her to say goodbye, goodbye to our show, goodbye to our story and goodbye to her. So at the end of it, suddenly we were all sort of saying, “Oh my God, we got it.” I don’t tend to show my emotions particularly in public, but I was very moved, and Claire and Olivia saw that, and I think they realized what it meant for us all that we’d all been on this journey together from the beginning, and what an extraordinary achievement. We all had a hug and then that was it. It was a wrap, and we all got on the train home or the bus home, but we were all rather quiet, and it was rather solemn, but in a really lovely way.

Peter Morgan told the New York Times, he’s surprised he sustained doing The Crown, saying, “He loves it, but it was overwhelming.” How will you look back on this time and is there a world where you see a spinoff or something else down the line?

It’s been, no doubt, probably the high point of my career. Working with Peter and all the directors and the actors, everyone is their very best. The quality of work is A-list. It’s pedigree. To be able to work alongside them you up your own game. I feel I’ve upped my own game, but I also feel I’ve come into my own as a producer in terms of how I am with cast and crew, and how I feel very protective of the writing and giving people that creative freedom and safeguarding that, and also handling Netflix and making sure that we’re working together as a partnership. I’ve really enjoyed that relationship. So everyone, I feel, has grown and become their best self.

I love The Crown and I will miss it, but I think it suddenly feels like it’s time to move on. Peter can’t write something that’s happening now. He has to have some historical perspective, some distance from it because he’s that sort of writer. Other writers can write about it now, and I’m sure there will be many dramas written that are now and of the moment, but Peter always needs distance to understand it and to deconstruct all the layers, and that’s what makes him a great chronicler of our times. He does it very intuitively as well as being supported by a lot of research. He’s very emotionally smart, and we do talk about doing The Crown again one day. Right now, today, I think we’d say, “Oh, not for a while,” but maybe one day.

How do you think The Crown has changed the TV landscape and do you think there’ll continue to be a space for this type of prestige, long-form content, particularly post-strike?

I hope so. When we started The Crown, Netflix was still, in many ways, in its infancy and the notion of being able to watch all 10 episodes in one go was very alien. Now when you don’t have the opportunity, it feels unimaginable. And this sort of cinematic television, which we, in a rather blasé way, coined it, is an intensity of storytelling. It’s not just the budget. And I would say that there’s room for big prestige television like The Crown or Succession or other big bossy television that’s very epic and full of stars and A-listers. But alongside that, I hope for, and certainly would want to be part of, dramas that are new voices and lower budget and feel very independent and fresh and of the moment. I believe that the television landscape has room for both, and they co-exist and they sit alongside each other really beautifully. Some of the best things I’ve seen over the last few years have been on the BBC and they’ve been written by someone I’ve never heard of before and you go, “That’s powerful.”

The Crown season six is now streaming on Netflix.