The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 11-15-2020, 05:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
I watched the first four. I am disappointed that the story of Charles and Amanda Knatchbull (Mountbatten's granddaughter) is not told. Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry Amanda. I was not happy with the scene (fictional) about how CHarles met Diana. I liked the portrayal of Margaret Thatcher by the actress who plays her. Perhaps an Emmy will be awarded to her. I did not get to the "Fergie" years yet, I am waiting to find out how much she will be featured in the series.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 11-15-2020, 06:08 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
I've just put the first episode of the new series now. Will keep posted!
__________________

__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 11-15-2020, 06:11 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
I have only been able to sit through a couple of episodes of the new season so far. I should have realized before even turning it on that basically, it was going to be the Diana show. Along with the release of the new season of "The Crown", right alongside it, they've released the documentary "Diana: In Her Own Words".

To me, Charles is portrayed as a weak, cowering (he never seems to stand up straight and always hunched) man lost in the conundrum that is his life. Even the scene with his father talking about their relationship with Mountbatten implies that Mountbatten really held the cards not only with Charles but also with Philip. They haven't been able (so far) to take any of the story line away from Diana to even mention *anything* the Prince of Wales actually did for the monarchy during this period (The Prince's Trust) except showing him leaving for a few weeks before the wedding. It seems to me, at this time, that the entire cast of "The Crown" is playing a back seat centering everything around Diana.

Of course I've only watched 3 episodes so far so this is just my impression so far. I have to agree that the quality of the show has taken a nose dive and resembles more a "made for Lifetime" movie on Diana Spencer. Maybe it'll get better? I just know I'm not in any hurry to see the rest of the season.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 11-15-2020, 06:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I have only been able to sit through a couple of episodes of the new season so far. I should have realized before even turning it on that basically, it was going to be the Diana show. Along with the release of the new season of "The Crown", right alongside it, they've released the documentary "Diana: In Her Own Words".

To me, Charles is portrayed as a weak, cowering (he never seems to stand up straight and always hunched) man lost in the conundrum that is his life. Even the scene with his father talking about their relationship with Mountbatten implies that Mountbatten really held the cards not only with Charles but also with Philip. They haven't been able (so far) to take any of the story line away from Diana to even mention *anything* the Prince of Wales actually did for the monarchy during this period (The Prince's Trust) except showing him leaving for a few weeks before the wedding. It seems to me, at this time, that the entire cast of "The Crown" is playing a back seat centering everything around Diana.

Of course I've only watched 3 episodes so far so this is just my impression so far. I have to agree that the quality of the show has taken a nose dive and resembles more a "made for Lifetime" movie on Diana Spencer. Maybe it'll get better? I just know I'm not in any hurry to see the rest of the season.
In the DM articles, they reference the Crown lying about Lord Mountbatten scolding Charles about his relationship with Camilla and Charles calling him a traitor. I can only imagine how painful that would be for C..

William is doubly hurting because heís watching both of his parents being ďexploitedĒ...

Just reading Twitter comments makes me 🤮🤮🤮
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 11-15-2020, 07:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
I watched the first four. I am disappointed that the story of Charles and Amanda Knatchbull (Mountbatten's granddaughter) is not told. Mountbatten wanted Charles to marry Amanda. I was not happy with the scene (fictional) about how CHarles met Diana. I liked the portrayal of Margaret Thatcher by the actress who plays her. Perhaps an Emmy will be awarded to her. I did not get to the "Fergie" years yet, I am waiting to find out how much she will be featured in the series.
By the end of series 4....never.

Well, a glance of her and Andrew on the balcony after their wedding but otherwise hardly a mention never mind a proper scene at all
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 11-15-2020, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
I'm in NY, and my local paper gushed about it, calling it the best season. The worst part was the end:

Quote:
Charles and Diana: tragic characters straight out of Shakespeare, one whose blood runs cold, the other whose 'passions are made of nothing but the finest part of pure love', to steal a line from another play. Had she lived to see this, Diana might agree with the assessment..
We know who the cold-blooded one is; this is the kind of thing we're dealing with here in the US. I'm not saying all the reviews will be as awful as this (and believe me, there's more, but this part made me want to throw up). My mother told me the NY Times also gave it a great review. I suppose part of it is that reviewers in the US don't know the history of the BRF.......and they love Diana wholeheartedly, so........
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 11-15-2020, 10:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
They were pushing the Shakespeare connection when Diana was first seen in the outfit for Midsummer Night's Dream (the scene is entirely fictional and rather odd). Little is shown of Diana's family (her parents) except Sarah and Ruth Fermoy.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 11-15-2020, 11:45 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Diana's family did not play much of a prominent role during the courtship and after the marriage. Sarah and Lady Fermoy were the most directly involved in Diana being introduced to Charles.

