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

[Denville]

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

Im not upset about it.. I gather from what I've read that its probably about 60% off beam but i kind of expect that...

 

[Prinsara]

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 .

There is foreshadowing (which the show milks as a matter of course) and there is clumsy, badly-done foreshadowing, which this was. I have no idea if Andrew was as bad or as worrying as his modern self at the time of the Falklands, but I'm not taking Morgan as a documentary on it, particularly when this was only done as an appeasement. If he hadn't made the sort of unequivocal condemnation of Andrew that he did — even divorcing the Queen from him supposedly being her favorite — he would have faced very inconvenient outrage for the entire show.

The RF are upset because this is not a tabloid article; it's the most expensive program ever made. It has heft. It has reach. It has worldwide positive critical reviews. It's not badly-acted or as a drama, just possibly harmful to the people involved.

 

[evolvingdoors]

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.....

Maybe it's from point of view, but most of the attacks I have seen on Charles and Camilla in recent two years come from the Harry and Meghan fan base, and those who generally support them because they feel Meghan has been treated unfairly and was not protected by the royal family. This has surged up Diana (which Harry and Meghan has very kindly helped perpetuate ) and her treatment.
Which is funny because Harry himself has once spoken very highly of Camilla and that they all love her.

 

[Alison H]

Whilst we don't know what went on behind the scenes, Andrew was a big national hero at the time of the Falklands. It was very, very big news when he came home. Crowds of screaming girls used to go to his public engagements, as if he were the lead singer of the latest boy band.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Now that I've watched a few more episodes, I believe I can give this season a bit more of a favorable review. Discounting all the Diana/Charles saga which I believe was overblown to insinuate bad prince/good princess, once the season got into actually focusing on other subjects such as Thatcher's "Iron Lady" role and its effects on Britain and the Commonwealth's stance on apartheid, it actually got interesting.

I especially thought the episode centering around Michael Fagan was well done as it delved into just what upset the man so seriously that he ended up sitting on the Queen's bed talking with her.

One more episode and I've completed the season. ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/arts/television/the-crown-history-season-4-netflix.html

Oh my! The Fagan story was made up! This is what is wrong with this series, the inaccuracies! Please read the NYT article which corrects the historical inaccuracies in each episode.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Have only watched the first two episodes and doubt I will watch anymore. The production values are wonderful, Olivia Colman is much better in this series, Charles and Phillip I find painful to watch, not acted very well. Gillian Anderson is a wonderful actress. But if I have to see Helena Bonham Carter for another instant, she gets far too much screen time.
And, They just make it so sad. If you watch the real engagement interview of Diana and Charles, their body language was very loving.
Also, although I do believe the young woman playing Diana has done a really wonderful job, her voice is perfect, she overdoes the mannerisms, the clothes are very good, she just isn't convincing. Say what you want about Diana's character, but from the very beginning Diana was luminous and charismatic and graceful. I guess it is always impossible to capture the allure of such women, Marilyn, P.Grace, etc.

 

[Betsypaige]

There is foreshadowing (which the show milks as a matter of course) and there is clumsy, badly-done foreshadowing, which this was. I have no idea if Andrew was as bad or as worrying as his modern self at the time of the Falklands, but I'm not taking Morgan as a documentary on it, particularly when this was only done as an appeasement. If he hadn't made the sort of unequivocal condemnation of Andrew that he did — even divorcing the Queen from him supposedly being her favorite — he would have faced very inconvenient outrage for the entire show.

The RF are upset because this is not a tabloid article; it's the most expensive program ever made. It has heft. It has reach. It has worldwide positive critical reviews. It's not badly-acted or as a drama, just possibly harmful to the people involved.

They should be upset.. Morgan doesn’t care about the truth, he cares about his version of it; if it hurts people, that’s their problem. I’m livid.

 

[Osipi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/arts/television/the-crown-history-season-4-netflix.html

Oh my! The Fagan story was made up! This is what is wrong with this series, the inaccuracies! Please read the NYT article which corrects the historical inaccuracies in each episode.

The Fagan story may have been fictionalized in order to draw it out for an entire episode but the point is that they actually focused on something that, at the time, was deeply affecting the British people and used Fagan to illustrate that.

I believe it would have made for a far better program if the writers had stuck to the title "The Crown" and focused on the life and times that surrounded the British royal family as representatives of the crown rather than focusing on their personal lives so much. I just keep thinking back to the first season and episodes and the wonderful job John Lithgow did in portraying Winston Churchill.

As the series evolved, it turned more into a family soap opera where the foibles, scandals and the mistakes took precedence over presenting the meat and potatoes of what "The Crown" actually represented at the time.

