Conflicted Consorts: Prince Albert and Prince Philip's Crisis of Masculinity as Presented in Victoria and The Crown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores how ITV’s Victoria (2016 - ) and Netflix’s The Crown (2016 - ) present Prince Albert and Prince Philip as feeling conflicted in their position of royal consort, a role more commonly occupied by a woman, due to their preconceived ideas of masculinity. It looks into the historical background of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1840 – 1861) and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (1921 - ). Albert and Philip both married into the British royal family and became the consorts of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, respectively. The essay also discusses biopics, their credibility, and how the biopic series Victoria and The Crown showcase the public and private lives of these royals in a credible way and portray the princes’ masculinity crises in their roles as consorts. \nMasculinity is learned by children through their society’s rules of behavior, and Prince Albert and Prince Philip grew up in a hegemonic masculine society that taught them that the husband should be the provider of the family. Victoria shows how this drives Albert to struggle with his image as a man since his wife is richer and more powerful than he, and has to solve problems on behalf of both of them. Albert slowly grows to resent his position and becomes cold and distant towards his wife and children. The Crown shows how Philip struggles with becoming the less powerful party in his marriage when Elizabeth becomes queen and he loses his naval career and his preferred home, while also learning that his children will not carry his name. He gradually becomes bitter and spiteful towards his wife and oldest son. Both princes show signs of having disassociated themselves from behavior stereotypically considered feminine, such as being scared and admitting to shortcomings, and instead they act aggressively towards their spouse and family.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".