Of course Lady Jane Fellowes was married to the Queen's private secretary back then. And the current Earl Spencer (Diana's younger brother, Charles) was fairly young at that time. Perhaps Earl Spencer will figure in the series later on in the events surrounding Diana's death. It's definitely a huge undertaking to dramatize events over such a huge expanse of years during which so many characters and plot lines occurred in real life.

I think the series is overly ambitious in its scope, especially when attempting to detail British royal family events that are rather more contemporary than historic. There are still so many people alive today who remember Diana, and many of the events that occurred still remain inflammatory, emotional and controversial. Morgan was on better ground in the first two seasons because the 1940s through early 1960s is a time well past and receding ever further into the mists of history. Plus, Claire Foy as the Queen and Matt Smith as Prince Philip were so engaging and delightful in their roles with wonderful chemistry on screen and off apparently (They were friends prior to filming the first two seasons, and the experience of playing those roles helped them to develop a deeper bond as actors and good friends).

Foy's face was so malleable and translucent. The camera loved dwelling on her face. The very opposite is the case with Olivia Coleman, unfortunately. Actually, Helena Bonham-Carter looks more like a mature Foy than does Coleman. That said, Coleman gets a lot of the Queen's mannerisms as an older woman right. For me though, the quick juxtaposition of Coleman in the role simply didn't work at the beginning of season 3. The portrayals by Foy and Smith, coupled with the writing and production in seasons 1-2 is what made the series. I think this is because there was a vulnerable quality to Foy's portrayal of the young twenty-something Elizabeth, which worked really well. And the events shown were so far in the past that it all seemed rather grand and romantic. As the decades have progressed, modern disaffection along with societal and cultural upheaval has simply made the monarchy an anachronism. And yet, the British monarchy at this juncture seems to soldier blithely and foolishly on. The fairy tale ended long ago with the death of Diana. What's happened in recent years seems to indicate that nothing was learned from the Diana chronicles.

All of that said, I think The Crown took some wrong directions in season 3, which further highlighted dramatic excesses in the earlier seasons that weren't readily apparent to the average viewer. It pays to check out all the resources that list the dramatic excesses and untruths. There have been some jarring issues with casting as well, in addition to some very good casting.

I think Josh O'Connor makes an excellent much younger Charles in season 3. So far, in season 4, his hang-dog posture and anguished expressions don't translate well for the devil-may-care, swinging image of the bachelor Prince Charles who was dubbed 'action man' in his 20s and early 30s (of course that image was partly p.r. and hype). Charles certainly had a suave charm in his 20s, even though under the surface he was still psychologically anguished and emotionally stunted. He has never been very physically attractive, but the high-born cache and romantic fantasies associated with being a prince of the realm made him a heart-throb to many young girls and young women, including Diana.

So far, I've only viewed the first episode and part of the second. As I said, season 3 was so problematic for me that I've not been that overly enthusiastic about future seasons. Still, with all the hype, I was curious to see if the series might redeem itself. For the reasons I stated earlier regarding the over-ambitiousness of spanning so many years and events, and especially trying to tackle a volatile contemporary era that's not too far removed, this series has turned from successful to overly problematic.

There's too many men involved in key roles in the production, and not enough input from women, apparently, aside from the usual costume design and makeup. The overall production (set design, costuming, cinematography, music, scene development, and acting in general is well done). The writing is fairly decent too, but the selective decision-making for what to focus on and how to interpret events and characters, in addition to some of the casting choices in the long run do not seem to jibe well for what they are ambitiously trying to attempt. It's just in general a faulty over-interpretation with a number of factual inaccuracies, albeit with some wonderful moments and delightful touches that occasionally work really well, particularly in the first two seasons.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 11-15-2020, 11:59 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918


As I mentioned, Diana's other sister, Lady Jane Fellowes (currently Baroness), was married to the Queen's private secretary back then (Sir Robert Fellowes, currently Baron). Maybe Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, will appear in the series during the events surrounding Diana's death, but that's not a certainty for this series. Mostly, Diana's family was not there for her during her toughest battles and darkest hours, so I don't see why they would necessarily be featured. Lady Jane and her husband could figure in since they did have contact within the firm with Diana during those years, but it was not close familial contact, due to the conflicting nature of their positions, vs Diana's status as the emotionally struggling wife of the Prince of Wales. Publicly, it seems that the family connection was fairly kept on the backburner during those years. In fact, Lady Jane's husband was often at odds with Diana due to his role as the Queen's private secretary.

