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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Wasn't it common knowledge that Penny was Philip's mistress? I always thought that too so I'm not surprised the Crown is showing it.
 
Wasn't it common knowledge that Penny was Philip's mistress? I always thought that too so I'm not surprised the Crown is showing it.

It's "common knowledge" that Philip had affairs with a bunch of women — which many of the women in question later strenuously denied.

"Common knowledge" is also not a basis for including something potentially libelous in a program — you need a higher standard of fact than that, or you're going to get your legal department in hot water, fast.
 
While I won't dismiss rumors that the DofE had affairs during his lifetime, I do have a hard time believing that he would have had an affairs w/a woman young enough to be his daughter .... and practically a niece/cousin. Just yucky!

I do think that Penny probably found solace and some level of validation of importance in both the DofE and QEII following his husband shuffling off to the Bahamas w/a girlfriend.

Am I mistaken or wasn't their eldest son a drug addict?
 
I bet they just dragged this old news out again and then, in the next season, there won't be anything that would lead to the assumption of an affair IF not the old news had been dragged out.

Does this make sense?

If they had, fine, not our business. If they had not, fine, not our business.

@suztav: yes, he was, but now seems to be sober. He works on the estate, is married and has a son.
 
While I won't dismiss rumors that the DofE had affairs during his lifetime, I do have a hard time believing that he would have had an affairs w/a woman young enough to be his daughter .... and practically a niece/cousin. Just yucky!

I do think that Penny probably found solace and some level of validation of importance in both the DofE and QEII following his husband shuffling off to the Bahamas w/a girlfriend.

Am I mistaken or wasn't their eldest son a drug addict?
The thing about the affairs issue was that it was mostly based on hearsay and speculation, the media never named names and believe you me if the media had names, they would have put it out there.

Wasn't it common knowledge that Penny was Philip's mistress? I always thought that too so I'm not surprised the Crown is showing it.
It’s not common knowledge, but rather common assumptions. Also there’s no actual evidence for that. In addition, Penny Mountbatten is alive and has been through enough with her family, she doesn’t need her name being dragged through the mud so publicly based on hearsay and lack of substantial evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Penny turned to Prince Philip and the Queen for support after her young daughter died, and, as the Mail article says, bonded with Philip over their shared interest in carriage driving. It's very cruel of The Crown to twist that into anything improper.
 
This will totally wipe out all the sympathy and goodwill for the new King and Queen
I don’t think this part about Penny Mountbatten and the DOE will tarnish the new King. But it will affect Charles and probably Penny if they aware of it.
 
I don’t think this part about Penny Mountbatten and the DOE will tarnish the new King. But it will affect Charles and probably Penny if they aware of it.

I think it's in reference to the new season covering the War of the Waleses and Diana's death.

But I do hope if the implications are sufficiently libelous the Mountbattens will sue. The show already suggested Dickie flirted with a coup. There's no reason for them to put up with more.
 
The Crown has so far used artistic licence to full effect but Season 5 sounds like the events will be highly dramatized!
 
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.
 
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.

But why can't such entertainment be historically accurate?
I don't just mean The Crown; it seems as if everything is changed these days, to reflect modern views.
 
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.

very
unlikely. people beleive what they see, no matter how silly it is. Look how people jump to conclusions based on snippets of information or videos on the Net.
 
But why can't such entertainment be historically accurate?
I don't just mean The Crown; it seems as if everything is changed these days, to reflect modern views.

Too true! The ITV drama Victoria a few years back showed Chartists protesting at the gates of Buckingham Palace, which never happened. It's just to make things seem more dramatic, but it gives the wrong impression to people not familiar with the historical facts. And that awful The Tudors merged Henry VIII's sisters together, apparently because they thought viewers couldn't cope with too many characters!
 
ha, what about Victoria carrying Alice around to show to someone who was unsympathetic to the poor...
 
It's John Major's turn.

John Major: The Crown is a barrel-load of malicious nonsense

Archive

(...)

Sir John, who was prime minister*from 1990 to 1997, was moved to issue a statement amid suggestions in Westminster that the series - released on Nov 9 - imagines conversations between him and the late Queen.

There have been rumours that one of the plotlines sees the Prince of Wales, as he then was, summoning Sir John to a meeting and hinting that he wants his support for the Queen’s abdication.

A second plotline is said to imagine conversations about the Queen and Royal family, in which Sir John talks about them in disparaging terms to his wife Dame Norma.

(...)

On the specific rumours about the storylines, the spokesman added: “There was never any discussion between Sir John and the then P
rince of Wales about any possible abdication of the late Queen Elizabeth II – nor was such an improbable and improper subject ever raised by the then Prince of Wales (or Sir John).”

The spokesman added that Sir John and Dame Norma had never discussed the Royal family in disparaging terms. adding that “has never been their view, never would be their view, and never will be their view”.

(...)
 
But why can't such entertainment be historically accurate?

Most of it is, I think, but drama sells. In Series 4, Princess Margaret is shown apparently attempting suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills, but in reality, it wasn't a suicide attempt. I doubt Princess Anne was hauled in before Lord Mountbatten, her parents, and her grandmother and asked to talk about Camilla, much less admit she slept with Andrew Parker-Bowles too.
 
