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

[AC21091968]

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?

From reading these two websites, The Crown production team tried to match the location/estate with similar architecture. In other words, the scenes that were set (in the plot) is not where it was shoot/recorded. For example, scenes with Windsor Castle were filmed in Belvoir Castle (Home and seat of the Duke of Rutland's or Manners family), as well as Burghley House.

https://people.com/royals/crown-filmins-locations-revealed/
https://www.visitengland.com/where-was-crown-filmed

Apparently, the camera crews were not at Buckingham Palace, instead CGI was used
https://www.vulture.com/2017/12/how-the-crown-recreated-buckingham-palace.html

 

[Alison H]

I don't know what the legal position is, but I know that, whilst Meryl Streep was praised for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in the film a few years ago, the Thatcher family were very upset about the film, but presumably couldn't do anything about it. So it's not just the Royals. Personally, I think it's awful that you can make a film or TV series about someone who's still alive, or whose immediate relatives are still alive, and cause this much hurt, but evidently it's quite legal.

 

[Pranter]

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

A few months ago I read they were probably going to include Williams wedding and maybe Harrys before they end it.

 

[Betsypaige]

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
http://https//www.thetimes.co.uk/ar...up-scenes-about-charles-and-camilla-7jx50wlzf

Isn’t Morgan conflating Mountbatten with Philip, who did suggest to Charles that he make up his mind - one way or the other - about Diana? What really bothers me is how unapologetic he is. From everything I’ve read, Lord Mountbatten and Charles adored each other; they never would have treated each other like that. I can only imagine what other horrors he imagined - especially on behalf of Charles. Yet, reading Twitter comments, Morgan has gotten exactly the reaction he wanted.

This quote from the Times article (link doesn’t work) makes me sick to my stomach. Morgan has NO idea what the latter said, what Charles and his adored uncle said in their last conversation ...

“We will never know if it was put into a letter, and we will never know if Charles got that letter before or after Mountbatten’s death, but in this particular drama, this is how I decided to deal with it.”

I loathed the Telegraph article for saying that Charles deserves the treatment he gets in this series.

 

[Betsypaige]

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.

This is not the place for this debate, but I don’t agree with this.

 

[Claire]

Oddly enough the majority of everyone involved appears to be more concerned about hurting the sensitives of William and Harry then anyone else.
Next season will be 1990 - which is going from 1992 to Diana death in one fell swoop.
After that, Gods knows. I think Morton said he will wait how things pan out.

 

[Pranter]

Oddly enough the majority of everyone involved appears to be more concerned about hurting the sensitives of William and Harry then anyone else.
Next season will be 1990 - which is going from 1992 to Diana death in one fell swoop.
After that, Gods knows. I think Morton said he will wait how things pan out.

Not sure what that would be odd? It was a horrific time in their lives that these last two seasons are/will be covering.

 

[Denville]

Isn’t Morgan conflating Mountbatten with Philip, who did suggest to Charles that he make up his mind - one way or the other - about Diana? What really bothers me is how unapologetic he is. From everything I’ve read, Lord Mountbatten and Charles adored each other; they never would have treated each other like that. I can only imagine what other horrors he imagined - especially on behalf of Charles. Yet, reading Twitter comments, Morgan has gotten exactly the reaction he wanted.

This quote from the Times article (link doesn’t work) makes me sick to my stomach. Morgan has NO idea what the latter said, what Charles and his adored uncle said in their last conversation ...



I loathed the Telegraph article for saying that Charles deserves the treatment he gets in this series.

how woudl Mountbatten have advised Charles to make up his mind? He didn't know Diana at that stage? Having said that Mountbatten was urging Charles to marry and settle down and to be seen as a hard working dutiful prince.. but he wanted him to marry Amanda Knatchbull, not some other girl.

 

[Denville]

Not sure what that would be odd? It was a horrific time in their lives that these last two seasons are/will be covering.

