The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #881  
Old 11-23-2020, 12:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
Agreed. His competence in managing his estate was never a question. We know he's good at it. He was raised to be good at it. He, however, wasn't raised to be emotionally fully developed. Like I said, one can be many good things and be many awful things too. No one is perfect and life isn't black and white. His incompetence in his first marriage isn't a secret. The fact that The Crown isn't going to sugarcoat it shouldn't come as a surprise.
no, he's not perfect but IMO his first marriage went wrong because he and Diana were very much imcompatbile... He cares about people, which is why he has worked hard on the Duchy of cornwall.. he doesn't have to do that... and I think with a different wife, who was n't unhappy and damaged, he would have been all right...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 11-23-2020, 12:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by caethi View Post
I had to turn off episode 9 when the video of Diana singing that song from Phantom. Is there any truth to that scene? I must have missed that little tidbit back in the day.



While I enjoyed the actor playing Diana in earlier episodes (She nailed the voice and non-verbal mannerisms), she seems to be playing Diana as almost too vulnerable. We know Diana was mercurial, and that she probably needed professional psychological help to manage her various struggles, but it seems that as Diana gets older she is actually being portrayed as more vulnerable, which is not what I would have expected.
I think she got more neurotic as she got older.. At first she was perhaps a bit clingy, scared of being away from charles but not sure if he was there for her.. but in later years, the uneasiness seemed to spiral into real paranoia....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 11-23-2020, 01:15 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
no, he's not perfect but IMO his first marriage went wrong because he and Diana were very much imcompatbile... He cares about people, which is why he has worked hard on the Duchy of cornwall.. he doesn't have to do that... and I think with a different wife, who was n't unhappy and damaged, he would have been all right...
He's the heir of the throne in a society that doesn't need a monarchy to survive nor thrive so I would think he very much has to work hard if he wants the BRF to continue to be relevant.

They may have been incompatible, but he was the adult with experience here and he was the one who pursued someone who was barely legal. He was the one who was still messing around with another woman. That is on him, not on Diana and if that makes people uncomfortable, you should be because it remains shady as hell.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 11-23-2020, 01:59 PM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 3,001
Well, it takes two to tango. Their marriage didn't work not only because of Charles but also because of Diana. But, I often think, if Charles had truly loved Diana, would it have saved their marriage and Diana's mental health issues? Yes, I agree about incompatibility, but wasn't the lack of love that led to their failed relationship as well?
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 11-23-2020, 02:07 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
He's the heir of the throne in a society that doesn't need a monarchy to survive nor thrive so I would think he very much has to work hard if he wants the BRF to continue to be relevant.
Why does he need to work hard on the Duchy of Cornwall; it provides his income and I don't think the public would worry that much if he profited a little bit less from the Duchy as long as he is doing his other royal duties to the best of his abilities. What makes you think that his work for the Duchy is that important for the BRF to remain relevant?
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 11-23-2020, 02:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Why does he need to work hard on the Duchy of Cornwall; it provides his income and I don't think the public would worry that much if he profited a little bit less from the Duchy as long as he is doing his other royal duties to the best of his abilities. What makes you think that his work for the Duchy is that important for the BRF to remain relevant?
No, of course not. It was one of Charles' projects to improve the Duchy's income and the lives of the people who lived in his properties. He was hard working, and dedicated. And his marriage to Diana was a hopleless case - she was too young, neurotic and damaged.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 11-23-2020, 02:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
Well, it takes two to tango. Their marriage didn't work not only because of Charles but also because of Diana. But, I often think, if Charles had truly loved Diana, would it have saved their marriage and Diana's mental health issues? Yes, I agree about incompatibility, but wasn't the lack of love that led to their failed relationship as well?
I think that Charles started out fond of Diana and thinking that they had enough in common to build a good marriage. But when they got closer, they realised how litlte they had, and both of them were unsure if it woudl work out. You can't save people with mental health issues....
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 11-23-2020, 03:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 2,257
Who claims producing a mostly "fictional" series should not use real life characters with great resemblance like authentic facial expressions, hairdos, voices etc. ...!
No wonder many people mix things up, unable to divide fiction from reality!
If you read comments in social media about this series, you can read how much it damages the reputation of the british royal family. Old sentiments come up again, anti-royalists are getting remembered how "bad and toxic" the Windsors were (not my words, of course!), things I haven┤t heard since the late 90s....
Well, what┤s really "toxic" to me really is this series!
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 11-23-2020, 04:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
I've also been reading about Hugh Lindsay's widow (mentioned several posts ago) and how distressed she is that her husband's death's been turned into TV entertainment, and how upsetting it's going to be for her daughter, who was born a couple of months later and so never even met her dad.


