The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #721  
Old 11-16-2020, 11:31 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
Now that I've watched a few more episodes, I believe I can give this season a bit more of a favorable review. Discounting all the Diana/Charles saga which I believe was overblown to insinuate bad prince/good princess, once the season got into actually focusing on other subjects such as Thatcher's "Iron Lady" role and its effects on Britain and the Commonwealth's stance on apartheid, it actually got interesting.

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

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

__________________
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
  #722  
Old 11-16-2020, 12:16 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Now that I've watched a few more episodes, I believe I can give this season a bit more of a favorable review. Discounting all the Diana/Charles saga which I believe was overblown to insinuate bad prince/good princess, once the season got into actually focusing on other subjects such as Thatcher's "Iron Lady" role and its effects on Britain and the Commonwealth's stance on apartheid, it actually got interesting.

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

One more episode and I've completed the season.
Yes I agree...obviously some of the show is just tabloid, rumors and fantasy but there were some interesting things. I also thought some of it went on too long for no reason. We could of had another episode if you removed the dead spots. I think the most interesting thing was about the Queens mentally ill cousins.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 11-16-2020, 12:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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.
It’s getting good reviews in the US - at least in a couple of NY papers - because Charles has always been the bad guy and most people don’t follow the Royals...

I read this stuff, and I get angrier by the minute...

Quote:
Royal biographer Penny Junor says she believes Charles would be “incredibly upset” by the series.

She said the programme is riddled with inaccurate depictions of events and personalities.


“It’s the most cruel and unfair and horrible portrayal of almost all of them,” she told The Times.

And she hit out at Brit creator Peter Morgan as having “invented stuff to make expensive and very rich drama”.

A scene in which Charles’s great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten, is shown telling him that the family are disappointed at his relationship with Camilla would be particularly upsetting - and is “just not historically accurate”, she said.

There is no evidence that the scene, which occurs shortly before Lord Mountbatten is killed by an IRA bomb, ever happened.

“He adored Mountbatten and he was absolutely devastated by his death," Ms Junor said.

Yesterday, one of Prince Charles's pals told the Mail the drama was "dragging up things that happened during very difficult times 25 or 30 years ago without a thought for anyone’s feelings”.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/132093...charles-upset/
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 11-16-2020, 12:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Peterborough, Canada
Posts: 174
I watched the first two episodes. It is certainly very slanted against BRF members. I do worry that people who don't realize that much of this is fiction will use this to reinforce their pre-existing negative views of the family.



A few notes about the actors: I keep wanting the actor playing Charles to stand up straight. I think the actor playing Diana hits all the right marks with her voice, posture, and facial expression. The fact that she doesn't look much like Diana doesn't matter since she is so accurate in every other aspect of her behaviour. Thatcher as portrayed here seems to fit better with "Spitting Image" and satire rather than a supposedly serious drama. I have never liked Olivia Colman as the Queen; Tobias Menzies is adequate as Philip.
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 11-16-2020, 01:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Dennis Thatcher steals the show in episode 2. Absolute hoot. Does the class based humour travel well outside Britain I wonder?

The Crown is at its best when dealing with issues of substance rather than soap opera stuff like the Wales' marriage. The episode on Fagan & its portrayal of the desperation felt by many at the impact of Thatchers' economic polices is an example where this series shines. The most compelling episode of course was the tragedy at Aberfan.
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 11-16-2020, 02:36 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 32,035
I wonder when production will begin on the fifth and final Season of the Crown?
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 11-16-2020, 02:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I'



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.
I thought that it was Gillian Anderson....who plays Thatcherr.
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 11-16-2020, 03:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,371


Sorry you are right.
I always confuse the two.
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 11-16-2020, 03:36 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by caethi View Post
I watched the first two episodes. It is certainly very slanted against BRF members. I do worry that people who don't realize that much of this is fiction will use this to reinforce their pre-existing negative views of the family.
We can't deny that the "evil" potrayal of Charles and Camilla was expected by some (including on this forum, you know who you are) more than Christmas.

The same people were somewhat irritated last season where Charles and Camilla were portrayed as the romantic and sympathetic match forced to break up due to the Royal Family.

Anyway, the "artistic license" will be seen indeed, i'm afraid by a vast majority, as the truth, or at least as some part of it, throwing away 20+ years of rehabilitation campaign for Charles. That's just infuriating.

I remember when the late Olivia de Haviland was just appalled by her portrayal in the highly sucessful TV show 'Feud". She sued ... and lost. The writers claiming artistic license and freedom of speech. The same writers planned a season 2 of "Feud" with ... Charles and Diana. Go figure.

