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

[Denville]

Sadly the couple were not well suited so their marriage was not likely to survive even if neither had avoided their respective affairs. While I do agree that Diana was too young and neurotic to be involved in such a public and high profile marriage,

I'm not sure that "damaged" is the best way to describe Diana. However I must say that her parents' fractious divorce definitely took its toll upon the emotional well being of Sarah, Diana and Charles. Jane seemed to be the only child who was relatively unscathed by it.

I know it is a bit of a blunt wrod, but I think it does apply to Diana and to an extent to other Spencer children. as you say Charles and Sarah S were also wounded by the parents divorce and after events. And I think that although Diana did have therapy during her marriage, she seemed to end up if anything more paranoid and mixed up as she grew older, as witnessed by the events preceding the Panorama interview...

 

[Denville]

But based on fact. Actually my main grievance with the show is the blurring between fact and fiction, and the introduction of plot points and plot twists which are pure fiction into a set of factual circumstances. But the avalanche and the death in that avalanche of Charles' friend, Major Lindsay, are facts, and addressed as facts and not introduced or - as far as I can tell, anyway - changed or embellished to make them more entertaining.

Its really it seems a rather silly show.. Is it worthwhile upsetting the Lindsays who have protested for the sake of a bit of entertainment even if its based on fact? Mrs Lindsay doesn't want to see her husbands death and Charles reaction to it reenacted for a show, and I think she has a right to protest. In all the many documentaries I've seen on the Charles and Diana story I don't remember the thing about the avalanche being brought up, except in Diana Her True Story... so I don't think it is necessary to put it in here if it bothers the people involved who are NOT public figures.

 

[Mbruno]

The main gist of the whole Diana/Charles marriage fiasco really boils down to not Charles and Diana, themselves, but the idea of how a royal marriage should look on paper with all the neat little boxes checked off as "suitable".

I am not sure Diana "ticked all the boxes ". Probably, based on strict suitability criteria, there would be better candidates than Diana, including Lady Amanda Knatchbull, who unfortunately turned Charles down.



The point is, however, that "ticking all the boxes" worked very well in the past because "love" was not one of those said boxes, although some degree of personal compatibility was expected. It was perfectly acceptable, however, for a king and a queen to be a couple in public or in official events, but live separate private lives that might even include other lovers, as seen most recently in the arrangement between King Juan Carlos of Spain and Queen Sofia. Not only did Diana (rightfully so in my opinion) demand "exclusivity" (before cheating herself on her husband), but also the fact that she wasn't even compatible with Charles and unfortunately turned out to be somewhat mentally unstable was a big letdown on the suitability front and on the theory that she ticked all the boxes.

 

[AC21091968]

With the news that The Earl Spencer refused The Crown's production team to film at the Althorp Estate. I wonder who (Nobility, landowners, estate managers) is going to deny the filming crew next?

Here is a link showing the properties that were used to film locations/settings in The Crown:
https://www.visitengland.com/where-was-crown-filmed

 

[Denville]

I am not sure Diana "ticked all the boxes ". Probably, based on strict suitability criteria, there would be better candidates than Diana, including Lady Amanda Knatchbull, who unfortunately turned Charles down.



The point is, however, that "ticking all the boxes" worked very well in the past because "love" was not one of those said boxes, although some degree of personal compatibility was expected. It was perfectly acceptable, however, for a king and a queen to be a couple in public or in official events, but live separate private lives that might even include other lovers, as seen most recently in the arrangement between King Juan Carlos of Spain and Queen Sofia. Not only did Diana (rightfully so in my opinion) demand "exclusivity" (before cheating herself on her husband), but also the fact that she wasn't even compatible with Charles and unfortunately turned out to be somewhat mentally unstable was a big letdown on the suitability front and on the theory that she ticked all the boxes.