The makers of this programme don't seem to care how much hurt they cause. The Royals and politicians may be public figures, not that even that justifies the upset being caused, but Hugh Lindsay's family aren't.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 11-23-2020, 04:51 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Why does he need to work hard on the Duchy of Cornwall; it provides his income and I don't think the public would worry that much if he profited a little bit less from the Duchy as long as he is doing his other royal duties to the best of his abilities. What makes you think that his work for the Duchy is that important for the BRF to remain relevant?
Work ethic, amongst other things.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 11-23-2020, 05:01 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I've also been reading about Hugh Lindsay's widow (mentioned several posts ago) and how distressed she is that her husband's death's been turned into TV entertainment, and how upsetting it's going to be for her daughter, who was born a couple of months later and so never even met her dad.


The makers of this programme don't seem to care how much hurt they cause. The Royals and politicians may be public figures, not that even that justifies the upset being caused, but Hugh Lindsay's family aren't.
Michael Parker's family complained about the way he was presented in series 2 but the producers simply don't care. They see $$$$ signs and a chance to stick it to the royals and hopefully destroy the institution (that is what any republican would want).
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 11-23-2020, 05:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
Work ethic, amongst other things.
I dont think that Charles' worst enemy would deny htat he has a good work ethic...He has always done his job, done a stint in the navy, then set up the Princes Trust and took on royal duties... He doesn't have to do everything that he does.. he goes well over and beyond hte call of duty... so I m not sure what your point is....
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 11-23-2020, 06:22 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I've also been reading about Hugh Lindsay's widow (mentioned several posts ago) and how distressed she is that her husband's death's been turned into TV entertainment, and how upsetting it's going to be for her daughter, who was born a couple of months later and so never even met her dad.


The makers of this programme don't seem to care how much hurt they cause. The Royals and politicians may be public figures, not that even that justifies the upset being caused, but Hugh Lindsay's family aren't.

I am uncomfortable about a lot of aspects of 'The Crown' but I do not fault its makers for including the avalanche incident and Major Lindsay's death in the show. I just rewatched those parts and they seemed very tasteful and respectful. Of course it would be distressing to his widow. She was heavily pregnant at the time of the incident and it would have been a horrible part of her life and she would not like to see the incident replayed in a TV documentary-drama. However, it was 32 years ago and I suspect her daughter will be more distressed by witnessing her mother's distress than anything else. She would be well aware of what happened though so none of it would, or should, come as a surprise.

I do not consider that Major Lindsay's death has been "turned into TV entertainment". It was, however, an incident of a significant event in the life of the heir to the English Crown, which is what the show is about, and significant events in the life of that heir are valid subjects for it. Charles' life was threatened by the skiing incident and avalanche, and I would not be at all surprised if he suffered PTSD as a result of it, as hinted at in the show. I consider it was quite acceptable to include it.

Have there been complaints from the families of those affected by Lord Mountbatten's murder and the way that event was depicted? Not all the people killed in that explosion were public figures but they will be mentioned every time that incident is retold, and so will Major Lindsay's death whenever the avalanche that threatened Charles' life is mentioned. I do not think you should ignore or cover up bad or sad things that happen in history just because it brings up painful memories for the survivors.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 11-23-2020, 06:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I am uncomfortable about a lot of aspects of 'The Crown' but I do not fault its makers for including the avalanche incident and Major Lindsay's death in the show. I just rewatched those parts and they seemed very tasteful and respectful. Of course it would be distressing to his widow. She was heavily pregnant at the time of the incident and it would have been a horrible part of her life and she would not like to see the incident replayed in a TV documentary-drama. However, it was 32 years ago and I suspect her daughter will be more distressed by witnessing her mother's distress than anything else. She would be well aware of what happened though so none of it would, or should, come as a surprise.
"
I do not consider that Major Lindsay's death has been "turned into TV entertainment". It was, however, an incident of a significant event in the life of the heir to the English Crown, which is what the show is about, and significant events in the life of that heir are valid subjects for it. Charles' life was threatened by the skiing incident and avalanche, and I would not be at all surprised if he suffered PTSD as a result of it, as hinted at in the show. I consider it was quite acceptable to include it.

