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

[Mirabel]

I finally finished viewing the whole thing.
It was wholly slanted to present Diana as a victim.

Also, i can't imagine Thatcher dissolving in tears over losing her position; it seemed so out of character. (Though it surprisingly made me feel sympathy for her).
(But then, I thought it was horrible the way some people celebrated her death.)

 

[Denville]

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

True I've seen a few Dianas.. None were very good, in terms of acting and most didn't look a bit like her.. but this one is the MOST unlike

 

[Nico]

You have to admit the innuendos in the Diana/Philip confrontation in the last episode are bordeline conspiracy theory ...

 

[AC21091968]

The inaccuracies in portraying the treatment of Nerissa Bowes-Lyon and Katherine Bowes-Lyon kind of reminds me the inaccuracies in The Lost Prince produced by the BBC in 2003, where the Royal Family were exaggerated to be more cruel and cold-hearted than reality. I'm not saying that the Royal Family handled the situation perfectly. I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies that may have been used for the sake of the production director's agenda or audience viewership.

The Lost Prince made the audience think that Prince John (youngest child of George V and Queen Mary), Lala Bill (Prince John's nanny) and the staff were forced to live in Wood Farm due to the trauma or austere conditions of WWI. Whilst that could be one of the many possibilities, the main reason was the increased severity and frequency of his epileptic seizures. The film also shown Prince John lived in complete isolation with Lala Bill and royal staff. In reality, Queen Mary actually broke royal practice to allow local children to visit and play with Prince John.

This documentary below has more revelation on Prince John and pointed out more "fake scenes" in The Lost Prince.

I could go on further, but we could probably discuss on fiction vs. fact in this BBC film on The Lost Prince thread and Prince John in his own thread under British Royal History.

 

[MARG]

I have not watched it so I find myself confused. QEQM was the second to youngest child of 9 or so. That being the case, how is it that all the shame and blame of her cousins situation was the BRF fault and not the parents or even the head of the family?

 

[tommy100]

Because "the Queen's slightly distant family did the best they could at the time with illness that was little understood" is less exciting than "Queen's mother has family locked away"

 

[evolvingdoors]

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

Which is why I made the distinction of "most" and not "all"

 

[AC21091968]

The Mail on Sunday has launched a campaign to demand Netflix to have a disclaimer that some truths have been twisted. Those backing the call for a disclaim include

• Lady Glenconner (Princess Margaret's lady-in-waiting who is also depicted in The Crown)
• Julian Fellowes (Creator of Downton Abbey, Conservative Peer in the House of Lords)
• Karen Bradley (Former Culture Secretary and Conservative MP of Staffordshire Moorlands)
• General Sir Richard Dannatt (Former head of the British Army)

The Crown should come with a disclaimer that it is fiction NOT fact: Politicians, experts and friends of royals back calls for Netflix to warn viewers that show twists the truth
Politicians, royal experts & friend of Prince Charles calling for Netflix disclaimer
Believe streaming outlet should warn viewers The Crown scenes are fictional
Comes Princess Diana’s brother said he felt uneasy watching Diana's depiction

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ds-royals-calls-Crown-fiction-disclaimer.html

 

[Betsypaige]

The Mail on Sunday has launched a campaign to demand Netflix to have a disclaimer that some truths have been twisted. Those backing the call for a disclaim include

• Lady Glenconner (Princess Margaret's lady-in-waiting who is also depicted in The Crown)
• Julian Fellowes (Creator of Downton Abbey, Conservative Peer in the House of Lords)
• Karen Bradley (Former Culture Secretary and Conservative MP of Staffordshire Moorlands)
• General Sir Richard Dannatt (Former head of the British Army)

The Crown should come with a disclaimer that it is fiction NOT fact: Politicians, experts and friends of royals back calls for Netflix to warn viewers that show twists the truth
Politicians, royal experts & friend of Prince Charles calling for Netflix disclaimer
Believe streaming outlet should warn viewers The Crown scenes are fictional
Comes Princess Diana’s brother said he felt uneasy watching Diana's depiction

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ds-royals-calls-Crown-fiction-disclaimer.html

This is a fantastic article - I’m so glad that people aren’t letting this go given that the BRF can’t defend themselves. I could have posted many excerpts, but I chose this one because of Morgan’s shocking, outrageous comment and subsequent hiring of a flunky historian.