 

[Betsypaige]

Maybe it's from point of view, but most of the attacks I have seen on Charles and Camilla in recent two years come from the Harry and Meghan fan base, and those who generally support them because they feel Meghan has been treated unfairly and was not protected by the royal family. This has surged up Diana (which Harry and Meghan has very kindly helped perpetuate ) and her treatment.
Which is funny because Harry himself has once spoken very highly of Camilla and that they all love her.

The attacks I’ve seen have been in Twitter, and for me it has nor been limited to H and M stans, but those who adored Diana. There are a lot of people out there who think Charles, Camilla and the BRF are vile creatures. Of course, the on-line community is a drop in the bucket compared to the general public - I don’t think people on social media necessarily represent the public as a whole. I think angry people are the ones who reaction tweet most often, the same way it’s angry people who most often call in to radio talk shows. People who hate Charles/Camilla will want to express their feelings, especially in reaction to positive tweets. Those who already love them or feel positive about them won’t necessarily feel that same urge to express themselves. Hence reaction on social media is going to be unbalanced - in favor of the haters

 

[AC21091968]

The attacks I’ve seen have been in Twitter, and for me it has nor been limited to H and M stans, but those who adored Diana. There are a lot of people out there who think Charles, Camilla and the BRF are vile creatures. Of course, the on-line community is a drop in the bucket compared to the general public - I don’t think people on social media necessarily represent the public as a whole. I think angry people are the ones who reaction tweet most often, the same way it’s angry people who most often call in to radio talk shows. People who hate Charles/Camilla will want to express their feelings, especially in reaction to positive tweets. Those who already love them or feel positive about them won’t necessarily feel that same urge to express themselves. Hence reaction on social media is going to be unbalanced - in favor of the haters

Exactly, I read a lot of republican/anti-monarchist tweet under major news account, some of them let's face it are from the Sussex Squad or Diana superfans. They may make the most noises, but they do not reflect British public view.

Here is a screenshot of a viewer's letter to the Telegraph editor. I know that The Telegraph on most occasion are pro-monarchy and right-leaning libertarian.

Telegraph Letters @LettersDesk
The definitive critique #TheCrown
11:40 PM · Nov 18, 2020·Twitter Web App​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329041752108437516

 

[Durham]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/arts/television/the-crown-history-season-4-netflix.html

Oh my! The Fagan story was made up! This is what is wrong with this series, the inaccuracies! Please read the NYT article which corrects the historical inaccuracies in each episode.

Fagan was unemployed at the time, along with three million others. Mass unemployment was one of the consequences of the Thatcher government's economic policies. It was quite deliberate.

This does not excuse the inacurracies of the episode of course.

 

[Prinsara]

Whilst we don't know what went on behind the scenes, Andrew was a big national hero at the time of the Falklands. It was very, very big news when he came home. Crowds of screaming girls used to go to his public engagements, as if he were the lead singer of the latest boy band.

I swear that I heard a terrible, teenybopper song written about "Andy", from sometime in the 70's, but I just can't remember the proper context or the YouTube video.

 

[Betsypaige]

Exactly, I read a lot of republican/anti-monarchist tweet under major news account, some of them let's face it are from the Sussex Squad or Diana superfans. They may make the most noises, but they do not reflect British public view.

Here is a screenshot of a viewer's letter to the Telegraph editor. I know that The Telegraph on most occasion are pro-monarchy and right-leaning libertarian.

Telegraph Letters @LettersDesk
The definitive critique #TheCrown
11:40 PM · Nov 18, 2020·Twitter Web App​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329041752108437516

This letter was clearly anti-Charles - he’s being extremely sarcastic. I have no idea why they published this.

 

[Durham]

It's good old fashioned silly British humour. Maybe it doesn't travel well but it's really not anti the P of W at all. Honest.

 

[Osipi]

I actually found the letter hilarious.

 

[Durham]

I believe it would have made for a far better program if the writers had stuck to the title "The Crown" and focused on the life and times that surrounded the British royal family as representatives of the crown rather than focusing on their personal lives so much. I just keep thinking back to the first season and episodes and the wonderful job John Lithgow did in portraying Winston Churchill.

As the series evolved, it turned more into a family soap opera where the foibles, scandals and the mistakes took precedence over presenting the meat and potatoes of what "The Crown" actually represented at the time.

Yes I agree & posted something similar a few days ago. I thought the episode about Michael Shea & CHOGM was far more interesting than interminable melodrama about royal private lives. I was also surprised that very little explanation was given about how Mountbatten came to be in Ireland. Other than a menacing voice trotting out the usual predictable IRA propaganda there was little attempt to explain or provide any context about the troubles.

The 80's were choc a bloc with real drama in the UK. A missed opportunity.

 

[kathia_sophia]

The Fagan story may have been fictionalized in order to draw it out for an entire episode but the point is that they actually focused on something that, at the time, was deeply affecting the British people and used Fagan to illustrate that.