It's definitely a huge undertaking to dramatize events over such a huge expanse of years during which so many characters and plot lines occurred in real life. The series can't possibly bring in too many characters. For example, it's unfortunate that they never covered Princess Anne's courtship with and marriage to Mark Phillips and the later kidnapping attempt. Maybe the producers felt the kidnapping was too overly dramatic a focus for a character who is mostly supporting rather than a major focus of the storylines.

Personally, I'm completely fascinated by the life story of the Queen's young cousin, Prince William of Gloucester (the current Duke's older brother). This William would not be mentioned in any aspect of The Crown, of course. He was far removed from the line of succession, and yet he was a glamorous, much-loved member of the Windsor dynasty as he grew to adulthood. William of Gloucester was the most handsome and academically accomplished of the male Windsors (he took after the good looks of his mother, Princess Alice). Prince Charles looked up to this Prince William, and thus named his first-born son after him. William of Gloucester tragically died in a light aircraft accident in 1972, some months after the death of the Duke of Windsor. William of Gloucester's story is fascinating and rarely told. Few people even know he existed. The British royals swept him and what happened to him well under the rug long ago. His complicated and revealing story needs to be unearthed and further brought to light while his former girlfriend whom he was thwarted in marrying, still remains alive and available for interviews and consultation. I believe she currently resides in Texas. There's a documentary on YouTube that tells some of his story, entitled: The Other Prince William.
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 11-16-2020, 12:28 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
In the DM articles, they reference the Crown lying about Lord Mountbatten scolding Charles about his relationship with Camilla and Charles calling him a traitor. I can only imagine how painful that would be for C..

William is doubly hurting because he’s watching both of his parents being “exploited”...

Just reading Twitter comments makes me ������
From reading some posts in Support for the Monarchy in the UK thread, most of these comments probably come from people under age of 24. As I posted in this thread in post #557, those people making disgusting comments on Charles are probably Diana fans who considered her as a saint figure, who could do no wrong and completely innocent. Here, the accusation of "men in grey suit" and "cold/icy blood royal family and palace staff" have been thrown. The other possible groups (without pointing the finger) could be republicans/anti-monarchists or some members of the Sussex Squads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
This is just a guess, I think the 18-24 age group on average (generalising here) still remembered Charles in the War of the Wales. I do think there is a possibility that there are more people in aged 18-24 compared to other age groups who strongly idolises Diana, considered her a "saint figure" and blamed the royal family (not just Charles) for her downfall.
Lee-Z on post #559 also mentioned that the 18-24 age group are the ones who are most likely get information on British Royal Family from TV shows. These digital media are one-sided, more likely to be sympathetic towards Diana and with the narrative of Diana as a victim against the evil cold-hearted royal family (not just Charles).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
I'd say the 18-24 age group are the first ones who never knew Diana as they weren't born (or just barely) when she was alive.
I do think that agegroup might get their information from netflix, tvshows or movies about the Diana/Charles situation (which are generally onesided), and from social media/internet.
Like that "meme" going around with a pic of QEII and P.Philip with a caption "Scared to die because they are afraid to face Diana"

if that is your source of information, i can imagine a "popularity" question has little to do with the royals as they are, but as they are fictionalised.

just imo ofcourse
I have nothing against Diana. I just don't buy into the narrative that Diana is innocent and it's all the Royal Family (including staff) fault that led to her downfall. They are still human after all. Unlike ITV Victoria, most of people in The Crown (for Season 4 onswards) are alive and their livelihood could be destroy, because of an "exaggerated" period drama presented as facts. Whilst there are publications or digital media and some members of The Royal Forum willing to call out "fake scenes" or "fake characterisation", some of the viewers still considered them as facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
How nice of them to release the series on the Prince's Birthday!
This is like Charles' worst birthday nightmare!!!
I did not want to say present/gift, because this just put Charles and Camilla's work on their engagement in Germany down the drain!
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 11-16-2020, 12:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
From reading some posts in Support for the Monarchy in the UK thread, most of these comments probably come from people under age of 24. As I posted in this thread in post #557, those people making disgusting comments on Charles are probably Diana fans who considered her as a saint figure, who could do no wrong and completely innocent. Here, the accusation of "men in grey suit" and "cold/icy blood royal family and palace staff" have been thrown. The other possible groups (without pointing the finger) could be republicans/anti-monarchists or some members of the Sussex Squads.



Lee-Z on post #559 also mentioned that the 18-24 age group are the ones who are most likely get information on British Royal Family from TV shows. These digital media are one-sided, more likely to be sympathetic towards Diana and with the narrative of Diana as a victim against the evil cold-hearted royal family (not just Charles).