I think that by the time Charles did get married, there weren't that many women left.. as Philip said to him. He was still expected to marry a virgin and that meant that he would probalby have to go for a much younger girl.. and that could lead to problems unless they were really really in love and had a lot in common. If Charles had let Diana go in 1980 - I think that he realised he had less and less options and that he might end up in his late 30s with a bride of 19 or so.. and I think he may have realized that while he was capable of falling in love with other women a large part of his heart still belonged to Camilla and with another woman it would be a case of starting off with a fondness and growing into a deeper love.. It did mean that if they hit problems, there might not be as much goodwill to sort them out, as they might not be that deeply in love.
Unfortunately, they weren't all that compatible.. Diana had convinced herself that she enjoyed a lot of the things that Charles liked.. and he didn't have enough time to realise that she was fooling herself.. Closer to the wedding, I think it was all beginning to dawn on him that Diana was not a calm easy going person but hihgtly strung and neurotic and that she didn't really share many of his interests and he became despondent and gloomy but then there was no way out....

 

[Betsypaige]

I recall coming across an article that spoke of how the fact that Charles stood by Camilla and insisted that she be accepted helped William in his relationship with Kate. I’m sorry I can’t find that article now, sigh.

 

[Mirabel]

Both Charles and Diana had their delusions.
Charles believed that the media frenzy during their courtship would somehow disappear once they were married.
That never happened.

Diana believed that her marriage would be rock-solid, with no possibility of divorce, and that Charles would love and adore her always.
That never happened.

Neither was clear about expectations, which would have saved a great deal of trouble later.

 

[Alison H]

They had William within a year of being married, as well. I know Charles needed an heir, but Diana was only 20, and he was only in his early 30s: there was hardly any rush. She barely had time to settle into her new role before becoming pregnant. And she had severe post-natal depression, which obviously was nobody's fault but did make things worse.


It's easy to be wise after the event, but they were such different people and had so little in common that they probably never had much chance. But it all seemed so romantic and exciting at the time: I was only 6 when they got married, but it was such a big deal that I remember the day very clearly.

 

[Denville]

I recall coming across an article that spoke of how the fact that Charles stood by Camilla and insisted that she be accepted helped William in his relationship with Kate. I’m sorry I can’t find that article now, sigh.

I dont really see how.. Kate's relationship with William was perfectly acceptable. She was middle class but well to do, had had a good education and she and Will took their relationship very slowly, and were able because social mores had changed, to spend a long time together, getting to know each other, and hopefully to be pretty sure that they were compatible enough to be in it for the long haul. Charles' relationship with Camilla was controversial because both of them had been married to other people, and his affair with her had been a factor in ending his marriage to Diana.. so Camilla wasn't all that acceptable....

 

[Denville]

They had William within a year of being married, as well. I know Charles needed an heir, but Diana was only 20, and he was only in his early 30s: there was hardly any rush. She barely had time to settle into her new role before becoming pregnant. And she had severe post-natal depression, which obviously was nobody's fault but did make things worse.


It's easy to be wise after the event, but they were such different people and had so little in common that they probably never had much chance. But it all seemed so romantic and exciting at the time: I was only 6 when they got married, but it was such a big deal that I remember the day very clearly.

True they did rather rush into having a family, and it added to Diana's stress at the time.. And She was a highly strung rather neurotic person who had this magic X factor that made her fascinating to people and the camera loved her so she was pursued by the media and adored in a way that was rare for the RF... It wore her down and scared her, and it affected Charles too because he had been used to be the one who was the centre of attention and he had never had the adoration that Diana elicited. But she and he had litlte in common and it began to show very soon after the wedding...
Re the point in another post about Charles and the adoration and media frenzy, in fact Diana said that she and Charles had asked their advisers when it would go away and was told at first, "it will settle down when you're married".. and then "It will settle down in a few years when you have a baby or 2"... but it didn't really settle down for a long long time.. and during her lifetime it never really went away..
Diana was scared of it, albeit I think she began to like it and get a bit addicted to it over time...

