"The Crown" (2016-Present) - Netflix Drama Series on Queen Elizabeth II

[AC21091968]

The debate was on Tuesday 17th November. After looking at the ITV website, I think I found the link to the full Good Morning Britain episode. It's quite long and you might have to skip through some UK politics. Unfortunately, you need to have an ITV account and be in the UK (or UK's VPN)
https://www.itv.com/hub/good-morning-britain/2a3211a2919

 

[Betsypaige]

The debate was on Tuesday 17th November. After looking at the ITV website, I think I found the link to the full Good Morning Britain episode. It's quite long and you might have to skip through some UK politics. Unfortunately, you need to have an ITV account and be in the UK (or UK's VPN)
https://www.itv.com/hub/good-morning-britain/2a3211a2919

Oh, I’m neither, lol. Thank you, though!

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm confused - now OK magazine has an article up about how the royals are demanding Harry give back the money to Netflix because of their connection with the Crown. I doubt the story is true but why would Netflix be at fault? I thought the BBC made the series and Netflix just aired it in the US well after it aired in the UK.

My understanding is that The Crown is a "Netflix Original", and not produced by BBC.

 

[yukari]

It's from the Sun, but I think it's worth sharing just for a reason that it made me laugh.

PROWLER HITS OUT Buckingham Palace prowler blasts Netflix’s The Crown for making him ‘too ugly’

“I was taken aback when I saw Brooke playing me. They could have surely found someone who looks a bit like me. I’m actually better looking and he seems totally charmless.”

Man, I like this guy ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm confused - now OK magazine has an article up about how the royals are demanding Harry give back the money to Netflix because of their connection with the Crown. I doubt the story is true but why would Netflix be at fault? I thought the BBC made the series and Netflix just aired it in the US well after it aired in the UK.

This is a Netflix production and aired all round the world at the exact same time. It is not available to anyone who doesn't have a Netflix account until such time as Netflix releases it on DVD or other media.

 

[QueenEmpath]

Glad to be back after a long. Um, didn't it feel shady that Netflix released the season 4 exactly one day after Prince Charles's birthday

 

[Betsypaige]

I know people hate DM, but Richard Kay knocked it out of the park on this one, and it’s well worth reading.

Instead, almost from the moment the credits roll in episode one, we are plunged into a world where all the characters are petty, unpleasant, spiteful and disrespectful. And that’s just the Royal Family.

Rather than crackling with the real-life dramas that dominated the decade, the script is at times a grotesque parody of actual events, and I would argue that most viewers have already stopped believing in it by episode two.

Why does that matter? After all, it is a drama series, not a documentary.

It seems to matter to The Crown’s creator, Peter Morgan, who has said that the team does its ‘very, very best to get it right’, while also admitting that he has had to ‘conflate’ incidents. Tellingly, he added: ‘Sometimes you have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8959475/RICHARD-KAY-Crown-lost-plot.html



I loathe Morgan. These are real people, real relationships. How dare Morgan invent his version of the truth when it comes to Charles’ relationship with his beloved Uncle Dickie? That’s indecent. I’ve more sympathy for Diana now than I ever have, mostly because I was a fan of Charles and I thought she was portrayed as a saint, he a villain. At least biographers and media have & continue to set things straight. Morgan is Republican, so to him the BRF are awful people who destroyed Diana. What he’s saying is that the truth isn’t good or dramatic enough for him, so he’ll just invent stuff that expresses what he sees as the truth. Problem is, what he sees as the truth is really just his warped opinion.

 

[Denville]

If he's a republican, then I can't quite see why he woudl sympathise any more with Diana than with the RF. She is a member of a titled family, and while she did do damage to the RF, she always claimed that she didn't want or mean to tarnish the monarchy....