If watchers are uneasy about the sensitivies of William and Harry i assume its because the Crown is dragging up all the stuff about their mother and they've siad that they would like her to be left to rest in peace.. not to have the difficulties of her life brought up again and again.

 

[Kataryn]

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.

That is okay for me, but they should stop passing judgment!

 

[Nico]

The more i see it the more i see an americanized vision of the UK history.
The US viewer is obviously the main target. I guess the writers simply don't care about facts and or/UK reactions about the show.

The BCC could launch a TV drama about the US presidency with the same "artistic license". Wonder how it would be received across the pond ...

 

[Pranter]

The more i see it the more i see an americanized vision of the UK history.
The US viewer is obviously the main target. I guess the writers simply don't care about facts and or/UK reactions about the show.

The BCC could launch a TV drama about the US presidency with the same "artistic license". Wonder how it would be received across the pond ...

Its been done (movies and inaccurate docs) and the vast majority of Americans dont care.

I have said for months on here ppl need to stop believing the tabloids about members of the family But ppl keep posting those tabloid links and talking about them as if they are factual...this series isn't much different than tabloids at this point.


LaRae

 

[Betsypaige]

how woudl Mountbatten have advised Charles to make up his mind? He didn't know Diana at that stage? Having said that Mountbatten was urging Charles to marry and settle down and to be seen as a hard working dutiful prince.. but he wanted him to marry Amanda Knatchbull, not some other girl.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say Mountbatten said that..that’s what Morgan and the Crown are saying.

 

[lirienn]

Wow, the writers went really "all in" against the firm which I'm not sure was the best move. I wonder why they were all so negative, there is no nuance here. I love stories that are a little more in the grey area.

 

[bethaliz6894]

I feel really let down with all the media and stories about recreating the Royal Wedding and nothing, we got 30 seconds on the dress, a little of the opening words of the ceremony. I understand this is fictional and take the show as such. it isnt a bad way to kill a day.

 

[Osipi]

It just seems to me that as the seasons progress, less and less effort is really being put into this series. This last season was the most disappointing really of all not only because of the "tabloid flavor" of the screenwriting but also the character portrayal by the actors/actresses don't really seem to mesh well with the person they're actually supposed to be portraying and with each other.

To me, it's as if they've taken character makeup from "The Windsors" and applied it heavily on the people in "The Crown". It makes the entire show not exactly believable as a historical fiction drama and too lacking something to make it a satirical spoof.

I remember well when "The Crown" was first announced and that it was going to be a multi million dollar production and everyone was eager for it to air. Perhaps they've dragged it out too long over time but it's definitely lost its flavor and it's appeal.

 

[Rayal]

Its not my cup of tea as I'm a realist and enjoy history. I think it was entertaining but annoying in how far this miss the mark. According to the director he had no intention of creating 'The Crown' wrapped in facts and true events. Its like he used 30 percent of history and 70 percent of fiction. I would say don't trust the distorted perceptions of characters. I thought the assassination of Lord Mountbatten was horrific and possibly some what fictional so I had to Wiki it to get the facts. That was just one incident out of several that was skewered for the sake of entertainment...turns out it was close to what happened in real life. I think my biggest shock was that Emma Corrin looks exactly like my ex back in the 90's....lol.

 

[AC21091968]

Isn’t Morgan conflating Mountbatten with Philip, who did suggest to Charles that he make up his mind - one way or the other - about Diana? What really bothers me is how unapologetic he is. From everything I’ve read, Lord Mountbatten and Charles adored each other; they never would have treated each other like that. I can only imagine what other horrors he imagined - especially on behalf of Charles. Yet, reading Twitter comments, Morgan has gotten exactly the reaction he wanted.

This quote from the Times article (link doesn’t work) makes me sick to my stomach. Morgan has NO idea what the latter said, what Charles and his adored uncle said in their last conversation ...



I loathed the Telegraph article for saying that Charles deserves the treatment he gets in this series.

Apologies Betsypaige and other posters for the inconvenience.