 

[Betsypaige]

I dont really see how.. Kate's relationship with William was perfectly acceptable. She was middle class but well to do, had had a good education and she and Will took their relationship very slowly, and were able because social mores had changed, to spend a long time together, getting to know each other, and hopefully to be pretty sure that they were compatible enough to be in it for the long haul. Charles' relationship with Camilla was controversial because both of them had been married to other people, and his affair with her had been a factor in ending his marriage to Diana.. so Camilla wasn't all that acceptable....

It had nothing to do with Kate being acceptable to other people or not ...I’m annoyed that I couldn’t find the article, but I know that wasn’t it. I’m pretty sure it was about their break up, and William’s uncertainty about Kate suitability for him (I just Googled about their breakup, and reports indicate that William broke up with her and that he missed her almost immediately).

 

[Denville]

It had nothing to do with Kate being acceptable to other people or not ...I’m annoyed that I couldn’t find the article, but I know that wasn’t it. I’m pretty sure it was about their break up, and William’s uncertainty about Kate suitability for him (I just Googled about their breakup, and reports indicate that William broke up with her and that he missed her almost immediately).

If you could find the article... probably not possible. But i can't see how Charles sticking with Camilla has much to do with Will's relationship with Kate. Will got involved with her when he was fairly young and possibly he did begin to feel unsure if he wanted to marry... Previous to that, for senior royals, relationships were fairly short, (Unless they knew each other because they were distant cousins in the old days) and then once they were engaged it was on to marriage within a few months.. as soon as the wedding could be arranged...
William was bound to be a bit gun shy in getting married after his parents disastrous relationship, and he was lucky that by then it was acceptable for his bride not to be a virgin, and to have had some life before she married him, worked, if she wanted to, had other boyfriends, been to college.. He didn't have to decide on the basis of a short courtship if the woman was right for him... Even so Will clearly took no chances and split up with Kate for a bit.. but realised that she was the right one for him, after a short break up....
Charles's relationship with Camilla was rather different.. in that he met her at a time when he was still expected to marry a virgin.. and Camilla wasn't quite posh enough, plus she was then more in love with Andrew PB than with him.. and wanted to marry him. But its true that after they got back togehter in the 80s, they became a solid couple and charles did show determination in insisting that she was going to be his permanent companion..

 

[Betsypaige]

If you could find the article... probably not possible. But i can't see how Charles sticking with Camilla has much to do with Will's relationship with Kate. Will got involved with her when he was fairly young and possibly he did begin to feel unsure if he wanted to marry... Previous to that, for senior royals, relationships were fairly short, (Unless they knew each other because they were distant cousins in the old days) and then once they were engaged it was on to marriage within a few months.. as soon as the wedding could be arranged...
William was bound to be a bit gun shy in getting married after his parents disastrous relationship, and he was lucky that by then it was acceptable for his bride not to be a virgin, and to have had some life before she married him, worked, if she wanted to, had other boyfriends, been to college.. He didn't have to decide on the basis of a short courtship if the woman was right for him... Even so Will clearly took no chances and split up with Kate for a bit.. but realised that she was the right one for him, after a short break up....
Charles's relationship with Camilla was rather different.. in that he met her at a time when he was still expected to marry a virgin.. and Camilla wasn't quite posh enough, plus she was then more in love with Andrew PB than with him.. and wanted to marry him. But its true that after they got back togehter in the 80s, they became a solid couple and charles did show determination in insisting that she was going to be his permanent companion..

That's all true. I'll see if I can find the article......I've got nothing better to do, lol

 

[Denville]

That's all true. I'll see if I can find the article......I've got nothing better to do, lol

Dont put yourself out..but it honestly sounds to me like a bit of a reach to compare Wil's relationship with Kate to Charles' relationships. Charles grew up in a very different age.. and Will was a lot luckier in being able to spend more time with his girlfriend so that he had a better chance of knowing her well. Charles did have several girlfriends who were "marriageable" i.e. upper class whom he dated for some time.. but by the time he was dating Diana, there was more pressure on him to find the right bride and unfortunately he made a hasty decision. I think that the Press while they did pester Will and Kate, were a bit wary about doing so too much.. because they had been attacked for their behavior towards Diana. And Will had a long long relationship with Kate so by the time they married the press interest had gone off the boil to an extent. And in a way Will was ultra careful because he had HAD the sad example of his parents' marriage and I think the RF were also wary of interfering or pressuring him.. So although Kate wasn't upper class, they felt it was better for him to marry a girl he had known and been with for a long time, who wasn't necessarily the grandest in the land.. but that Will knew her well and loved her and wanted to marry her..