I believe it would have made for a far better program if the writers had stuck to the title "The Crown" and focused on the life and times that surrounded the British royal family as representatives of the crown rather than focusing on their personal lives so much. I just keep thinking back to the first season and episodes and the wonderful job John Lithgow did in portraying Winston Churchill.

As the series evolved, it turned more into a family soap opera where the foibles, scandals and the mistakes took precedence over presenting the meat and potatoes of what "The Crown" actually represented at the time.

I totally agree with you. Well said.


It really transformed into a family soap opera. And if it continues like this, then season 5 and 6 will reach new highs (in a bad sense).


However, seasons 1 and 2 of the Crown remain dear to my heart. I really enjoyed seeing Claire Foy and Matt Smith, and it was my first time seeing them act. They impressed me, along with Vanessa Kirby (except for her height since Princess Margaret was shorter than the Queen, Vanessa played a better Princess Margaret than Helena Bonham Carter).

 

[Betsypaige]

It's good old fashioned silly British humour. Maybe it doesn't travel well but it's really not anti the P of W at all. Honest.

I definitely get British humor - I adore it! I thought the letter writer was anti-Charles because it seemed he was poking fun at the criticisms of the show (as if the criticisms are unfair and nit picky). I re-read it and now I can’t believe I took it so seriously...I honestly think it’s hilarious, too. It’s actually just my kind of humor!

 

[Betsypaige]

Yes I agree & posted something similar a few days ago. I thought the episode about Michael Shea & CHOGM was far more interesting than interminable melodrama about royal private lives. I was also surprised that very little explanation was given about how Mountbatten came to be in Ireland. Other than a menacing voice trotting out the usual predictable IRA propaganda there was little attempt to explain or provide any context about the troubles.

The 80's were choc a bloc with real drama in the UK. A missed opportunity.

I suspect Morgan just couldn’t wait to get to the Charles/Diana years and the other seasons were just prologues. Here is where he can really express his POV (the BRF is awful, Charles in particular) and get attention from even people who didn’t watch prior seasons...

 

[Sandy345]

A lot was left out. Mountbatten was upset with Charles because he wanted him to marry his granddaughter Amanda Knatchbull. He was hoping when Amanda came of age, Charles would marry her and she would ultimately be Queen consort and he would be in the bloodlines of future royals. Also Charles had really serious relationships with other women, Davina Sheffield, who looked a lot like Diana, was a serious contender until her ex went to the newspapers. The ill fated Lady Tryon was also left out. And early on Princess Margaret did get along with Diana--in the Crown, she is very dismissive of her.

 

[AC21091968]

I swear that I heard a terrible, teenybopper song written about "Andy", from sometime in the 70's, but I just can't remember the proper context or the YouTube video.

From this video on Queen Elizabeth II's children (starting from 16:44 to 16:55), apparently Prince Andrew was serenaded by a soppy pop song called "Andy". This pop song was sung by Coleen Nolan (in solo).

She is a member of The Nolan Sisters (later The Nolans), an Anglo-Irish pop girl group of singing sisters. Their biggest hit is I'm In the Mood for Dancing

Here is the link to the song, Andy:

Coleen Nolan is now a regular panelist on Loose Women

 

[Prinsara]

There's a lot of recursive, reductionist, "let's all foreshadow until we're sick" in this show. So Andrew was always like he is now, Margaret never liked Diana, etc. To be fair, it's a huge and growing cast and very hard to do changing narratives for everyone, but someone like Edward will almost undoubtedly not get the benefit of his maturity.

 

[Prinsara]

From this video on Queen Elizabeth II's children (starting from 16:44 to 16:55), apparently Prince Andrew was serenaded by a soppy pop song called "Andy". This pop song was sung by Coleen Nolan (in solo).

She is a member of The Nolan Sisters (later The Nolans), an Anglo-Irish pop girl group of singing sisters. Their biggest hit is I'm In the Mood for Dancing

Here is the link to the song, Andy:

Coleen Nolan is now a regular panelist on Loose Women

"All the world loves you."

Believe it or not, that's not the video where I heard it! (There was a record store involved in mine.). Which means this song has spread! Gah!

But thank you for finding it, though I'm sure Ms Nolan would prefer to have done this anonymously at this point.

 

[Prinsara]

And the Prime Minister Morgan just decided to skip (despite him having brought Maggie to power with a huge amount of drama).

Again, time limits and I've always considered him a complete fool, but that he didn't even warrant so much as a "Poor Mr Callaghan" line — I've now wound up utterly indignant on his behalf.

How To Kill One's Political Career In Under Three Minutes, btw (Don't Mention The Swimming):

"Crisis? What crisis?"

