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

[caethi]

Summaries of "The Crown":



Charles pines. Diana whines. The Queen dines.



OR



Charles mopes. Diana hopes. The Queen copes.

 

[Denville]

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...

I dont think that his walking Meghan down the aisle was likely to make any diference to people who were hostile to him. It was nice of him to do it, but then again, it was possibly just him stepping inot an awkward breach and being polite.

 

[Durham]

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.

.

Ye gods there are some weirdos around. These people need to get of their basements & get a life.

And there may be lots of arguments for a republic but none of them should have anything to do with the personal lives of members of the royal family. Just bizarre.

 

[Durham]

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.

It is all very peculiar. It does sound as you say that such people have no understanding of the British monarchy. I think there's also a very nasty undercurrent of anglophobia sometimes.

 

[ladongas]

My two cents- no matter how The Crown portrayed the story of the marriage, the unembellished details are quite damning. You wouldn’t like that story if it happened in your own family or religious group, and many won’t choose to forgive and forget entirely.

On the other hand, I’m glad to see that Charles is happy for the first time in his life.

 

[Curryong]

Ye gods there are some weirdos around. These people need to get of their basements & get a life.

And there may be lots of arguments for a republic but none of them should have anything to do with the personal lives of members of the royal family. Just bizarre.

Why does the so-called Sussex Squad (and Harry and Meghan) get dragged into practically every thread, especially one regarding viewers reactions to a drama series purportedly portraying the marriage of Charles and Diana of over thirty five years ago?

And this is probably off topic, but the private lives of monarchs and heirs do matter in discussions about replacing monarchies with republics. You can point to the Edward VIII/Wallis Simpson romance, the behaviour of King Carol of Romania when heir and King, and the Juan Carlos abdication as just a few examples.

 

[Marengo]

And on that note let's move on from inserting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex into this thread on 'The Crown'. A netflix series in which neither has been portrayed thus far. Further posts on this subject will be deleted.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Somerleyton Hall was used during filming of Netflix's The Crown as a recreation for Sandringham.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-suffolk-55062901

 

[lucien]

Costume drama,with emphasizing on costumes....loved that bit...and the drama?
Nah,not so except for the Thatcher bits...

But fiction and low lifes thinking it was all real!
Low and behold,what sort of people really take this serious?
Plenty?Yes,I am afraid so,indeed!

I support a disclaimer!!

 

[Durham]

Why does the so-called Sussex Squad (and Harry and Meghan) get dragged into practically every thread, especially one regarding viewers reactions to a drama series purportedly portraying the marriage of Charles and Diana of over thirty five years ago?

And this is probably off topic, but the private lives of monarchs and heirs do matter in discussions about replacing monarchies with republics. You can point to the Edward VIII/Wallis Simpson romance, the behaviour of King Carol of Romania when heir and King, and the Juan Carlos abdication as just a few examples.

[...]

We'll have to agree to differ on the second point. The UK is not going to upend its constitution & become a republic because of someone's personal life. Certainly not the present heir. If the British want to remain a monarchy they'll just get another monarch if an existing one goes rogue. Discussions about a republic in 1936 were just that. Nobody wanted it. Romania & Spain I know little about so I can't comment. Other than they're not the UK. Different histories, cultures & societies so I'm not sure if the comparison really stands.

 

[Denville]

I've no idea why but to be accurate the reference was to "republicans & Diana fans" as well & it referred to a social media account having to close its comments section because of behaviour which can only be described as weird.

We'll have to agree to differ on the second point. The UK is not going to upend its constitution & become a republic because of someone's personal life. Certainly not the present heir. If the British want to remain a monarchy they'll just get another monarch if an existing one goes rogue. Discussions about a republic in 1936 were just that. Nobody wanted it. Romania & Spain I know little about so I can't comment. Other than they're not the UK. Different histories, cultures & societies so I'm not sure if the comparison really stands.

Because royal families ARE families, issues about the private life of the senior royals can become hot topics and can cause at times the downfall of a throne. the issue about Edward VIII was due to his being in love with a woman who had a second divorce, and in 1936 that was considered unacceptable. And while it iddn't cause the end of the monarchy then, that was then and this is 2020.. so it is possible that while there's no strong republican movement in the UK - times are different and if the monarchy was in trouble for some reason, it might lead to a republic...

 

[Durham]

Because royal families ARE families, issues about the private life of the senior royals can become hot topics and can cause at times the downfall of a throne. the issue about Edward VIII was due to his being in love with a woman who had a second divorce, and in 1936 that was considered unacceptable. And while it iddn't cause the end of the monarchy then, that was then and this is 2020.. so it is possible that while there's no strong republican movement in the UK - times are different and if the monarchy was in trouble for some reason, it might lead to a republic...

I can see all that but becoming a republic is such a huge change. A literal revolution. There would have to be very convincing arguements to terminate a centuries old secular institution like the British monarchy. I don't see any personal issues being of such an order of magnitude that they would lead to an overthrow of the status quo.