Some of The Crown's 'mistakes' are trivial, some are born of ignorance or careless research. But to me, many feel vindictive.

In this fourth series, Morgan's animus is directed against Prince Charles.

'Strip the bark off him,' he told one historian whom he was interviewing as a possible consultant on the series.

She declined the position and he sought assistants more amenable to his view about the Monarchy.

I'm not the only person to be dismayed by the poison running through the series. Penny Junor, a distinguished Royal biographer, most recently of the Duchess of Cornwall, wrote in this newspaper last weekend that the Royals in The Crown 'are wild, cruel distortions'. I agree.

Sally Bedell Smith, the leading American Royal biographer, believes the new series includes 'extreme and egregious misrepresentation'.

Hugo Vickers, pre-eminent Royal historian, concludes that the latest series 'is yet more subtly divisive than earlier seasons'.

 

[caethi]

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.

The cousins were institutionalized, but the bloodline discussion was fictionalized.


The series creator and writers seem to have major dislike for the BRF and the monarchy. The lack of characterizing any member of the family as having any redeeming features is beginning to really annoy me. Good writing should show complexity and tension in characters; in this series the characters are mostly one-dimensional.



It is not history, it is drama. Many who don't know any better will take it as fact.

 

[Sandy345]

I have read many Junor books and she is heavily biased towards Charles and Camilla. No surprises she would complain. She and Charles and Camilla are personal friends and she vacationed with Camilla. Bedell Smith also is not a Diana fan. So there are different points of view perhaps.

I saw few complaints about two egregious scenes in the Crown: John Kennedy being a wife abuser of his wife Jackie; and how Mountbatten and the Queen Mother conspired against Camilla (in truth, they were wary of each other). There were others as well.

 

[ashelen]

Last night I finished to watch all the season, it is entertaining but it is so many things and characters left behind, no Fergie, no the kids from Margrethe, and so many things we do not know if it is true or fiction. Can't imagine who will play Meghan in the future , will be herself? they look such a dysfunctional family.

 

[Sandy345]

Fergie was also a friend of Diana's (at first) and it's a shame they had no scenes together (perhaps in the next season though).

 

[caethi]

I have read many Junor books and she is heavily biased towards Charles and Camilla. No surprises she would complain. She and Charles and Camilla are personal friends and she vacationed with Camilla. Bedell Smith also is not a Diana fan. So there are different points of view perhaps..

Very true. She is incredibly biased. In this, however, I agree with her (and I have great sympathy for the struggles of the real-life Diana). I can hardly bear to watch the character of Charles being portrayed as an immature, self-centered, tortured man. The real-life Charles may have these traits, but it is unlikely that this is the full measure of the man, as is depicted in the series.

 

[Nico]

I have read many Junor books and she is heavily biased towards Charles and Camilla. No surprises she would complain. She and Charles and Camilla are personal friends and she vacationed with Camilla. Bedell Smith also is not a Diana fan. So there are different points of view perhaps.

Because you think Diana's portrayal in "the Crown" is particularly favourable ?
Between puking in the toilets and a catasrophic hairdo, there's not so much left. It's a caricature, very much like the others ...

 

[Betsypaige]

Because you think Diana's portrayal in "the Crown" is particularly favourable ?
Between puking in the toilets and a catasrophic hairdo, there's not so much left. It's a caricature, very much like the others ...

From what I've read, it's sure as heck far more sympathetic than how they portrayed Charles or anyone else.....

This is not directed to you, but in general:

I don't give a darn if Sally Bedell Smith is biased towards Charles and Camilla- heaven knows we've had to deal with plenty of writers who were biased against them (and towards Diana). Also, I don't see how it matters. Take her out of the equation and you're still left with a laundry list of people who believe Charles is being treated unfairly, frankly maliciously. What, are all of those people all of a sudden biased towards he and Camilla also?

 

[kathia_sophia]

I just watched 3 episodes of season 4, and what a big disappointment.