 

[bertie5252003]

Finished the 4 th .. for me the star of the show was Gillian Anderson she mad me feel sorry for the MT a rather unusual feeling there I have to say.Their Charles made Charles look worse but all in all it was really beautifully done stories told maybe not more than fiction but gosh ! its a good watch

 

[caethi]

Anderson's portrayal of MT improves with each episode, although overall she is rather stiff (even if MT was stiff, it's hard to pull off as an actor and not look wooden or contrived). Episode 4 was interesting, but painful to watch the interaction between the Queen and her adult children. Overall, it is beginning to play like a music video, with lots of montages. Lazy writing, if you ask me. I really doubt that much of it has any accuracy, although the overall themes may be accurate.

 

[Betsypaige]

Hugo Vickers has always been pretty much my favorite Royal historian (kind of tied with Robert Lacey until now, lol), and this seals it - NOT just this part, but the entire article.

Royal expert Hugo Vickers, who has written about Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mother, has enjoyed discrediting The Crown’s storylines so much that he’s penned an entire book (and e-book devoted to the current season) fact-checking the series. But in a phone call with Vanity Fair Monday, Vickers sounded genuinely aggrieved by The Crown’s treatment of Charles this time around.

“They always liked to portray him as a kind of wimp. This time, though, he’s not only portrayed as a wimp, but also as a very angry, unpleasant person yelling at his wife.…Some of the looks he gives Diana, you begin to wonder whether in the next season we’re going to catch him conspiring to have her murdered in a tunnel in Paris, or something ghastly,” Vickers said. “I wouldn’t put it past them [on The Crown]…it’s really, really disgraceful what they’ve done to him in this season.”

After a digression, Vickers harped again on The Crown’s Charles: “I mean, does he ever do any work? Does he ever do an engagement? Does he ever actually achieve anything? No, they didn’t show a single thing that he does.”

In reality, Vickers said, “Prince Charles is very dedicated, and he’s done everything that he’s been asked to do all his life. He’s parachuted in the sea [as colonel-in-chief of the Parachute Regiment], gone into the Navy. He’s lived with crofters on funny little islands up in Scotland. He’s gone on government departments. He’s traveled around the Commonwealth. He set up the Prince’s Trust.”

There's also good stuff from Sally Bedell Smith, including - but not all - this section:

“Charles and Camilla have come a long way with all their hard work, especially during the coronavirus pandemic,” said Bedell Smith. “Camilla, in particular, has transformed herself from a woman scorned to someone widely admired for her charitable work and respected for assuming her royal role with a genuine commitment. People have come to regard her as a good egg, and to accept the idea of her being queen consort. Because viewers believe incorrectly that The Crown is true, this season in particular could undo all the good feelings about Charles and Camilla and resurrect the hostility from two decades ago. It will also reinforce the false mythology that Diana was the sainted victim.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/the-crown-season-4-prince-charles

 

[kathia_sophia]

I haven't watch season 4 yet. But it seems a bit controversial. For me the best seasons are 1 and 2. I didn't enjoy season 3 because of Olivia Colman's portrayal of the Queen (Claire Foy was more human, while Olivia looked more like a robot, a human without emotions).


I guess it gets tricky once they get close to our timeline. People are still alive, and most remember Diana. Well, I was a child when she died. But my mother and others of my mother's age absolutely loved her. Most people thought of her as the victim in the marriage with the Prince of Wales. But more than 20 years passed since, and people started to see the Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall with different eyes. However, it seems that this long effort is going down the drain. Let's hope people will distinguish between reality vs fiction (but nowadays, and perhaps, before, people always believe in what they see and hear in tv shows and gossip, which is unfortunate).

 

[tommy100]

I've noticed a trend (just my unexpert opinion) that a lot of tv shows start of really really good then, almost as if the success has got them thinking everything they do is amazing and brilliant, they start to sink. Its clear, given how they started out by trying to match jewellery, dresses etc so carefully in season 1&2 and now almost anything goes (can't even get the right hats and other bits with the right Guards uniform on HM) that the attention to detail has been sacrificed over getting the new season out quickly and for maximum dramatic impact over accuracy.
Sad, because anyone with half a brain would have known that the closer you get to "recent events" the more important accuracy is.