 

[Betsypaige]

Dont put yourself out..but it honestly sounds to me like a bit of a reach to compare Wil's relationship with Kate to Charles' relationships. Charles grew up in a very different age.. and Will was a lot luckier in being able to spend more time with his girlfriend so that he had a better chance of knowing her well. Charles did have several girlfriends who were "marriageable" i.e. upper class whom he dated for some time.. but by the time he was dating Diana, there was more pressure on him to find the right bride and unfortunately he made a hasty decision. I think that the Press while they did pester Will and Kate, were a bit wary about doing so too much.. because they had been attacked for their behavior towards Diana. And Will had a long long relationship with Kate so by the time they married the press interest had gone off the boil to an extent. And in a way Will was ultra careful because he had HAD the sad example of his parents' marriage and I think the RF were also wary of interfering or pressuring him.. So although Kate wasn't upper class, they felt it was better for him to marry a girl he had known and been with for a long time, who wasn't necessarily the grandest in the land.. but that Will knew her well and loved her and wanted to marry her..

There were quotes from William saying that his father’s marriage to Camilla had helped him...that’s why I want to find the article..

 

[Denville]

There were quotes from William saying that his father’s marriage to Camilla had helped him...that’s why I want to find the article..

I doubt if William was going to say anything like that..? DId he actually say to a reporter or anyone who would agree to be quoted by name, anything about his father's marriage?

 

[Betsypaige]

I doubt if William was going to say anything like that..? DId he actually say to a reporter or anyone who would agree to be quoted by name, anything about his father's marriage?

You can doubt it, I just remember what I saw. Honestly, I can’t answer any more about it until I can find the article...

 

[Denville]

You can doubt it, I just remember what I saw. Honestly, I can’t answer any more about it until I can find the article...

Please don't worry about looking for it.. but I was not doubting that what you said.. I just meant that its unlikely IMO that William would have said anything to a reporter about his father's marriage other than "we're very glad that he's getting married and we get on fine with Camilla". Press often attribute things to William who is extremely cautious with reporters - and also with his own friends...

 

[Betsypaige]

Please don't worry about looking for it.. but I was not doubting that what you said.. I just meant that its unlikely IMO that William would have said anything to a reporter about his father's marriage other than "we're very glad that he's getting married and we get on fine with Camilla". Press often attribute things to William who is extremely cautious with reporters - and also with his own friends...

Maybe not...you’re probably right, as that makes a lot of sense. Well, I’d I find it I’ll post, because I’m stubborn, but I won’t go out of my way to look for it..?

 

[Denville]

Maybe not...you’re probably right, as that makes a lot of sense. Well, I’d I find it I’ll post, because I’m stubborn, but I won’t go out of my way to look for it..?

For example there was some stuff when Harry and Meg left, claiming that Will had said he was terribly worried about his brother, and couldn't "put his arms round him" etc. I cannot believe that William would say that to anyone in the press or to any of his friends unless he was quite quite sure that they wouldn't repeat it...

 

[Betsypaige]

For example there was some stuff when Harry and Meg left, claiming that Will had said he was terribly worried about his brother, and couldn't "put his arms round him" etc. I cannot believe that William would say that to anyone in the press or to any of his friends unless he was quite quite sure that they wouldn't repeat it...

I remember that....William is very private, isn't he?