Prince Charles as a hunchback, insensitive and cold man.
Diana as someone very vulnerable without an opinion (despite her depression, I always thought of Diana as someone strong, who fought for her ideas).
Camilla being a nasty, ville woman.
Princess Margaret as the usual cold, arrogant woman.
Margaret Thatcher with serious mouth movement problems and terrible voice imitation (she looks like she has a mouth disease).
And I hated the scenes with the adult male deer.


The only good surprise was the portrayal of The Queen. Such an improvement from last season. Now she seems more human and down to earth.


BUT, this season feels like a totally different series from the first seasons. Season 1 and 2 showed some behind the scenes in The Queen's life, yes, but it showed her responsabilities as Queen, her duty, and the Prime Ministers and her. It gave justice to the title of this series. But season 4 completely forgets about that aspect, by making the Queen a secondary character. Duty and engagements are no longer the priority. It seems this season went for the scandas, romantic relationships and the triviality of the Royal Family (which apparently, most things are not factual). What a pity! They truly destroyed this show.

 

[Sandy345]

Because you think Diana's portrayal in "the Crown" is particularly favourable ?
Between puking in the toilets and a catasrophic hairdo, there's not so much left. It's a caricature, very much like the others ...

This is not the first time such scenes were shown. Some years back (before DIana died) there was the miniseries Diana Her True Story which showed rather graphic scenes of Diana binging and purging. I don't know or recall if "warnings" were added for the graphic scenes back then.

I also did not like the Philip taking Diana to stalk a deer scene. Made up story.

Or Margaret being made a sort of caricature.

 

[RandyDrx]

Last night I finished to watch all the season, it is entertaining but it is so many things and characters left behind, no Fergie, no the kids from Margrethe, and so many things we do not know if it is true or fiction. Can't imagine who will play Meghan in the future , will be herself? they look such a dysfunctional family.

I've read that the series will end in the early 2000s era.

 

[RandyDrx]

The cousins were institutionalized, but the bloodline discussion was fictionalized.


The series creator and writers seem to have major dislike for the BRF and the monarchy. The lack of characterizing any member of the family as having any redeeming features is beginning to really annoy me. Good writing should show complexity and tension in characters; in this series the characters are mostly one-dimensional.



It is not history, it is drama. Many who don't know any better will take it as fact.

Peter Morgan is a republican, and if someone told me that he actually created this series to intentionally undermine them under the guise of making a show about the Queen's life and duty, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I've read that the series will end in the early 2000s era.

I'd imagine it will end with the deaths of Princess Margaret and the queen mother in 2002,two of the principal characters. I can't see it going any further than that.

 

[Prinsara]

Peter Morgan is a republican, and if someone told me that he actually created this series to intentionally undermine them under the guise of making a show about the Queen's life and duty, I wouldn't be surprised.

Perhaps not to undermine them, but he certainly has no obligation or even interest to portray them in a favorable light, now does he?

On the other hand, he's also made The Queen and the play The Audience, so for a republican he has an awful lot of fascination (not to mention bread-and-butter) with Elizabeth.

 

[Betsypaige]

Perhaps not to undermine them, but he certainly has no obligation or even interest to portray them in a favorable light, now does he?

On the other hand, he's also made The Queen and the play The Audience, so for a republican he has an awful lot of fascination (not to mention bread-and-butter) with Elizabeth.

He has an obligation to tell the truth, and if that means portraying the BRF in a favorable light (based on reality), then Morgan ought to have sucked it up. He’s a coward, and his interest in the BRF is solely to show how much he loathes them

 

[Empress Merel]

Very true. She is incredibly biased. In this, however, I agree with her (and I have great sympathy for the struggles of the real-life Diana). I can hardly bear to watch the character of Charles being portrayed as an immature, self-centered, tortured man. The real-life Charles may have these traits, but it is unlikely that this is the full measure of the man, as is depicted in the series.

But... wasn't he all that? One can be many things and evolve into a more mature, wiser person.

I see a lot of people falling over the not all too favorable light they're being portrayed in and how it's most likely inaccurate but seriously, haven't we seen a lot of dirt and rot come to the forray that is STILL being swept under the rug simply because their privilige protects them? I'm not gonna mention the scandals because they're hardly a mystery anymore.