I have now edited my post. Here is the link to The Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...up-scenes-about-charles-and-camilla-7jx50wlzf

Tatler has picked out some of the content from this Times article: https://www.tatler.com/article/roya...season-4-of-the-crown-exploitative-inaccurate

 

[MARG]

The only thing that shocks me is the fact the series lasted long enough to have a fourth season. From the very first episode it was full of inaccuracies for which there was no reasonable excuse. Admittedly the acid was delivered with far more subtlety but was vicious nonetheless.

Yes Charles and Camilla were over in France carrying out diplomatic duties and, might I say, doing the UK proud, looking and sounding nothing like the characitures portrayed in "The Crown". That the Wessex children will be teased or bullied at school just as the Wales boys did is a given.

However, William and Harry are going to have a redux of the horror that was their childhood and, unless the series is cancelled, Catherine in a see through dress on the catwalk and Meghan in bed on TV are the least offensive things that can expect to see.

 

[tommy100]

I do wonder - if its true they aren't going to feature Harry and Meghan and their very recent dramas but still have three more seasons to go then what are they going to cover?

This IMO is the problem - they stick to the format of each season like glue - one season for a decade, 10 episodes in each. But in some decades there is less to fill than others so how we are going to go from the marriage of Diana and Charles falling apart publicly, the squidygate tapes, camillagate tapes, the books, the panorama interview, the marriage of Andrew and Sarah falling apart, Anne divorcing after the scandal of her letters from the Queen's equerry being exposed, the fire at Windsor, the annus horribles speech, the departure of a conservative PM for a labour one, the death of Diana and its fall out including days of intense pressure and private grief of the RF....well thats 20 episodes at least that will all be crammed into half the time...
IMO they'd have been better doing half of last season as the 80s, this season and another two as 90s and just stop there. The problem is the closer they get to events people remember and which were more widely reported due to the internet etc its easier to pick holes in their accuracy.

 

[Betsypaige]

Apologies Betsypaige and other posters for the inconvenience.

I have now edited my post. Here is the link to The Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...up-scenes-about-charles-and-camilla-7jx50wlzf

Tatler has picked out some of the content from this Times article: https://www.tatler.com/article/roya...season-4-of-the-crown-exploitative-inaccurate

No need to apologize...thanks!

Just reading it again gets me angry on behalf of Charles, Camilla, William and the BRF. Morgan is loathsome.

 

[AC21091968]

There are Conservative politicians not happy with Season 4 of The Crown, particularly on the portrayal of Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family (to some extent).

Michael Forsyth (Conservative Peer in the House of Lords) tweeted out (and picked up by Vanity Fair) that The Crown is more like Spitting Image (British political/social satire show in 1980s), with "appalling script", especially when some are preparing to celebrate The Queen's platinum jubilee. There are other politicians that are mentioned in this article, but I can only read the first part without subscription. Members of the military also made complaint, according to this Vanity Fair article.

On Friday, a few members of the military made the first complaint, noting to the Times that Olivia Colman’s salute was not up to snuff. “Certainly these TV studios should draft in a sergeant major or other military instructor to make sure actors learn to keep their wrist straight,” said General Lord Dagnatt, a former head of the army. “The limp-cocked wrist like that would drive any self-respecting sergeant major mad.”

Michael Forsyth @lord_forsyth
Watched three episodes of the latest series of the crown yesterday. That was enough. Brilliant acting but ludicrous and appalling script. Barely one step up from spitting image. Poor show as we prepare to mark 70 years of impeccable service by Her Majesty the Queen
8:43 PM · Nov 16, 2020·Twitter for iPad​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328272368826015744

Margaret Thatcher’s Remaining Fans Are Coming For The Crown
“I can’t bear to watch any more of The Crown and its absurd, hateful portrayal of Margaret Thatcher. Such a shame.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/11/margaret-thatcher-fans-the-crown-season-4