I do wonder about how it is being received, Netflix never publishes viewing figures for shows so we'll never know and of course the fact it can be binged watched (as I and many others did) means you will still get the viewing figures for people who watch it all then decide it was rubbish (whereas if it was broadcast weekly on TV people would stop bothering to commit). The original plan was for 6 series, then it got cut to 5 and now it is back to 6...apparently Morgan felt “As we started to discuss the storylines for Series 5, it soon became clear that in order to do justice to the richness and complexity of the story we should go back to the original plan and do six seasons.” How someone who's just thrown so much (and missed so much out) of one season can say that about a relatively quiet 2000 onwards period really gets me. Maybe after all we'll end up back to 5 being the last or we'll be subjected to horribly stereotyped "Middleclass middletons" and Tony Blair being so wonderful and all the other cliches that would make it predictable.

 

[Betsypaige]

Tommy, it's being very well received by critics here in the States, which makes me want to bang my head against the wall. It's clear critics and most of the audience has NO idea about the history of the BRF, and they are taking the on-air version as essentially the truth (perhaps with some dramatic license thrown in).

Fabulous.....I wonder what other incidents Morgan will fabricate; I wonder who else he will commit character assassination on.

 

[AC21091968]

Josh O'Connor and Emma Corrin did an interview with Katherine Feeney, ABC Radio Brisbane presenter focusing on the 1983 tour of Australia in the "Terra Nullius" episode 6 of Season 4.

Josh O'Connor himself is a Republican and has criticised the concept of monarchy.

Josh O'Connor plays the Prince of Wales in Netflix's blockbuster royal drama The Crown with a stoop meant to signify the weight of the world on his character's shoulders.

"He's going to inherit the throne," O'Connor told ABC Radio Brisbane presenter Katherine Feeney.

"And in order for that to happen, in order for his life to begin to take meaning, he has to wait for his mother to die.

"That's a kind of concept that's pretty screwed up."

'I'm a republican': O'Connor
Yet, portraying the next in line to the British throne, the same throne occupied by the present Queen, has endeared the real-life royal family to the young English actor's heart.

"I'm a republican," he said, speaking ahead of the launch of the latest season.

"But I love the royal family as individuals, and the things they represent.

"I think ultimately I watch, because I'm like, 'Give me the drama'."

In The Crown's script, Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke (played by Richard Roxburgh) hoped that the Charles & Diana's Australian tour could lead a republican movement.

At least that's the brutal assessment of Australian prime minister Bob Hawke, played by Richard Roxburgh, in the episode Terra Nullius, which follows the relatively newly wed Charles and Diana on their 1983 tour of Australia.

According to the script, Roxburgh's Hawke has been looking forward to this moment, as he believes it could prove an opportunity to stoke the flames of republicanism already burning Down Under.

But then the pair arrive with their bouncing baby boy, Prince William, and despite a rocky start, the tide appears to turn.

"She's a superstar," Roxburgh's Hawke plainly states to O'Connor's Charles, as the pair watch their wives stroll amongst sprinklers on a clipped green lawn.

"No offence."

The episode shows Charles conceding the point, and begrudgingly chalking it up as a win for his future; the couple had been told that this tour was intended to put republicanism to rest, and it appears as though Diana has done it.

It might not be far from the truth.

An editorial in the March 24, 1983, edition of the Canberra Times declared that "even for committed republicans, and for the many migrants who have no special reason for caring for the British Royal Family, this visit has a reassuring significance".

"This time there cannot be any speculation of a Royal Governor-General; Prince Charles is now obviously too close to accession to the throne.