I have nothing against Diana. I just don't buy into the narrative that Diana is innocent and it's all the Royal Family (including staff) fault that led to her downfall. They are still human after all. Unlike ITV Victoria, most of people in The Crown (for Season 4 onswards) are alive and their livelihood could be destroy, because of an "exaggerated" period drama presented as facts. Whilst there are publications or digital media and some members of The Royal Forum willing to call out "fake scenes" or "fake characterisation", some of the viewers still considered them as facts.



This is like Charles' worst birthday nightmare!!!
I did not want to say present/gift, because this just put Charles and Camilla's work on their engagement in Germany down the drain!
I remember the conversation, and I agree with the points. Lesson learned, whoever they are - Iím never going to read Twitter comments about Royals again.

It really sucks for Charles because, while he and Camilla arenít popular, they have managed to weather the storm...to the point where many have come around. He weathered the storm around the 2017 a anniversary of Dianaís death, and now itís all being stirred up again.

The big difference this time is that the media for the most part understands that the portrait of Charles (and Camilla) is nasty and false. Even when this new ITV doc revisiting the Panorama interview airs, it wonít be as bad for Charles because already the media is trying to set the record straight - not just the media, but Dianaís friends, and Charlesí biographers (Junor and Bedell Smith).

Even more importantly, the entire family is angry - Charles and Camilla are not in this alone. William is reported to be extremely upset about this exploitation of parents, and Iím sure Harry isnít happy, either.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 11-16-2020, 01:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Hugo Vickers, the anti-Lacey. This is just one excerpt, but the entire article is well worth reading.

Quote:
Were Charles and Camilla meeting regularly at Highgrove by 1988?
✅ TRUE
According to the evidence, Charles and Camilla were seeing each other again by 1986. This series takes the Diana line that Charles and Camilla were in touch all the way through the marriage. Viewers should be cautious to accept this without question. They will see an angry Prince Charles, sometimes yelling at his wife, aggressive and demeaning to her. What is largely omitted is any account of Dianaís well-documented distressing behaviour, including tantrums and insecurities. The Crown clearly presents a one-sided portrait of the marriage.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...EsY686nFXYFUZk
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 11-16-2020, 01:45 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post

Personally, I'm completely fascinated by the life story of the Queen's young cousin, Prince William of Gloucester (the current Duke's older brother). This William would not be mentioned in any aspect of The Crown, of course. He was far removed from the line of succession, and yet he was a glamorous, much-loved member of the Windsor dynasty as he grew to adulthood. William of Gloucester was the most handsome and academically accomplished of the male Windsors (he took after the good looks of his mother, Princess Alice). Prince Charles looked up to this Prince William, and thus named his first-born son after him. William of Gloucester tragically died in a light aircraft accident in 1972, some months after the death of the Duke of Windsor. William of Gloucester's story is fascinating and rarely told. Few people even know he existed. The British royals swept him and what happened to him well under the rug long ago. His complicated and revealing story needs to be unearthed and further brought to light while his former girlfriend whom he was thwarted in marrying, still remains alive and available for interviews and consultation. I believe she currently resides in Texas. There's a documentary on YouTube that tells some of his story, entitled: The Other Prince William.
At the time of his birth in 1942, Prince William of Gloucester was fourth in line to the throne, after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret and his father The Duke. He became fifth in line when Elizabeth became Queen. When he died, Prince William of Gloucester was ninth in line to the throne - the same place Princess Beatrice is now.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 11-16-2020, 01:47 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
There were just as many inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in the first three seasons. The royals are probably better off trying to lay low with their apparent 'Do as I say not as I do' motto: "Never explain, never complain."

Perhaps the main reasoning behind them indulging in overwrought reactions to the current season is the fact that so many people are still alive who remember the Diana years, and her impact and aura are still very palpable. This is particularly true as so many people associate her sons with her legacy. Unfortunately, the young and charming Prince William was overly focused on by the public with over-expectations and romantic image notions in his late teens and twenties. This was largely a result of how much he physically favored Diana, in addition to his heir-to-the-throne status. I don't think the public adulation in the aftermath of his mother's death was helpful to William's character development.

After Diana's demise, Prince Charles was thrown into many years of trying to repair his public image. He often used his sons as pawns in the media game to achieve the goal of reconstructing his image.