Andrew Bridgen (Conservative Backbench MP for North West Leicestershire) has told the Daily Mail that The Crown is twisiting history, particularly on the Falkland War.
Tory MP blasts The Crown's twisted portrayal of Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War as 'utter rubbish' as Netflix show is slammed for being 'pro-IRA'
The Crown accused of re-writing history over the IRA and Falklands War
Viewers angry about 'pro-IRA' voiceover during funeral of Lord Mountbatten
Show also suggests Mrs Thatcher pushed for war after Mark Thatcher vanished
Andrew Bridgen said: 'Rubbish. If there was ever a just war it was the Falklands'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lasts-Crowns-portrayal-Margaret-Thatcher.html


Tim Montgomerie (Conservative activist) has tweeted out his dissatisfaction on The Crown, which is then used as a blurb in the Vanity Fair article.

Tim Montgomerie [Flag of United Kingdom] @montie
I can’t bear to watch any more of The Crown and its absurd, hateful portrayal of Margaret Thatcher. Such a shame.
8:26 AM · Nov 17, 2020·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328449454521856004

Conservatives criticise 'hateful' portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in 'The Crown'
https://au.news.yahoo.com/conservatives-criticise-the-crown-margaret-thatcher-151436800.html

 

[Susan D]

I have not seen any episodes of "The Crown" and I am sympathetic to the Royals that their family is being treated as if they are a soap opera. I see that some locations are owned by aristocratic families whom I presumed would be staunch monarchists. Wow! For the royals, I have no advice although some high-profile people have brought out all the dirt and the press then leaves them alone.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I'm confused - now OK magazine has an article up about how the royals are demanding Harry give back the money to Netflix because of their connection with the Crown. I doubt the story is true but why would Netflix be at fault? I thought the BBC made the series and Netflix just aired it in the US well after it aired in the UK.

 

[Mirabel]

The Crown is supposed to air for five seasons.
I wonder, with all this controversy, if they will actually film the fifth?

(What am I saying...if the ratings are decent, of course they'll film it)!

 

[Osipi]

I'm confused - now OK magazine has an article up about how the royals are demanding Harry give back the money to Netflix because of their connection with the Crown. I doubt the story is true but why would Netflix be at fault? I thought the BBC made the series and Netflix just aired it in the US well after it aired in the UK.

Sounds like stories coming out about reactions to "The Crown" are as wild and fictional as the screenplays in some of the episode.

 

[AC21091968]

There has been a debate on the topic "Is the Crown too Cruel to the Royals?" on Good Morning Britain with hosts, Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid. It was between Angela Levin and Paul Burrell.

 

[Betsypaige]

The Crown is supposed to air for five seasons.
I wonder, with all this controversy, if they will actually film the fifth?

(What am I saying...if the ratings are decent, of course they'll film it)!

I'm confused - now OK magazine has an article up about how the royals are demanding Harry give back the money to Netflix because of their connection with the Crown. I doubt the story is true but why would Netflix be at fault? I thought the BBC made the series and Netflix just aired it in the US well after it aired in the UK.

Not the Royals, I’ve read, just people associated with them or media types. I think Piers Morgan makes an excellent point. That said, half the article he spends lauding the season, so...

By doing so, Harry is literally accepting money made from humiliating his own family, especially his own mother whose experience with the press he constantly holds up to demand greater deference for his wife Meghan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...AN-Prince-Harry-sell-soul-Netflix-sharks.html

 

[Claricecolin]

The hypocrisy of the tabloid media is making me angry. While no one except the parties involved were privy to the actual conversations and there is dramatic license, the broad stokes ring true to what the media was reporting at the time. All one needs to do is watch actual documentaries and read the press from that time and much of this was being hinted at or outright said. With the state of the marriage and eating disorders being denied at the time.

 

[Betsypaige]

There has been a debate on the topic "Is the Crown too Cruel to the Royals?" on Good Morning Britain with hosts, Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid. It was between Angela Levin and Paul Burrell.

That was frustrating....Morgan wouldn’t let Angela Levin speak and Paul Burrell’s “truth” is viewed only through the rosy prism of Diana (ie: Charles is a villain). The video cut off as Angela was talking about Charles..is there more?