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

[Betsypaige]

Seems that the Royals are not the only ones a bit concerned by the "artistic license"

Widow criticises The Crown over avalanche episode
The wife of Hugh Lindsay, who was killed while skiing with Prince Charles, had asked show not to feature the disaster

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1606074904

That is disgusting.......I didn't think I could hate Morgan more. Based on the description, he used poor Major Lindsay's death as a catalyst for more Charles and Diana. If he had any respect or concern for his widow and daughter, he wouldn't have recreated the avalanche at all.

Netflix’s description of the episode reads: “Charles is caught in a deadly avalanche, and he and Diana are prompted to reevaluate their commitment to their troubled marriage.”

 

[kathia_sophia]

The Crown showed Diana's miserable life since day 1 (or even before she married). But I always thought that Diana and Charles' marriage was a happy one at the beginning. The Crown shows how they dislike each other when she was pregnant, but I do remember pictures of them happy while she was pregnant with William. So which is the truth and which is fiction?

 

[Prinsara]

The Crown showed Diana's miserable life since day 1 (or even before she married). But I always thought that Diana and Charles' marriage was a happy one at the beginning. The Crown shows how they dislike each other when she was pregnant, but I do remember pictures of them happy while she was pregnant with William. So which is the truth and which is fiction?

It's pretty much on record that both Diana and Charles had major misgivings before the wedding and wanted to call it off. Diana herself said she was so unhappy while she was pregnant with Wiliam that she tried to throw herself down some stairs — the extent of that being true is debatable, but Morgan having her miserably in bed is probably not too far off. There were infamous pictures of them on holiday at the beach while she was still pregnant; they had some happier moments after Will was born, and Diana again said that they were happiest while she was pregnant with Harry (though she knew he was a boy and didn't tell Charles). Then right after Harry was born, it all collapsed.

 

[MARG]

I think Charles has definitely matured since his marriage to Diana. He was still fairly young when they married. Of course, none of us knows what he's like in private but from what I've seen of him recently he has certainly come across as a more kind and considerate person than he was back in the '70s - '90s. I think that saying of "with age comes wisdom" applies to Charles.

I defy any person of 70 yoa to say they are the same person as they were at 25, 30, 35 and so on. We all live life, learn, change and grow. A man portrayed as vain, self centered and downright cruel would never have been able to turn the Duchy of Cornwall which barely survived on rents into the mult-million dollar business it now is without the initial help of said tenants.

That, along with the Princes Trust, is an outstanding achievement and for a man of such a character as that depicted by Peter Morton, would be a sheer impossibility unless he suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder and the right personality kept popping up at the right time or place.

Everybody is flawed in some way. It is how we challenge ourselves to be and grow that defines us not the depravity of mind of a screenwriter with a Repubican score to settle.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think on the one hand, there are the inaccuracies. On the other hand, there are the negative portrayals. They don't always overlap, but when they do you get something like implying the QM had a hand in institutionalizing her nieces out of fear and shame, which is probably libelous in a non-fictional program, and is very unpleasant at the minimum. I think I agree the show should probably use a disclaimer.

However, just like the show is a mix of truth and fiction, doesn't mean that just because Morgan angles negative everything in the show is or was completely inaccurate.

Denis Thatcher was one of the nicer parts of this season, honestly, though given that we haven't seen a PM spouse since Clementine Churchill I'm not sure why they bothered with him other than the Y chromosome, and they wanted to show Thatcher's family/children as similar to the Queen's.

And that is exactly the problem, the waters are muddied, what is truth and what is fiction and what is a blend of both.

There are people who will believe everything as fact because they know that some things are factually true.... how would we all like our lives laid bare on a tv programme with a mixture of fact and fiction.

 

[Mbruno]

I defy any person of 70 yoa to say they are the same person as they were at 25, 30, 35 and so on. We all live life, learn, change and grow. A man portrayed as vain, self centered and downright cruel would never have been able to turn the Duchy of Cornwall which barely survived on rents into the mult-million dollar business it now is without the initial help of said tenants.

That, along with the Princes Trust, is an outstanding achievement and for a man of such a character as that depicted by Peter Morton, would be a sheer impossibility unless he suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder and the right personality kept popping up at the right time or place.

Everybody is flawed in some way. It is how we challenge ourselves to be and grow that defines us not the depravity of mind of a screenwriter with a Repubican score to settle.

Your examples only suggest that Charles is an efficient real estate manager and also a successful philanthropist, which BTW was never in question. But it doesn't tell anything about Charles as a person, a husband, or a father.

 

[Denville]

Very true. She is incredibly biased. In this, however, I agree with her (and I have great sympathy for the struggles of the real-life Diana). I can hardly bear to watch the character of Charles being portrayed as an immature, self-centered, tortured man. The real-life Charles may have these traits, but it is unlikely that this is the full measure of the man, as is depicted in the series.

He was then I think Immature, to a degree and he certainly is a tortured self doubting person, and probably a bit more selfish than average because of his postion. But he does have other better qualities.

 

[Empress Merel]

Your examples only suggest that Charles is an efficient real estate manager and also a successful philanthropist, which BTW was never in question. But it doesn't tell anything about Charles as a person, a husband, or a father.

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.

 

[Sandy345]

It's pretty much on record that both Diana and Charles had major misgivings before the wedding and wanted to call it off. Diana herself said she was so unhappy while she was pregnant with Wiliam that she tried to throw herself down some stairs — the extent of that being true is debatable, but Morgan having her miserably in bed is probably not too far off. There were infamous pictures of them on holiday at the beach while she was still pregnant; they had some happier moments after Will was born, and Diana again said that they were happiest while she was pregnant with Harry (though she knew he was a boy and didn't tell Charles). Then right after Harry was born, it all collapsed.

Quite honestly I don't understand why their trying for a girl after Harry seemed to be an impossibility- Diana was young and was said to have wanted a large family. I think of the Beckhams who tried for a daughter after having a few sons. Diana's mother was angry at Charles when he complained about the second one not being a girl and scolded him(Diana's mother had a child who had died in infancy) for not just being happy the baby was healthy.

 

[caethi]

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.

 

[Denville]

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...

 

[Denville]

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....

 

[Empress Merel]

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.

 

[kathia_sophia]

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?

 

[Somebody]

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?

 

[Denville]

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.

 

[Denville]

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....

 

[wartenberg7]

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!

 

[Alison H]

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.

 

[Empress Merel]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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).

 

[Denville]

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....

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Denville]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Sandy345]

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.

 

[TLLK]

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

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-crown-fans-mercilessly-troll-prince-charles-and-camilla

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[duke of poliganc]

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.