Facts are boring, drama sells, and the TV viewers in 2020 have not the curiosity, if not the intellect, to look behind a glossy TV show to try to understand a far more complex history.
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 11-16-2020, 03:52 PM
crm2317's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,590
Having only watched the first two episodes it does trouble me somewhat how negatively certain members of the royal family are portrayed. My husband is particularly put off by the so called behaviour of Prince Philip and Princess Margaret!
__________________
God Save the House of Windsor
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 11-16-2020, 06:13 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 633
I have binged watched it all yesterday, the things that irritated me was the portrayal of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward throwing in bases for troubles they have now in their 50's that it had clues in how they were in their 20's.

I hated the portrayal of the queen by Olivia Colman in the 3rd season but she really impressed me in this season.

I was never one of Diana's sycophants or those who idealized her, actually, I was a year old when she passed away, but if half of the portrayal of Prince Charles is true I can understand the backlash he got and why more people favor that the crown passes him to William.

I don't even see Camila's portrayal as bad as people see it's the spinelessness and clinging childlike behavior of Prince Charles who was in his late 30's during this period which irritates me.

If somebody you care about or even merely knows Whatever the relationship was (Husband/Wife, Parent/child, Freind's, etc..) and you know that they have troubles which were severe (Bulimia and self-hurt) and you didn't intervene or try to stop the reason's for it, am sorry but grow up the universe doesn't rotate around you and your childlike search for happiness.

And don't fire back at me that am portraying Diana that she was an angel and how destructive she was towards the Monarchy in my opinion if I were in her position let me just say they would wish I have only done what she did!
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 11-16-2020, 06:36 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
I would just caution you to understand that Diana had the very best of health and mental care available and was offered plenty of help but you have to admit you have a problem before you can accept it and the idea of 'the little men in the long white coats coming to take her away' was just not an option.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 11-16-2020, 07:02 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 633
Am sorry but what kind of help you can offer for someone in this scenario (I hate that I( A grown man in his late 30's who had a distant relationship with his parents "Can I ask who didn't have a hard relationship with his parents?") was forced to be with you instead of the one I want and that you get more attention from the worship like cult around you, don't bother me with your issues it's not mine, BTW I have booked and paid a Doctor appointment for you, it's weird that you do this to yourself).

Sorry, but if the same situation happened with another couple in the public eye and Charles wasn't a prince who was destined to be king the backlash from the most monarchist people who backed Charles would be different!
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 11-16-2020, 10:13 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,440
Paul Burrell have something to say about The Crown, in an interview with Lorraine Kelly
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 11-17-2020, 01:17 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 334
Oh dear, it's saying something when a Guardian columnist even wrote in defence of the Royal Family ...

The Crown's fake history is as corrosive as fake news

Quote:
The royal family series The Crown has garnered plaudits for its acting and brickbats for its inaccuracies, almost all of them derogatory towards living or recently dead individuals. The new series, on Netflix, appears to have upped the fabrication and the offence. The scriptwriter, Peter Morgan, admits: “Sometimes you have to forsake accuracy, but you must never forsake truth.”

This sounds like a dangerous distinction. Helen Mirren’s portrayal of Elizabeth II in The Queen (2006) was uncomplimentary but a plausible recreation of events around the death of Diana. Olivia Colman’s sour-faced parody of the monarch on Netflix left us guessing which parts were true and which false. It was fake history. The words and actions of living individuals were made up to suit a plot that could have been scripted by Diana’s biggest supporters.

(...)

Laws of privacy, defamation and slander have been built up over years to protect individuals against ever more surveillance and intrusion into personal lives. Most people support them, and increasing numbers use them. The Crown has taken its liberties by relying on royalty’s well-known – and sensible – reluctance to resort to the courts. This is artistic licence at its most cowardly as well as casual.

Fake history is fake news entrenched. To the legions of global cyber-warriors, fakery is legitimate hacking. To the trollers and spinners of lies, to leftwing conspiracy theorists and rightwing vaccine deniers, it is retaliation against power.

To documentary makers for whom ordinary facts are not colourful enough, not sufficiently damning, fake history carries the magic trump card: artistic licence.
I like that he mentions the 'cyber warriors'.

The Times has one listing the inaccuracies in the series.