"This means that during this tour the community can enjoy the spectacle, think a little on the value of a Head of State totally removed from government and political life, and generally be rather more relaxed than at any time since 1975 about considering whether now it wants change."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/the-crown-actors-on-depicting-charles-and-diana/12887562

Yes, Bob Hawke did campaigned for an "Yes" vote for the Republican referendum in 1999, but to portray him as an opportunistic and snide person is ridiculous and attack on his character. The Radio Times have mentioned that The Crown did exaggerated his dislike for the monarchy, given the recording did not exist. Bear in mind, Bob Hawke passed away on 16th May 2019, which means the filming took part not long after or even before his death. I am in no way a fan of Bob Hawke, but to portray him as a very dogmatic and crude politician must be insulting to his family or those closed around him.

In The Crown season four, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke (played by Richard Roxburgh) appears on a talk show ahead of his election, and expresses his desire for an Australian head of state, adding that while he respects the Queen, the British royal family are a “different breed”. The character then quips on the Netflix series: “You wouldn’t put a pig in charge of a herd of prime beef cattle, even if it did look good in a twinset and pearls.”

There’s no online archival record of Hawke making those exact remarks, but he did indeed call Prince Charles a “nice enough bloke”.

Hawke’s republican views were well known, and despite the success of Charles and Diana’s tour, his party Labour still reduced Australia’s ties with Britain by, for example, removing the veto power London previously had over state governors, and scrapping the imperial honours system.

Hawke also scrapped God Save the Queen as the nation’s anthem, replacing it with Advance Australia Fair.

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-...australia-tour-charles-diana-real-life-story/

Based on this ABC article, Bob Hawke did not criticise the royal family, but rather the Westminster system of Government.

Hawke said Australians were "foolish to ignore" an increasing cynicism about politics, which he blamed partly on the inadequacy of the Westminster system of government that Australia inherited from Britain.

"I find it inconceivable that a form of government that originated more than 700 years ago in an island off the coast of Europe is necessarily the best form of government for Australia as it moves towards the 21st century," he said.

He insisted he was not arguing for a move to a presidential system — although said he would prefer a republic with a head of state who had ceremonial powers only.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...re-recommended-abolishing-the-states/11203734

 

[UglyAmerican]

Maybe this understanding would come more naturally to a Brit, but I don’t think the show did a good enough job of explaining what exactly Diana was doing wrong. There are several different scenes where people criticize her for being too focused on her individual fame, but none in which anyone spells out what she should have done differently.

She went on the US tour alone, so she wasn’t stealing the spotlight from anyone else. The point of the trip was to make people like her, and they did. Maybe they liked her more than Charles or the Queen, and maybe that’s a problem, but it’s not obvious what she could have done while on that solo tour that would have made people like Charles or the Queen more than they liked her. There are probably answers to those questions, and they were probably explained to Diana plenty of time in real life. But completely leaving that out of the show and portraying it as if Diana were expected to figure it out by magic makes them look worse than they probably actually were.

 

[Sun Lion]

Funny how Josh O'Connor was recently in "The Durrells" which used The Duke of Edinburgh's real-life birthplace - Mon Repos palace on Corfu - for some scenes, and now he's playing Philip's son Charles in this.

Not a big world sometimes.

 

[Claire]

Tommy, it's being very well received by critics here in the States, which makes me want to bang my head against the wall. It's clear critics and most of the audience has NO idea about the history of the BRF, and they are taking the on-air version as essentially the truth (perhaps with some dramatic license thrown in).

Fabulous.....I wonder what other incidents Morgan will fabricate; I wonder who else he will commit character assassination on.

I feel the same way - I am surrounded by work colleagues who see it as much watch material and believe it as gospel. As the portrayal doesn't really go far off the usual tabloid depiction of the characters it is just ingrained deeper and so the lie became the absolute fact.