On another note - and I'll post also in Charles' thread - this pathetic show has caused Charles' official Twitter account to "turn off" comments (at least on the most recent tweet) thanks to a stream of hate.

Avoiding the hate? The Clarence House Twitter account, which posts updates about Prince Charles and his wife, Duchess Camilla, turned off comments on a tweet shared on Tuesday, November 24.

“The Duchess of Cornwall, Patron of @EmmausUK, recently joined a video call with staff and formerly homeless residents of @EmmausBrighton, known as companions, to discuss the challenges faced by the charity as a result of the coronavirus crisis,” the message read. Only users who the Clarence House account follows are able to reply to the tweet.


The change comes as the Prince of Wales, 71, and the Duchess of Cornwall, 72, have been flooded with comments following season 4 of The Crown, which dropped on Netflix on November 15. Ever since the debut of the new season — which chronicles Prince Charles’ overlapping relationships with Princess Diana and Parker Bowles — some followers have been sending hateful messages to the couple.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrit...milla-disable-twitter-replies-amid-the-crown/

 

[AC21091968]

That's terrible that Clarence House has to "turn off comments" just because some vile republicans, Sussex Squad and Diana fans considered The Crown as facts, because Peter Morgan's narrative suits their agenda.

These people swoop so low that some of them are willing to "bring down the monarchy". I really wish that I was not exaggerating right there, but I should never underestimate these republicans, Sussex Squad and Diana fans given the power of social media and other online medium.

 

[Betsypaige]

That's terrible that Clarence House has to "turn off comments" just because some vile republicans, Sussex Squad and Diana fans considered The Crown as facts, because Peter Morgan's narrative suits their agenda.

These people swoop so low that some of them are willing to "bring down the monarchy". I really wish that I was not exaggerating right there, but I should never underestimate these republicans, Sussex Squad and Diana fans given the power of social media and other online medium.

It’s shameful, but this is what Morgan wanted - and he wanted to crucify Charles. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Tumblr, but it’s essentially a place where people blog and reblog posts about subjects they like. On my friend’s “board”, I saw she’d reblogged a nasty, angry post where the original poster said something like “there, Diana will forever be loved, forever be the People’s Princess, and Charles will just be remembered for wanting to be Camilla’s tampon”. She tagged her post “the Crown. The truth”. I was so dismayed. I sent her a private message begging her not to take this garbage for the truth, that Morgan makes things up to suit his agenda (which in this case is destroying the heir to the throne). I suspect it’s mostly Americans who are falling for this ...

 

[AC21091968]

I have been avoiding tumblr ever since someone told me about how toxic and terrible the environment is (along with Ask.Fm). I only used Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, because these are the medium where public figures give updates. For these three social media and Youtube in some cases, the comments have become ridiculous, hence I have started avoiding them altogether.

 

[Osipi]

Nothing is that important to me that I need to go searching for other people's nasty and vile comments about something so inane as a historical fiction drama such as 'The Crown" is. I've watched all four seasons, expressed my views on the scenarios and I'm done with it now until another season is released.

 

[Betsypaige]

I have been avoiding tumblr ever since someone told me about how toxic and terrible the environment is (along with Ask.Fm). I only used Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, because these are the medium where public figures give updates. For these three social media and Youtube in some cases, the comments have become ridiculous, hence I have started avoiding them altogether.

I guess I haven't noticed .........I pretty much stick to reblogging people I know and a few topics. On Tumblr, you can avoid people or topics you don't like.

I only have FB because I used to chat with a friend on it - I really don't use it, and considering what an awful person Mark Zuckerberg is, I'm tempted to just delete it. Twitter can absolutely be toxic - it's why, when Prince Charles trended as a topic recently, I blocked/muted it. Really, I just make a point to visit the Royal reporters' Twitter that I like and try to remember not to read the comments under their tweets, because people are vicious and vulgar, not to mention cruel (to the reporters as well as the Royals).

