When is it time for even a good TV show to give up the ghost?

On the evening of their release, your resident anglophile binge-watched all four of the new episodes of "The Crown."

And we were not amused.

"The Crown," a runaway hit for Netflix since the first series aired in 2016, chronicles the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth II. It is the creation of screenwriter Peter Morgan, who was nominated for an Oscar for writing "The Queen" (2006).

Morgan's been writing about the queen for a long time. "The Queen" was actually the second installment of a trilogy of films about former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the first of which, "The Deal," ran on British television in 2003.

"The Crown" was itself inspired by Morgan's 2013 play "The Audience," which is all about the queen's weekly meetings with her prime ministers.

I don't want to spoil the new season of "The Crown" for anyone, but I might suggest that after 20 years, his take on this topic could be exhausted.

While the series has always taken some liberties with actual history, at times drawing outcries as a result, this last bit takes some real gambles.

And they're all the more glaring because so many of us still remember 1997. And because it uses some devices the series hasn't stooped to employed until now.

For example, there are ghosts.

And you thought Halloween was over.

These ghosts tend to wax a bit philosophical to press a narrative. But hey, why not? It worked for Shakespeare and Dickens.

Of course, Shakespeare was writing centuries after the legendary dust-up between Duncan, Macbeth and Malcolm, and nobody watched Duncan's funeral on cable TV. Since Dickens' Christmas epic was a work of pure fiction, it could spin off in whatever direction his imagination cared to veer.

"The Tudors" creators resorted to this gimmick employed ghosts, too, having the spirits of his several dead wives come back to haunt Henry VIII. Some might call that not so much a device as just deserts.

I mean seriously, how tempting is it to imagine what the ghosts of Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn would say to that Bluebeard?

But again, Henry and company are so far away historically that some of what we think we know about them (and a whole lot of what was in "The Tudors") is speculation anyway; so why not throw in a few ghosts?

And just imagine what other ghostly encounters could we could see in some future tale: Elvis having a chat about rock ‘n’ roll with some hip-hoppers. Lincoln discussing the Constitution and the dangers of division with his more recent successors. Gutenberg lecturing Elon Musk about the uses of mass communication.

Doesn't it seem that even a show or a movie that starts well frequently falters after a while?

By the last season of "Downton Abbey," it almost seemed as if the writers were trying to quickly tie up all the loose ends. Who would Lady Mary end up with? Would Lady Edith end up with anyone? Would they save the estate?

You might keep watching to find out, and because by that time you're invested in the characters. But it just doesn't have the same zip that got you interested in the first place.

That being said, when the last four episodes drop in a few weeks, I'll be watching "The Crown" anyway — even if it has jumped the shark.

Why?

This time I can't say it's to see how the story ends; we pretty much know that.

But for those four hours of indulgence in the royals' drama, I won't be thinking about the political soap opera haunting our own country.

Tamela Baker is a Herald-Mail feature writer.

More Tammy: Want to finish your holiday gift list and do some local good? Here's a simple challenge

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Mail: 'The Crown's final season might come back to haunt its creators