The monarchy is not fundamentally about individuals at all.

 

[Denville]

I can see all that but becoming a republic is such a huge change. A literal revolution. There would have to be very convincing arguements to terminate a centuries old secular institution like the British monarchy. I don't see any personal issues being of such an order of magnitude that they would lead to an overthrow of the status quo.

The monarchy is not fundamentally about individuals at all.

there's nothing sacred about the monarchy... IMO it survivies because people can't really get up the energy to think of a new system and put it in place. They prefer to muddle along with what is already there.. and if its not broke dont bother to fix it. But it could end....

 

[Durham]

there's nothing sacred about the monarchy... IMO it survivies because people can't really get up the energy to think of a new system and put it in place. They prefer to muddle along with what is already there.. and if its not broke dont bother to fix it. But it could end....

I wouldn't go that far. At least not yet. There's still a lot of loyalty to the monarchy as an institution regardless of the monarch. The number of monarchists is not easy to quantify but they do exist. They might be a dying breed but who knows.......

You don't have to be a royalist (in the sense of "supporting" the royal family) to be a monarchist.

 

[MARG]

Well the Constitutional Monarchy works well and for we here in NZ (and the UK) having a Prime Minister and HM as a Head of State works well. I like the fact that their own party can roll the PM if they don't feel they are performing well enough. We have just been treated to a stunning example of how the US system of government has actual thorns as opposed to figurative ones in Constitutional Monarcies.

 

[QueenMathilde]

This may get me into trouble for getting off the topic but I read that Kristen Stewart off Twilight is going to play Diana in a movie now. What is it with bad Diana impersonators? First the Crown now this. Either get someone good or don't bother.

 

[Betsypaige]

This may get me into trouble for getting off the topic but I read that Kristen Stewart off Twilight is going to play Diana in a movie now. What is it with bad Diana impersonators? First the Crown now this. Either get someone good or don't bother.

If you can believe it, Diana: the Musical (which was supposed to be on Broadway) is coming to Netflix in early 2021 (before it actually does make it to Broadway, sigh). There was Titanic the Musical (which I saw......and kind of feel icky about), but this is


https://www.playbill.com/article/broadways-diana-musical-to-be-filmed-for-netflix-release

 

[AC21091968]

There has been a discussion on Loose Women on the need to have a disclaimer in the beginning of each episode stating dramatisation (similar to those in crime dramas based on real cases). The panellist were Ruth Langsford, Janet Street-Porter, Jane Moore and Kéllé Bryan.

 

[Mbruno]

there's nothing sacred about the monarchy... IMO it survivies because people can't really get up the energy to think of a new system and put it in place. They prefer to muddle along with what is already there.. and if its not broke dont bother to fix it. But it could end....

I don't see any short or even long-term threat to the continuation of the British monarchy. However, the argument put forward by other posters that the monarchy is safe simply because people would be wary of changing a "centuries-old system" without any major reason is weak in my opinion.



Several deposed European monarchies were actually "centuries-old". While in some cases (e.g. France or Russia) there were probably major reasons to change the system , in other cases (e.g. Portugal , or Spain in 1931), maybe not so much.

 

[Betsypaige]

My god, Morgan really does make Charles out to be the Devil; the dialogue is so over-the-top vicious...and stupid Americans are lapping it up. They already hate Charles, so no surprise.

When the Queen comes to Highgrove to visit, Prince Charles is seen banging on the door of Princess Diana's bedroom.

He shouts at her: 'Might I remind you she is not just your mother-in-law, but also the Queen of this country.'

Inside a pregnant Princess Diana could be seen laying on her bed while watching television, and turns the volume up on the screen as Prince Charles shouts through the door that she is 'pathetic'.
.....

He's then seen on a phone call to Camilla Parker Bowles complaining about how 'pathetic' she is, moaning: 'It's so critical we get this tour absolutely right, and yet she's so weak and fragile. One can't rely on her for the simplest thing, letting the side down wherever she goes. How do I get through the next six weeks without you?'

Camilla tells him to ring her every day and massages his ego, to which Charles replies: 'God I miss you my darling, your adulthood; if Diana had an ounce of the strength of character that you seem to display at every turn then perhaps we could rescue it.'

 

[RandyDrx]

It appears that Omid Scobie thinks that "The Crown" may be extended to cover the present era.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Prince-Harry-adults-royal-expert-claims.html

Netflix is 'considering extending The Crown to show Prince William and Prince Harry as adults', royal expert claims - as fans rally around Duchess of Cornwall after she faced barrage of hate over her portrayal in the show

• Expert Omid Scobie said 'there is talk in Netflix The Crown could be extended'
  [*]Said the series could show Prince William, 38, and Prince Harry, 36, as adults
  [*]Comes as r[/B]oyal fans launched a campaign to support Duchess of Cornwall, 72
  [*]In past week, online trolls launched tirade of abuse at Camilla over The Crown
  [*]Falsely suggested she had an affair with Charles throughout marriage to Diana
  

Considering Peter Morgan decided that the show would have 6 series before changing his mind to only 5 series and backtracking again to 6 series, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually does it.