How accurate is The Crown season 4? What’s true and false in the Netflix series

Well, it seems like the majority of British press are backing the BRF, so maybe it's not necessary for the Palace to do anything about it other than their usual 'keep calm and carry on'.
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 11-17-2020, 01:28 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,611
I do however feel that this will have serious consequences later - as well this series will be forever there.
I would feel terrible if the Wessex Children have to be home schooled now, or if the Cambridge children are similarly bullied about it. It is unfortunately inevitable.
It is easy for adults to pretend that it doesn't affect them - especially if they have have already accepted the tabloid image as the predominate one. Less so for children. And I doubt Netflix and Andrew Morton give a damn there.
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 11-17-2020, 01:42 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Oh dear, it's saying something when a Guardian columnist even wrote in defence of the Royal Family ...

The Crown's fake history is as corrosive as fake news



I like that he mentions the 'cyber warriors'.

The Times has one listing the inaccuracies in the series.

How accurate is The Crown season 4? What’s true and false in the Netflix series

Well, it seems like the majority of British press are backing the BRF, so maybe it's not necessary for the Palace to do anything about it other than their usual 'keep calm and carry on'.
Thank you yukari for sharing the links to The Guardian and The Times article. Dare I say, this is the only article that I agreed with a Guardian columnist

I do wonder the reasons behind the Press is backing the BRF. I could only think of two reasons:
  • The release of The Crown Season 4 is on Charles' 72nd birthday. Maybe the press is sympathetic towards him, especially when the War of the Wales is discussed again, whilst Camila and himself are at Germany for overseas engagement
  • The announcement of four-day long weekend for The Queen's Platinum Jubilee, few days before. The press may look forward to covering the event with possibly exclusive access and want to get on the good of the royal family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I do however feel that this will have serious consequences later - as well this series will be forever there.
I would feel terrible if the Wessex Children have to be home schooled now, or if the Cambridge children are similarly bullied about it. It is unfortunately inevitable.
It is easy for adults to pretend that it doesn't affect them - especially if they have have already accepted the tabloid image as the predominate one. Less so for children. And I doubt Netflix and Andrew Morton give a damn there.
Definitely, to have your parents' family portrayed in an exaggerated/caricature manner and be presented as "facts/realty/truth" for the sake of entertainment and forced agenda would certainly impact your future. At this point, it's not just Wessex and Cambridge children, but also The Queen's great-grandchildren and her relatives who will have to face criticism based this fictional portrayal of the royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 11-17-2020, 03:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
[...]

AC2109:

Quote:
I do wonder the reasons behind the Press is backing the BRF. I could only think of two reasons:
The release of The Crown Season 4 is on Charles' 72nd birthday. Maybe the press is sympathetic towards him, especially when the War of the Wales is discussed again, whilst Camila and himself are at Germany for overseas engagement

The announcement of four-day long weekend for The Queen's Platinum Jubilee, few days before. The press may look forward to covering the event with possibly exclusive access and want to get on the good of the royal family.
I don’t buy either of these arguments, to be honest. I think the media is frankly being fair - maybe they learned lessons from the War of the Wales, maybe they learned that Charles wasn’t a mustache twirling villain and Diana a saint...or maybe they have some journalistic integrity after all. I do think most seem to be sympathetic with Charles and Camilla, especially because they’ve done so much good, and have proven not to be these cold ogres. I’m sure they’re sympathetic to William, who has to deal with this garbage being dredged up again and both his parents’ hurt...and to HM and other Royals who are being victimized so that this Republican weasel can make money and get attention.

I had already read and posted Vickers’ article, but I hadn’t read the Guardian piece..that was excellent.
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 11-17-2020, 04:54 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 32,035
Josh O'Connor talks to the BBC about the new series of The Crown.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-54964918
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 11-17-2020, 05:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
I have binged watched it all yesterday, the things that irritated me was the portrayal of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward throwing in bases for troubles they have now in their 50's that it had clues in how they were in their 20's.

I hated the portrayal of the queen by Olivia Colman in the 3rd season but she really impressed me in this season.

I was never one of Diana's sycophants or those who idealized her, actually, I was a year old when she passed away, but if half of the portrayal of Prince Charles is true I can understand the backlash he got and why more people favor that the crown passes him to William.

I don't even see Camila's portrayal as bad as people see it's the spinelessness and clinging childlike behavior of Prince Charles who was in his late 30's during this period which irritates me.

If somebody you care about or even merely knows Whatever the relationship was (Husband/Wife, Parent/child, Freind's, etc..) and you know that they have troubles which were severe (Bulimia and self-hurt) and you didn't intervene or try to stop the reason's for it, am sorry but grow up the universe doesn't rotate around you and your childlike search for happiness.

And don't fire back at me that am portraying Diana that she was an angel and how destructive she was towards the Monarchy in my opinion if I were in her position let me just say they would wish I have only done what she did!
The reasons for Diana's problems were deep seated and went back to her childhood. I am not sure what you expected Charles to do?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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