Not sure if he got the same non-extant treatment in The Audience (I suspect so), and we already saw John Major (though I'm not sure he had lines), but I'd still be interested to see if Morgan could completely ditch him for Tony Blair.

 

[Betsypaige]

From this video on Queen Elizabeth II's children (starting from 16:44 to 16:55), apparently Prince Andrew was serenaded by a soppy pop song called "Andy". This pop song was sung by Coleen Nolan (in solo).

She is a member of The Nolan Sisters (later The Nolans), an Anglo-Irish pop girl group of singing sisters. Their biggest hit is I'm In the Mood for Dancing

Here is the link to the song, Andy:

Coleen Nolan is now a regular panelist on Loose Women

That song is just...........

There's a lot of recursive, reductionist, "let's all foreshadow until we're sick" in this show. So Andrew was always like he is now, Margaret never liked Diana, etc. To be fair, it's a huge and growing cast and very hard to do changing narratives for everyone, but someone like Edward will almost undoubtedly not get the benefit of his maturity.

Because they're trying to tell too many stories, and they don't care to take personal development into account. It's just easier for them to make the BRF one-dimensional (and pretty much all bad).

 

[Prinsara]

Thanks to proper song credits, I found out where I'd heard it! — 23:43

 

[AC21091968]

More inaccuracies in The Crown, this time on Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919–1986) and Katherine Bowes-Lyon (1926–2014), The Queen and Princess Margaret's maternal first cousins.

In The Crown, Princess Margaret is appalled to discover that the sisters are alive. She confronts the Queen Mother, who states that the women were placed in the institution amid fears that evidence of mental instability in the Royal Family could threaten the security of their claim to the throne. She says in the episode, ‘Their illness, their idiocy and imbecility, would make people question the integrity of the bloodline. Can you imagine the headlines if it were to get out?’ She goes on: ‘The hereditary principle already hangs by such a precarious thread… Throw in mental illness, and it’s over.’

It’s worth noting, however, that this conversation is completely imagined by the series’ creators. It’s thought that the Queen Mother was in fact unaware of Nerissa and Katherine’s situation until 1982, when – upon learning where they were – she is said to have sent the sisters a check to pay for sweets. Moreover, because the women were committed almost five years after the abdication of Edward VIII, it seems unlikely that the decision was taken in reaction to the family’s close new ties to the throne.

Behind The Crown: The true story of the Queen’s cousins, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon
The subject of episode seven of the new series of The Crown, Princess Margaret is shocked to discover of the existence of the two relations – confined to a mental hospital and written out of family life
https://www.tatler.com/article/real...es-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4

The real story of Katherine and Nerissa: The Queen’s secret cousins who were institutionalised
The sisters are discovered by Princess Margaret in The Crown
https://thetab.com/uk/2020/11/17/queen-cousins-the-crown-netflix-katherine-nerissa-182736

 

[Claire]

My neighbor was horrified by the Nerissa and Katherine Bowes Lyon episode. Her grandfather's brother was similarly placed in a government care facility on the advice of the then health service - before NHS. It was what was done. They were told that it was better for them and they could get 24 hrs care and treatment. Of course 1940's care and treatment doesn't look good now - but they really thought that they were doing what was best. But they did visit and take gifts over.
She was really applaud by the purity of the bloodline thing, especially as they muddled it with Margaret's and Diana's mental issues.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Urgh I'm sorry but the actress who plays Diana drives me nuts. She looks nothing like Diana they just slapped a blonde wig on some random actress. And she seems to be under the delusion she looks like Diana. I don't believe people "fainted" when they saw her mother because she looked so much like Diana. I want to see a picture of the woman.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...orrin-looked-like-Princess-Diana-toddler.html

 

[Betsypaige]

More inaccuracies in The Crown, this time on Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919–1986) and Katherine Bowes-Lyon (1926–2014), The Queen and Princess Margaret's maternal first cousins.

Behind The Crown: The true story of the Queen’s cousins, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon
The subject of episode seven of the new series of The Crown, Princess Margaret is shocked to discover of the existence of the two relations – confined to a mental hospital and written out of family life
https://www.tatler.com/article/real...es-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4

The real story of Katherine and Nerissa: The Queen’s secret cousins who were institutionalised
The sisters are discovered by Princess Margaret in The Crown
https://thetab.com/uk/2020/11/17/queen-cousins-the-crown-netflix-katherine-nerissa-182736

Wow, Peter Morgan’s liberties with REAL people is horrifying. It sounds like he’s demonizing the Queen Mother - by making things up, no less; that’s unforgivable - everything is unforgivable to me. Apparently the BRF is fair game for Morgan as long as it creates shock and drama and gets people talking. Now people are going to believe this episode and believe this about QM...god, I’m furious.