Most of it is, I think, but drama sells.

I disagree; I don't believe it is. Not currently, anyway.

For example, I was planning to see the revival of the musical 1776 in NYC; then I found out Thomas Jefferson was played by a (pregnant) black woman.

What is the point of that? I just don't get it.
 
I disagree; I don't believe it is. Not currently, anyway.

For example, I was planning to see the revival of the musical 1776 in NYC; then I found out Thomas Jefferson was played by a (pregnant) black woman.

What is the point of that? I just don't get it.

What was the point of Alexander Hamilton being played by a Puerto Rican? If it brings American history into people's consciousnesses that otherwise wouldn't give two figs about it, who cares? As long as you're learning something about people you knew nothing about before you sat down, then the objectives of that production were met.

Everyone knows what Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton looked like, so it isn't like people are being willfully deceived. I've seen Anne Boleyn played by a Black woman, Elizabeth I played by an Australian, and Abraham Lincoln played by an Irishman. All the actors did marvelously in their roles, even if their portrayals were not 100% historically accurate. Sometimes suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy something.
 
What was the point of Alexander Hamilton being played by a Puerto Rican? If it brings American history into people's consciousnesses that otherwise wouldn't give two figs about it, who cares? As long as you're learning something about people you knew nothing about before you sat down, then the objectives of that production were met.

Everyone knows what Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton looked like, so it isn't like people are being willfully deceived. I've seen Anne Boleyn played by a Black woman, Elizabeth I played by an Australian, and Abraham Lincoln played by an Irishman. All the actors did marvelously in their roles, even if their portrayals were not 100% historically accurate. Sometimes suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy something.


I understand that; yet it seems intrinsically dishonest.
 
I disagree; I don't believe it is. Not currently, anyway.

For example, I was planning to see the revival of the musical 1776 in NYC; then I found out Thomas Jefferson was played by a (pregnant) black woman.

What is the point of that? I just don't get it.

Maybe because Jefferson had a longstanding relationship with a black woman and fathered her children.

But without seeing the show or knowing what the director was trying to do, I'm not sure, either.
 
I understand that; yet it seems intrinsically dishonest.

I think so long as you go into whatever it is, be it Broadway, a TV show, or a movie, understanding that poetic/dramatic license has been taken, there is no dishonesty.
 
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...pc=UE01&cvid=d386be06afc74e9f8c39c73a8549a3ef

Former PM John Major's called The Crown "malicious nonsense".

Malicious nonsense it may be, but the new series has already made the front page of some of the papers, and it hasn't even aired yet.


I think so long as you go into whatever it is, be it Broadway, a TV show, or a movie, understanding that poetic/dramatic license has been taken, there is no dishonesty.

I take the point, but I'm very uncomfortable with poetic licence being taken over the lives of real people, especially when they're either still alive or have only recently died. How would the scriptwriters like it if someone made up stories about them and showed them on stage or TV or in a film?
 
Last edited:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...pc=UE01&cvid=d386be06afc74e9f8c39c73a8549a3ef

Former PM John Major's called The Crown "malicious nonsense".

Malicious nonsense it may be, but the new series has already made the front page of some of the papers, and it hasn't even aired yet.

I think so long as you go into whatever it is, be it Broadway, a TV show, or a movie, understanding that poetic/dramatic license has been taken, there is no dishonesty.

I take the point, but I'm very uncomfortable with poetic licence being taken over the lives of real people, especially when they're either still alive or have only recently died. How would the scriptwriters like it if someone made up stories about them and showed them on stage or TV or in a film?


Sorry - that posted twice and I can't seem to delete the duplicate!
 
Last edited:
I think the issue is at the start it was made out this was all going to be fact based in terms on storylines with necessary making up of conversations to fill in the gaps / private conservations. Now though they seem to be making up major plot lines up - which seems ridiculous to me as there are plenty of factual plots to take from. Either be historically accurate or don't, don't try and be both IMO.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...urious-John-Major-condemns-Netflix-drama.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ering-enacting-Dianas-Panorama-interview.html

Strangely, when people watch films, they know it's fiction.
When they watch the Crown, they believe it's factual?

Charles has access to the best legal teams; but I expect they (Royal family) will just wait for it to run its course.

There is a line between fiction and libel, or tarnishing the reputation of living or recently deceased public figures.

We have been warned that, as The Crown drew closer to present times, that line could be probably crossed. The show should have ended in the early seasons about the young Queen Elizabeth which, albeit also fictional, at least were about events that took place 70 or 60 years ago and of which few living people have personal recollections.
 
Last edited:
The show is a perfect showcase for the greed, malice and downright spite abroad in the world. "The Crown's" original premise was aiming for truth and artistic license to fill the bits that nobody knew about. That is no longer the case and it is just a vicious money-making machine exploiting the lives of individual members of the BRF.

There is nothing about the series now that will not cause actual pain and humiliation by means of what can only be called mental cruelty to the senior members of the family. I fail to understand how the pain and hurt of someone can be justified in the name of art.

Needless to say, the truth is largely a stranger to this show.
 
The new season will no doubt be the most controversial one to datte!
 
Back
Top Bottom