Have there been complaints from the families of those affected by Lord Mountbatten's murder and the way that event was depicted? Not all the people killed in that explosion were public figures but they will be mentioned every time that incident is retold, and so will Major Lindsay's death whenever the avalanche that threatened Charles' life is mentioned. I do not think you should ignore or cover up bad or sad things that happen in history just because it brings up painful memories for the survivors.
This isn't history, its a fictionalised drama.. an entertainment.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 11-23-2020, 07:06 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
This isn't history, its a fictionalised drama.. an entertainment.
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.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 11-23-2020, 07:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
no, he's not perfect but IMO his first marriage went wrong because he and Diana were very much imcompatbile... He cares about people, which is why he has worked hard on the Duchy of cornwall.. he doesn't have to do that... and I think with a different wife, who was n't unhappy and damaged, he would have been all right...
I disagree. Diana was not damaged. She was hurt by finding out her husband did not love her. But she was resilient and was rebuilding her life after the separation and then divorce. Damaged people would have just given up. Charles was not perfect himself he had some angst which he had confessed to his biographer Dimbleby mostly about his upbringing and schooling. Diana cared about people also and she rose above the personal issues and did her work well and espoused causes. With a different wife, the same thing may well have happened but perhaps the wife might have put up and shut up but been miserable still. It is difficult to realize that a spouse prefers someone else. Perhaps Charles should have spelled out all that was expected of Diana including his being allowed friendships or associations with other women. ANd no matter what, he should not have married someone he did not love.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 11-23-2020, 07:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No, of course not. It was one of Charles' projects to improve the Duchy's income and the lives of the people who lived in his properties. He was hard working, and dedicated. And his marriage to Diana was a hopleless case - she was too young, neurotic and damaged.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 11-23-2020, 07:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
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.
Charles and Diana were both scarred by their parents' - his by the lack of attention (not love, to be clear) and hers by their divorce (and other things - I'm not familiar at all with Diana's childhood). I suspect that even had they been well-matched, it might not have worked.

As for The Crown, I guess Morgan got what he wanted - except to me he's just a nasty, ugly brute with no sense of decency.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-cr...es-and-camilla
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 11-23-2020, 10:07 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
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".

Because of neat little boxes that needed to be checked, Charles and Camilla knew practically from the onset of their relationship that a marriage would be a "no go" and it could be nothing more than an affair of the heart. There was pressure to ensure the hereditary line of succession with the proverbial heir and the spare and in order to have that, Charles needed to marry. Diana comes along all starry eyed with visions of grand romance in her head and Charles, resigned to the fact that he needed to marry, figured they'd make it work. All the boxes were neatly checked off but what was missing was an actual relationship between two people that could withstand the test of time.

The lesson learned from that disastrous marriage was to toss the neat little boxes out the window. It was the end of having to be "suitable" to marry into the BRF. The relationship of the couple mattered more in the decision than bloodline, purity and other boxes to be checked off. Charles eventually did marry his best friend and confidante. So much could have been avoided if they had been allowed to go ahead and marry in the first place. Would Camilla have chosen Charles back then over Andrew PB? We'll never know.

The point being that the disastrous marriage between Charles and Diana may not have happened if the restrictions and the boxes and the "suitability" factors didn't exist at the time but they did and it went so horribly wrong.
__________________
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
  #900  
Old 11-24-2020, 02:59 AM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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".

Because of neat little boxes that needed to be checked, Charles and Camilla knew practically from the onset of their relationship that a marriage would be a "no go" and it could be nothing more than an affair of the heart. There was pressure to ensure the hereditary line of succession with the proverbial heir and the spare and in order to have that, Charles needed to marry. Diana comes along all starry eyed with visions of grand romance in her head and Charles, resigned to the fact that he needed to marry, figured they'd make it work. All the boxes were neatly checked off but what was missing was an actual relationship between two people that could withstand the test of time.

The lesson learned from that disastrous marriage was to toss the neat little boxes out the window. It was the end of having to be "suitable" to marry into the BRF. The relationship of the couple mattered more in the decision than bloodline, purity and other boxes to be checked off. Charles eventually did marry his best friend and confidante. So much could have been avoided if they had been allowed to go ahead and marry in the first place. Would Camilla have chosen Charles back then over Andrew PB? We'll never know.

The point being that the disastrous marriage between Charles and Diana may not have happened if the restrictions and the boxes and the "suitability" factors didn't exist at the time but they did and it went so horribly wrong.
Again Charles was the adult in the relationship don't confuse the lack of backbone with the pressure for him to marry someone suitable, his contemporaries who came from more rigid royal courts "Always a Princess" by the time of his marriage to Diana defied what was expected and got the support they need, am talking about the Norwegian and Swedish heirs.
__________________

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
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 05:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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