 

[Claire]

I got a twitter account at the beginning to enter a competition. It really doesnt hold interest for me - but I did follow some people and placed some comments in a few places. I recently received a private message from someone that was launching a "War for the Return of King Harry and Queen Meghan" - complete with links to websites, videos ect about their cause and everything. Their group boasts membership of hundreds of thousands - and it is spread out across all social platforms. I rejected the invite and reported the group on twitter.
But I do wonder how we got here - when did a harmless thing like royal watching became so partisan. How did it get so vicious that people (really hoping it is mostly children) get so rallied up about things they barely understand that they are prompted into action. I do place some blame at the media for this - but the royals themselves could have calmed this down as well - and i mean both Harry & Meghan/ Royals and the Diana/ Charles. Calmer heads could have prevailed - if they had spoken.

 

[Betsypaige]

This is a fantastic article....I am worried about Charles. Despite my loathing for my fellow Americans’ attitude towards him, I know that it’s irrelevant. However, it’s not irrelevant for the British people. The only perhaps mitigating factor is that the people most likely to believe this garbage and hate Charles are ones who already don’t like him.



Simon Jenkins, columnist for the Guardian:

“I find it offensive when people dump standards of veracity in relating contemporary history,” Mr. Jenkins said. “If I did that as a journalist, I’d be hauled up before the press council while these people get prizes.”

Like others, Mr. Jenkins pointed to an episode-by-episode analysis by Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, which found whoppers large and small in the series and has become Exhibit A for its prevarications.

.....

Behind the frustration with “The Crown” is a recognition that, right or wrong, its version of the royal family is likely to serve as the go-to narrative for a generation of viewers, particularly young ones, who do not remember the 1980s, let alone the more distant events covered in earlier seasons.

“They’ll watch it and think this is the way it was,” said Dickie Arbiter, who served as a press secretary to the queen from 1988 to 2000. He took issue with parts of the plot, including a scene in which aides to Charles question Diana about whether she is mentally stable enough to travel alone to New York City.

“I was actually at that meeting,” Mr. Arbiter said. “No courtier would ever say that in a million years.”

The biggest problem, said Penny Junor, who has written biographies of Charles, Diana and Mrs. Thatcher, is that “The Crown” is a prodigiously effective piece of entertainment. That, she says, poses a particular threat to Charles, who arguably comes off worst in the series and who is likely to ascend the throne before memories of his grim, hunched portrayal have completely faded.

“It is wonderful television,” Ms. Junor said. “It is beautifully acted — the mannerisms are perfect. But it is fiction, and it is very destructive.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/world/europe/Crown-Royals-Fact-Fiction.html

 

[Denville]

Well the thing is.. there IS an issue with Charles and Camilla. I think that for a time back a few years ago, there was an improvement and people had gotten over the issues of Diana etc and were Ok with the 2 of them.. but in the past few years, it seems to have come up again that they are not as popular as they should be and they are now much closer to the time when Charles will be King.. I don't know if it has to do with - partly, the 2017 documentaries about Diana for her anniversary which I think stirred up the issues again for younger people...

 

[Betsypaige]

Well the thing is.. there IS an issue with Charles and Camilla. I think that for a time back a few years ago, there was an improvement and people had gotten over the issues of Diana etc and were Ok with the 2 of them.. but in the past few years, it seems to have come up again that they are not as popular as they should be and they are now much closer to the time when Charles will be King.. I don't know if it has to do with - partly, the 2017 documentaries about Diana for her anniversary which I think stirred up the issues again for younger people...

The Diana anniversary was bad for Charles in that it did stir up old(er) resentments, but then his walking Meghan down the aisle helped many people see a side to him that they had never acknowledged.

Charles (I’ll leave Camilla out of this as he’s the heir) is never going to be popular - and that’s just a fact which he seems to have come to terms with. He’ll still reign as best he can even without the love and support of many of his subjects. I just loathe the ***** that the Crown is making him into a mustache twirling villain so Morgan can get his jollies; no doubt he wants to make it harder for Charles as King. Of course my issues with this **** show go further than just Charles...