Harry was rather young immediately after his mother died, so he didn't figure in to the adulation aspect as much as William. As Harry grew into his troubled later teens and twenties, he struggled a great deal emotionally as has been well-documented. Harry has always worn his heart on his sleeve. With Harry what you see is what you get. His mentor, Mark Dyer, and former nanny, Tiggy Legg-Bourke were very important figures in his emotional development. Thus, that's probably why both are likely two of the unrevealed godparents to Archie. It was Harry's experience in Botswana (a trip suggested by Dyer), and his eventual 'normal' life in the military that was essential to Harry becoming more settled and finding purpose and meaning in his life.

None of this will be covered in The Crown. The point is that the Diana years are still too close in memory for the over-arching dramatization of the current and planned final seasons. It seems to me that the series creator, Morgan, has been a bit uncertain regarding how to approach the series after the first two season installments. Initially, he seemed to shy away from tackling too much about Diana. But perhaps due to the widespread success of the first two seasons, he was persuaded to wade into the troubling Diana waters.

Current British royal family events have only complicated this kind of dramatization. There's been so many more reflections coming out about Diana in recent years subsequent to the 20-year anniversary of her death in 2017. I think the increased reflections and discussions about Diana in the media are in part a result of the ongoing dramatic events surrounding Harry's marriage and departure from senior royal duties. The interest in Harry's marriage brought renewed and intensified focus on the royal firm, and they haven't handled the increased scrutiny well.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 11-16-2020, 02:03 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
At the time of his birth in 1942, Prince William of Gloucester was fourth in line to the throne, after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret and his father The Duke. He became fifth in line when Elizabeth became Queen. When he died, Prince William of Gloucester was ninth in line to the throne - the same place Princess Beatrice is now.
Yes, that's great additional perspective regarding how important Prince William of Gloucester was viewed in those years when he was closer to the throne. His mother and father had trouble conceiving, and so he was born to them late in their life (he was marveled at as a 'miracle baby' after the trouble they'd experienced). This added to young Prince William being even more of a beloved child. He was also much handsomer than his younger brother, Richard (who inherited more of the Windsor genes).

A lot of the House of Windsor's views and actions in the 1950s through 1970s were sadly propelled by and held hostage to the abdication crisis caused by Edward VIII, who was emotionally, ethically and intellectually unsuited to be king in the first place. Destroying the lives of Princess Margaret and Prince William of Gloucester, among other sad royal family traumas and conflicts, was a huge price to pay for the questionable goal of upholding antiquated notions of duty and allegiance to the throne at all costs.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 11-16-2020, 02:53 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,440
Caroline Hallemann written an article on Town & Country magazine in somewhat refuting the claim that Meghan Markle is Diana, Princess of Wales. I presumed that Caroline Hallemann read the social media comments (particularly from Sussex Squads, Diana fans and anti-monarchist) and wanted to show the drastic differences between these two royal "married in" ladies, despite some parallels.

Despite Some Obvious Parallels, Meghan Markle Is Not Princess Diana
The two women had very different experiences in the royal family.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...son-the-crown/
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 11-16-2020, 07:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Charles is trending on Twitter, for all of the worst reasons. Everyone is assuming that the Crown is portraying the truth, and the comments are every bit as nasty and vulgar as you think. I blocked the trend ..I donít want to see this garbage. This is exactly the danger I feared. I loathe this show.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 11-16-2020, 09:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,371
I've only watched the first two episodes, but I agree that the RF is getting bashed.
But it was evident that would happen; there's a recap of last season when the Duchess of Windsor "warns" Charles; he tells her that they mean well, she counters that they don't.

The portrayal of Charles is especially bad; Osipi is right, he comes across as cringing! (More like Uriah Heep than the PoW).

As for Close's portrayal of Thatcher, she is winning accolades, but to me she seems almost grotesque.

Many seem regretful that certain persons and events are ignored, but really they can't show everything or filming would take years!

Well, I'll see how the rest unfolds.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 11-16-2020, 11:04 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,611
I never made it to the end - dont think I will watch more. I dont know why people are it is getting such good reviews. I also want to add Diana as a caricature.
I dont mind the RF getting bashed especially when it was factually. But I get the impression that this series now has an agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 11-16-2020, 11:04 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,611
I never made it to the end - dont think I will watch more. I dont know why people are it is getting such good reviews. I also want to add Diana as a caricature.
I dont mind the RF getting bashed especially when it was factually. But I get the impression that this series now has an agenda.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, duke of edinburgh, queen elisabeth, the crown


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Victoria" (2016-Present) - ITV Drama Series on Queen Victoria An Ard Ri The Electronic Domain 174 11-21-2019 04:58 PM
"The Taking of Prince Harry" (2010) - Channel 4 Drama Film wbenson The Electronic Domain 17 10-26-2010 10:16 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×