Has anyone noticed that the Princes Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, Save the Children and hundreds of charities and such are not mentioned - in general besides Diana had the charity work of any of the royals mentioned. Personally I felt that this season had an agenda, hence the additional inclusion of blood sport in many episodes and the many drawn out over melodramatic speeches.
Nobody lives look good under a microscope, especially when they condense their whole life in 4 lines and provide on context and circumstance. It is not only bad writing - it is bad story telling. one dimensional story telling at its worse - as Morton is relying on you to have read the tabloids and go on twitter and fill in the blanks with more lies there. It is nothing short of character assassination.

 

[AC21091968]

Mike Tindall has watched The Crown half-way through Series 3, according to The Good, The Bad & The Rugby podcast with co-hosts Alex Payne and James Haskell. In this short segment, he mentioned that The Crown is a drama series and agree with Alex Payne that the more modern the setting/era, it's going to have more discussion. There were some banter around who will pay Mike Tindall in future series. Mike actually dropped Jason Statham's name in the conversation. He also joked that he's going to be featured in Series 62 (rather than Series 5) . There is quite a lot of joshing and fooling around. ?

Mike Tindall tweeted out this short clip.

mike tindall @miketindall13
Jason Statham all day long right??? No! #Dreaming
7:10 AM · Nov 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329155008886157314

 

[Osipi]

I feel the same way - I am surrounded by work colleagues who see it as much watch material and believe it as gospel. As the portrayal doesn't really go far off the usual tabloid depiction of the characters it is just ingrained deeper and so the lie became the absolute fact.

Has anyone noticed that the Princes Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, Save the Children and hundreds of charities and such are not mentioned - in general besides Diana had the charity work of any of the royals mentioned. Personally I felt that this season had an agenda, hence the additional inclusion of blood sport in many episodes and the many drawn out over melodramatic speeches.
Nobody lives look good under a microscope, especially when they condense their whole life in 4 lines and provide on context and circumstance. It is not only bad writing - it is bad story telling. one dimensional story telling at its worse - as Morton is relying on you to have read the tabloids and go on twitter and fill in the blanks with more lies there. It is nothing short of character assassination.

I was actually surprised that they digressed from the "Diana saga" long enough in season 4 to devote an episode to Michael Fagan. For me, it was one of the redeeming points of the season. Even then, Fagan and focusing a bit on the relationship between the Queen and her Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and actually going into the state of the UK at the time with Thatcher's policies, they still seem to end up being an "add on" or "afterthought" as we returned to "As The Stomach Churned" and the woeful life that was Diana's.

Not only did they completely leave out anything related to the work the British Royal Family does, it seemed to me that they threw Andrew, Anne and Edward in as "fillers" to make the episodes fit into the time frame allotted. One thing they did make a point of showing is to allude that the BRF spends a lot of their time eating. Always lunching, dinners or something to do with feeding their faces.

I'm also in agreement with kathia_sophia's assessment of Olivia Colman's portrayal of the Queen. Throughout season 4, the Queen is always perceived as being a dour faced woman that seemed to be starched into place and her face would crack if she so much as tried to smile. The "real" Queen we're used to seeing has a smile that lights up her face. That is sorely missing.

 

[Claire]

Not only did they completely leave out anything related to the work the British Royal Family does, it seemed to me that they threw Andrew, Anne and Edward in as "fillers" to make the episodes fit into the time frame allotted. One thing they did make a point of showing is to allude that the BRF spends a lot of their time eating. Always lunching, dinners or something to do with feeding their faces.

I think it is ground work for the next season. You need to understand Edward is a twat to understand A royal knockout and the rest of his life as they wish to show it. Same with Andrew, you need to know that he lives for his status and position to understand everything else that they will be showing in the next season. You need to see the route to where he is now. Same with the animosity of Anne towards Diana, later Sarah, later Kate and Meghan. In general a whole establishment that was too aligned to men. They need to establish the characters of all of these so that when the 1992 season comes along they can say it was all character flaws. Overprivileged, misguided fools who are completely out of touch, in juxtaposition to Diana the saint and Charles the pathetic. And so that they can tie it back to their central story.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks much, Claire. Now I feel like I've already seen season 5!