I loathe Thatcher, but if there is one burn they got right is when Dennis Thatcher roasted the BRF.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I'll admit to never having seen the series. I've just seen clips. Would still like to watch it. I don't subscribe to Netflix but I might for this.

 

[Prinsara]

But... wasn't he all that? One can be many things and evolve into a more mature, wiser person.

I see a lot of people falling over the not all too favorable light they're being portrayed in and how it's most likely inaccurate but seriously, haven't we seen a lot of dirt and rot come to the forray that is STILL being swept under the rug simply because their privilige protects them? I'm not gonna mention the scandals because they're hardly a mystery anymore.

I loathe Thatcher, but if there is one burn they got right is when Dennis Thatcher roasted the BRF.

I think on the one hand, there are the inaccuracies. On the other hand, there are the negative portrayals. They don't always overlap, but when they do you get something like implying the QM had a hand in institutionalizing her nieces out of fear and shame, which is probably libelous in a non-fictional program, and is very unpleasant at the minimum. I think I agree the show should probably use a disclaimer.

However, just like the show is a mix of truth and fiction, doesn't mean that just because Morgan angles negative everything in the show is or was completely inaccurate.

Denis Thatcher was one of the nicer parts of this season, honestly, though given that we haven't seen a PM spouse since Clementine Churchill I'm not sure why they bothered with him other than the Y chromosome, and they wanted to show Thatcher's family/children as similar to the Queen's.

 

[Mbruno]

I think on the one hand, there are the inaccuracies. On the other hand, there are the negative portrayals. They don't always overlap, but when they do you get something like implying the QM had a hand in institutionalizing her nieces out of fear and shame, which is probably libelous in a non-fictional program, and is very unpleasant at the minimum. I think I agree the show should probably use a disclaimer.

However, just like the show is a mix of truth and fiction, doesn't mean that just because Morgan angles negative everything in the show is or was completely inaccurate.

Denis Thatcher was one of the nicer parts of this season, honestly, though given that we haven't seen a PM spouse since Clementine Churchill I'm not sure why they bothered with him other than the Y chromosome, and they wanted to show Thatcher's family/children as similar to the Queen's.

Lady Dorothy Macmillan (née Cavendish) was actually shown also in Season 2, I think.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

But... wasn't he all that? One can be many things and evolve into a more mature, wiser person.

I see a lot of people falling over the not all too favorable light they're being portrayed in and how it's most likely inaccurate but seriously, haven't we seen a lot of dirt and rot come to the forray that is STILL being swept under the rug simply because their privilige protects them? I'm not gonna mention the scandals because they're hardly a mystery anymore.

I loathe Thatcher, but if there is one burn they got right is when Dennis Thatcher roasted the BRF.

I think Charles has definitely matured since his marriage to Diana. He was still fairly young when they married. Of course, none of us knows what he's like in private but from what I've seen of him recently he has certainly come across as a more kind and considerate person than he was back in the '70s - '90s. I think that saying of "with age comes wisdom" applies to Charles.

 

[Nico]

Seems that the Royals are not the only ones a bit concerned by the "artistic license"

Widow criticises The Crown over avalanche episode
The wife of Hugh Lindsay, who was killed while skiing with Prince Charles, had asked show not to feature the disaster

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1606074904

 

[AC21091968]

Apparently some Thatcherite Conservatives or Margaret Thatcher fans were not happy about the Crown Season 4 either, not just on Thatcher's portrayal or Gillian Anderson's acting, but also on how the production team use some fictional narrative and distorted truth to denigrate The Royal Family. This is based on reading some comments in public Facebook Thatcherite politicians' supporters group that I am not part of (I'm looking in from the outside).

Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer have refused The Crown's production team to film at Althorp House, fearing that the audience will believe the fiction as facts. He was interviewed by Alan Alan Titchmarsh on the ITV's Love Your Weekend.

Princess Diana's brother Earl Spencer blasts The Crown
https://www.perthnow.com.au/feature...-earl-spencer-blasts-the-crown-ng-b881728002z

Charles Spencer reveals request he refused from The Crown
Princess Diana's brother is no fan of the show
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royal...er-charles-spencer-refused-request-the-crown/