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

[Osipi]

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. ?

 

[Pranter]

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

 

[Betsypaige]

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...

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/13209315/royal-familys-horrible-portrayal-crown-cruel-charles-upset/

 

[caethi]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I wonder when production will begin on the fifth and final Season of the Crown?

 

[Denville]

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.

 

[Mirabel]

Sorry you are right.
I always confuse the two.

 

[Nico]

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.

 

[crm2317]

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!

 

[duke of poliganc]

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!

 

[MARG]

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.

 

[duke of poliganc]

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!

 

[AC21091968]

Paul Burrell have something to say about The Crown, in an interview with Lorraine Kelly

 

[yukari]

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

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'.

 

[Claire]

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.

 

[AC21091968]

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.

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

[...]

AC2109:

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.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Josh O'Connor talks to the BBC about the new series of The Crown.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-54964918

 

[Denville]

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?

 

[Pranter]

Charles had deep seated problems too...everyone has baggage. They were ill suited for each other.


LaRae

 

[AC21091968]

The Telegraph is definitely on the side with the British Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher (Not surprisingly of course). From reading at the headline, it is probably the most critical on production in The Crown

The Royal family are right to be furious about The Crown – this series is a disgrace
Netflix’s high-rent soap opera is an appalling travesty of history, wilfully misrepresenting everyone from Mrs Thatcher to the Queen
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/royal-family-right-furious-crown-series-disgrace/

Dickie Arbiter has tweeted again about The Crown, but this time with a picture of a newspaper column, written by Matthew Moore from The Times.

Dickie Arbiter [Flag of United Kingdom] @RoyalDickie
So #PeterMorgan has finally admitted scenes in @TheCrown4 - covering 1977 to 1990 - are made up. And why is HM's same PS #MartinCharteris there throughout? He retired in '77. As for the programme meeting (E10) referring to #Diana's mental health - it didn't happen. I was there
7:57 PM · Nov 17, 2020·Twitter for Android​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328623193947566082

Here is the online version of the article:
The Crown writer defends making up scenes about Charles and Mountbatten
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-crown-writer-defends-making-up-scenes-about-charles-and-camilla-7jx50wlzf

 

[Pranter]

The irony is enough to choke a horse!


LaRae

 

[yukari]

(...)

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.

Rather funny isn't it, since republican always claims that royals are only wasting taxpayer's money, that the arguments on how royals bring money to the country through tourism is empty propaganda with no solid proof (France doesn't have royalty, but tourists still come, etc), yet here he is, a republican making money off the royal's life in with the key selling value is "the royal" status itself.

 

[Mirabel]

I'm half-way through the season now, and so far no one seems likeable.
Every person comes across as embittered and unhappy (with the exception of the Queen, who seems oblivious).

The show apparently blames Diana's issues on Charles, for acting cold and indifferent to his wife.
Of course we who follow the RF know that her problems predated her marriage, but much of the public does not.

Then there's Camilla, whose behavior verges on smug and catty.
And it's hard to decide which of Charles' siblings comes across as the most obnoxious! (The "favorite child" segment made me wince).

This show does the RF no favors, that's for certain.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Right well.. I can't even get past episode one. I loved the first two seasons (and was willing to look the other way to some of the inaccuracies! was okay-ish with season 3, and I think Josh and Erin were the breakout of that season.
But I don't think I can watch season 4. already I can detect much wrong, and i'm sorry, as much as I am sympathetic to Diana, I am also sympathetic to Charles and Camilla. But while last year I was able to handle Josh as Charles, somehow this season his portrayal feels wrong and too off.

I am also pissed off by Sussex Squad fools who take this for gospel and make parallels to Diana, when the situations are so incredibly different (though some stuff are similar).

I like the yin/yang method to life: no person is wholly evil nor are they wholly bad.
I don't think Charles did things because he wanted to be cruel to Diana (they obviously cared and even loved one another at first), nor is Camilla a cruel woman (though it is her love and decision to marry APB that had eventually led Charles to agree to marry Diana), and I don't think Diana was a complete innocent (she was at first of course, being so young and naive, but I think she knew to be plenty manipulative including emotionally, when it suited her).
I don't think Meghan is wholly bad, though I question the motivations behind her actions and decisions. Neither is Harry wholly good- but these are irrelevant to this thread.


Also, I am still not over that we never got to see Anne kidnapping attempt and her badass responds, and her participation in the Olympics!

 

[Claire]

Question - I was told that the estate of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean do not allow movies and series made of them. That permission has to be obtained from the estate - which is how they are able to control the public image.
Is this truth? And if it is cant they do something similar for Diana and the royal family in general?

 

[QueenMathilde]

My big problem with the Crown is the characters don't look like the real people they are playing. It is most noticeable with Diana and it's a big distraction for me.

 

[Claire]

Right well.. I can't even get past episode one. I loved the first two seasons (and was willing to look the other way to some of the inaccuracies! was okay-ish with season 3, and I think Josh and Erin were the breakout of that season.
But I don't think I can watch season 4. already I can detect much wrong, and i'm sorry, as much as I am sympathetic to Diana, I am also sympathetic to Charles and Camilla. But while last year I was able to handle Josh as Charles, somehow this season his portrayal feels wrong and too off.

I also just had enough - could someone people explain how they think that the royals hunting can be compared to a terrorist attack? The juxtaposition of the shot is horrible. They seem to be saying that royal hunt so does the IRA so that is it.
I really think that this session had an agenda - make the royals seem as out of touch, barbaric and heartless as possible. My husband thinks it so Harry and William will be seen as the coming of the Messiahs. I am hoping the season will be cancelled.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I also just had enough - could someone people explain how they think that the royals hunting can be compared to a terrorist attack? The juxtaposition of the shot is horrible. They seem to be saying that royal hunt so does the IRA so that is it.
I really think that this session had an agenda - make the royals seem as out of touch, barbaric and heartless as possible. My husband thinks it so Harry and William will be seen as the coming of the Messiahs. I am hoping the season will be cancelled.

I thought they weren't going to go as far as to have Harry and William in it?