It's not hard to predict how this is going to go and the more seasons there are, the further down in quality this series seems to go. Anyone know when the new season of "The Windsors" is to be released? That show is far more entertaining than "The Crown".

 

[QueenEmpath]

I think it is ground work for the next season. You need to understand Edward is a twat to understand A royal knockout and the rest of his life as they wish to show it. Same with Andrew, you need to know that he lives for his status and position to understand everything else that they will be showing in the next season. You need to see the route to where he is now. Same with the animosity of Anne towards Diana, later Sarah, later Kate and Meghan. In general a whole establishment that was too aligned to men. They need to establish the characters of all of these so that when the 1992 season comes along they can say it was all character flaws. Overprivileged, misguided fools who are completely out of touch, in juxtaposition to Diana the saint and Charles the pathetic. And so that they can tie it back to their central story.

When I saw the episode 'the favourites' my exact thoughts were 'these people' and wow, Thacher's son is a douchbag. Edward was such an idiot, he was clearly bad at studies and only got in Cambridge beacons of his family.

Andrew was so arrogant and cocky and Anna's falling marriage in background.

If you're in a room with British, Danish and Norwagian royalty, you obviously won't go to the British royals first. They are so out of touch and the common people can't really relate to them. Coz they live in their mediaeval la la land

 

[Claire]

And of course, conveniently- Edward, Andrew and Anne are unable to say anything to counter the opinion.


Personally I don't think the three of them give a hoot- their family and friends know the truth and that is what really counts . It is the extended family that will bare the brunt of this - the children and grandchildren.

 

[Betsypaige]

I feel the same way - I am surrounded by work colleagues who see it as much watch material and believe it as gospel. As the portrayal doesn't really go far off the usual tabloid depiction of the characters it is just ingrained deeper and so the lie became the absolute fact.

Has anyone noticed that the Princes Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, Save the Children and hundreds of charities and such are not mentioned - in general besides Diana had the charity work of any of the royals mentioned. Personally I felt that this season had an agenda, hence the additional inclusion of blood sport in many episodes and the many drawn out over melodramatic speeches.
Nobody lives look good under a microscope, especially when they condense their whole life in 4 lines and provide on context and circumstance. It is not only bad writing - it is bad story telling. one dimensional story telling at its worse - as Morton is relying on you to have read the tabloids and go on twitter and fill in the blanks with more lies there. It is nothing short of character assassination.

My mother watches the show, and I’m always - especially with this series - telling her it’s not “fact”. She’s not an issue, though - my mom doesn’t follow the Royals, she doesn’t LOVE Diana and hate Charles. She’s just watching for entertainment; she’ll talk about it while she’s watching it, but that’s about it. It’s more worrisome for people like your work colleagues and others...especially the British public, though I think those who never forgave Charles (and Camilla) don’t want to hear the truth, and those who have come around know the truth. Where it really hurts these two and the BRF is with people who don’t know anything..maybe because they’re too young. It hurts with the American public, but ...really, who cares about us? We have no dog in the show. Oh. I don’t mean it’s not aggravating, but thr British are the ones who count.

I believe either Richard Kay’s or Hugo Vicker’s articles that I posted above mention that Morgan seems to go out of his way NOT to mention any of the good, important things Charles has done (Princes Trust, etc..) or the interesting things he’s done. In other words, he’s a boring, bland, heir who’s also nasty and cruel. I wouldn’t be surprised if this show has also ignored Philip’s contributions - I think reports are that the Queen was furious that they portrayed Philip as having affairs. Morgan’s truth seems to be that the BRF is full of amoral sybarites who are useless...