 

[yukari]

It appears that Omid Scobie thinks that "The Crown" may be extended to cover the present era.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Prince-Harry-adults-royal-expert-claims.html

Sure, it's DailyMail, but calling Omid Scobie as expert? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm sorry?! Expert of what?

 

[Mbruno]

,

It appears that Omid Scobie thinks that "The Crown" may be extended to cover the present era.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Prince-Harry-adults-royal-expert-claims.html



Considering Peter Morgan decided that the show would have 6 series before changing his mind to only 5 series and backtracking again to 6 series, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually does it.

It doesn't surprise me. After hitting Charles over his marriage with Diana, extending the series to the present day will be a chance also to smear William and Kate, who, unlike Charles, are still very popular.

 

[Betsypaige]

It appears that Omid Scobie thinks that "The Crown" may be extended to cover the present era.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-Prince-Harry-adults-royal-expert-claims.html



Considering Peter Morgan decided that the show would have 6 series before changing his mind to only 5 series and backtracking again to 6 series, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually does it.

So Netflix’ reaction to people actually supporting Camilla is to find a way to extend the series and destroy even more Royals? If that doesn’t tell you what their agenda is, I don’t know what will. I’m sure Peter Morgan will jump at the chance. What’s next after that? Trashing George?

I’m so glad those fans are supporting Camilla, but it’s a shame there’s nothing for Charles.

I am glad the DM said this:

The Duchess has faced a tirade of hate comments from social media trolls after The Crown falsely suggested she had an affair with Prince Charles throughout his marriage to Diana.

 

[Betsypaige]

,


It doesn't surprise me. After hitting Charles over his marriage with Diana, extending the series to the present day will be a chance also to smear William and Kate, who unlike Charles, are still very popular.

Since Harry is a partner with Netflix, no doubt the series would be the televised version of Finding Freedom. I don’t think he’d go for this, though.

 

[Durham]

I don't see any short or even long-term threat to the continuation of the British monarchy. However, the argument put forward by other posters that the monarchy is safe simply because people would be wary of changing a "centuries-old system" without any major reason is weak in my opinion.

The British monarchy’s longevity would most definitely give pause for thought when considering its abolition. It’s certainly no minor factor. On the other hand there are of course far weightier reasons than just its long continuity for retaining the monarchy. There would have to be a serious republican movement or a major political crisis.

 

[Durham]

The Crown seems to have generated quite a lot of negative reaction in the UK. It's gone from harmless historical fiction based loosely on real events to divisive melodrama.

It seems to have lost its way. A great pity because the first series in particular was a real tour de force. And the episode on Aberfan (series 2) was mezmerizing drama. A real standout.

 

[Betsypaige]

The Crown seems to have generated quite a lot of negative reaction in the UK. It's gone from harmless historical fiction based loosely on real events to divisive melodrama.

It seems to have lost its way. A great pity because the first series in particular was a real tour de force. And the episode on Aberfan (series 2) was mezmerizing drama. A real standout.

I’m not surprised. Morgan probably understood that he couldn’t really go over the top anti-Queen, but he could and has done with Charles because many people already saw him as the villain. He’s apparently made other Royals look bad as well in this series - his coup de gras against the BRF

 

[Curryong]

The British monarchy’s longevity would most definitely give pause for thought when considering its abolition. It’s certainly no minor factor. On the other hand there are of course far weightier reasons than just its long continuity for retaining the monarchy. There would have to be a serious republican movement or a major political crisis.

This isn't the thread to discuss this of course, so sorry, mods.

No, I can't see a major political crisis looming in Britain in the foreseeable future. What I can see however is apathy and disinterest in the monarchy continuing through the years, especially among the under-forties and many migrants from republican backgrounds, until in the end, perhaps in another thirty or forty years, nobody from any age group really cares any more. That may be even worse that any devastating political crisis involving the monarchy.

(And an unpopular monarch in the future won't improve the above scenario.)

 

[Osipi]

Since Harry is a partner with Netflix, no doubt the series would be the televised version of Finding Freedom. I don’t think he’d go for this, though.

It's not Netflix that is actually the culprit here. They're just the middle guy aka streaming service. They pick up programming and air it. i don't believe that the Sussex contract with Netfilx will have anything to do with the content of "The Crown" whatsoever. "The Crown" would be the same whether aired on Netflix, Hulu, BBC or any other company that offers programming.

Harry and Meghan's "deal" with Netflix is in regards to their own "brand" of programming they hope to stream to the public via Netflix. I think Harry would be wise enough to totally avoid any connection with his programming to the BRF. I just don't think he'd ever stoop that low.