 

[Betsypaige]

Mike Tindall has watched The Crown half-way through Series 3, according to The Good, The Bad & The Rugby podcast with co-hosts Alex Payne and James Haskell. In this short segment, he mentioned that The Crown is a drama series and agree with Alex Payne that the more modern the setting/era, it's going to have more discussion. There were some banter around who will pay Mike Tindall in future series. Mike actually dropped Jason Statham's name in the conversation. He also joked that he's going to be featured in Series 62 (rather than Series 5) . There is quite a lot of joshing and fooling around. ?

Mike Tindall tweeted out this short clip.

mike tindall @miketindall13
Jason Statham all day long right??? No! #Dreaming
7:10 AM · Nov 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329155008886157314

I’m not a fan of his joking around about this show when it’s causing so much pain to his family ...

 

[Betsypaige]

I think it is ground work for the next season. You need to understand Edward is a twat to understand A royal knockout and the rest of his life as they wish to show it. Same with Andrew, you need to know that he lives for his status and position to understand everything else that they will be showing in the next season. You need to see the route to where he is now. Same with the animosity of Anne towards Diana, later Sarah, later Kate and Meghan. In general a whole establishment that was too aligned to men. They need to establish the characters of all of these so that when the 1992 season comes along they can say it was all character flaws. Overprivileged, misguided fools who are completely out of touch, in juxtaposition to Diana the saint and Charles the pathetic. And so that they can tie it back to their central story.

One of the articles I recently posted mentioned that they tried to foreshadow Andrew’s current problems by saying at some point “you’ll never change” or “if you don’t change..”.....something like that .

 

[Pranter]

I’m not a fan of his joking around about this show when it’s causing so much pain to his family ...

Has the family made a atatement? The media has said (their sources have said) xyz but I dont recall any release from BP et al?

Perhaps the family is not all that focused on a fictional drama they knew would not show them in flattering terms.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Has the family made a atatement? The media has said (their sources have said) xyz but I dont recall any release from BP et al?

Perhaps the family is not all that focused on a fictional drama they knew would not show them in flattering terms.


LaRae

I doubt if they'll say anything, but I think they're probably not happy with it. It seems to be dragging up the War of the Waleses again and arousing the negative feelings towards Charles that many felt back then at the height of the "war." Charles had I think lived down those bad years and was back to "OK and accepted again" him and Camilla but in the last couple of years, I've noticed a resurgence of somewhat negative feeling towards him from some people. Im not sure why, whether the Harry affair has brought Diana back to the forefront.. when some see Harry as "Diana's son who has been cruelly treated by the RF just as Diana was." Or maybe the events of 2017 when it was the 20th anniversary of her death? I'm not sure but I think that there has been a bit of a resurgence and I'm sure that with Charles now close to taking the throne, the RF are a not going to be happy with a show which somewhat unfairly portrays them as useless and Charles as the villain of the peice... who ill treated Diana.....

 

[Pranter]

I doubt if they'll say anything, but I think they're probably not happy with it. It seems to be dragging up the War of the Waleses again and arousing the negative feelings towards Charles that many felt back then at the height of the "war." Charles had I think lived down those bad years and was back to "OK and accepted again" him and Camilla but in the last couple of years, I've noticed a resurgence of somewhat negative feeling towards him from some people. Im not sure why, whether the Harry affair has brought Diana back to the forefront.. when some see Harry as "Diana's son who has been cruelly treated by the RF just as Diana was." Or maybe the events of 2017 when it was the 20th anniversary of her death? I'm not sure but I think that there has been a bit of a resurgence and I'm sure that with Charles now close to taking the throne, the RF are a not going to be happy with a show which somewhat unfairly portrays them as useless and Charles as the villain of the peice... who ill treated Diana.....

I doubt they are happy about the the show, just like they arent happy about various tabloids and badly done documentaries. Its interesting to me how there is so much upset over this series but the same ppl are not upset by the daily tabloid stories. Theres little difference.

Ppl think what they think about the Charles/Diana/Camilla situation and they formed those views long ago.


LaRae