Wasn't it common knowledge that Penny was Philip's mistress? I always thought that too so I'm not surprised the Crown is showing it.
The thing about the affairs issue was that it was mostly based on hearsay and speculation, the media never named names and believe you me if the media had names, they would have put it out there.While I won't dismiss rumors that the DofE had affairs during his lifetime, I do have a hard time believing that he would have had an affairs w/a woman young enough to be his daughter .... and practically a niece/cousin. Just yucky!
I do think that Penny probably found solace and some level of validation of importance in both the DofE and QEII following his husband shuffling off to the Bahamas w/a girlfriend.
Am I mistaken or wasn't their eldest son a drug addict?
It’s not common knowledge, but rather common assumptions. Also there’s no actual evidence for that. In addition, Penny Mountbatten is alive and has been through enough with her family, she doesn’t need her name being dragged through the mud so publicly based on hearsay and lack of substantial evidence.Wasn't it common knowledge that Penny was Philip's mistress? I always thought that too so I'm not surprised the Crown is showing it.
Season 5 is scheduled to air in late November this year!
I don’t think this part about Penny Mountbatten and the DOE will tarnish the new King. But it will affect Charles and probably Penny if they aware of it.This will totally wipe out all the sympathy and goodwill for the new King and Queen
I don’t think this part about Penny Mountbatten and the DOE will tarnish the new King. But it will affect Charles and probably Penny if they aware of it.
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.
Hopefully people will have more sense than to be influenced by a factually inaccurate Netflix melodrama.
But why can't such entertainment be historically accurate?
I don't just mean The Crown; it seems as if everything is changed these days, to reflect modern views.
(...)
Sir John, who was prime minister*from 1990 to 1997, was moved to issue a statement amid suggestions in Westminster that the series - released on Nov 9 - imagines conversations between him and the late Queen.
There have been rumours that one of the plotlines sees the Prince of Wales, as he then was, summoning Sir John to a meeting and hinting that he wants his support for the Queen’s abdication.
A second plotline is said to imagine conversations about the Queen and Royal family, in which Sir John talks about them in disparaging terms to his wife Dame Norma.
(...)
On the specific rumours about the storylines, the spokesman added: “There was never any discussion between Sir John and the then P
rince of Wales about any possible abdication of the late Queen Elizabeth II – nor was such an improbable and improper subject ever raised by the then Prince of Wales (or Sir John).”
The spokesman added that Sir John and Dame Norma had never discussed the Royal family in disparaging terms. adding that “has never been their view, never would be their view, and never will be their view”.
(...)
But why can't such entertainment be historically accurate?
Most of it is, I think, but drama sells.
I disagree; I don't believe it is. Not currently, anyway.
For example, I was planning to see the revival of the musical 1776 in NYC; then I found out Thomas Jefferson was played by a (pregnant) black woman.
What is the point of that? I just don't get it.
What was the point of Alexander Hamilton being played by a Puerto Rican? If it brings American history into people's consciousnesses that otherwise wouldn't give two figs about it, who cares? As long as you're learning something about people you knew nothing about before you sat down, then the objectives of that production were met.
Everyone knows what Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton looked like, so it isn't like people are being willfully deceived. I've seen Anne Boleyn played by a Black woman, Elizabeth I played by an Australian, and Abraham Lincoln played by an Irishman. All the actors did marvelously in their roles, even if their portrayals were not 100% historically accurate. Sometimes suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy something.
I disagree; I don't believe it is. Not currently, anyway.
For example, I was planning to see the revival of the musical 1776 in NYC; then I found out Thomas Jefferson was played by a (pregnant) black woman.
What is the point of that? I just don't get it.
I understand that; yet it seems intrinsically dishonest.
I think so long as you go into whatever it is, be it Broadway, a TV show, or a movie, understanding that poetic/dramatic license has been taken, there is no dishonesty.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...pc=UE01&cvid=d386be06afc74e9f8c39c73a8549a3ef
Former PM John Major's called The Crown "malicious nonsense".
Malicious nonsense it may be, but the new series has already made the front page of some of the papers, and it hasn't even aired yet.
I think so long as you go into whatever it is, be it Broadway, a TV show, or a movie, understanding that poetic/dramatic license has been taken, there is no dishonesty.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...urious-John-Major-condemns-Netflix-drama.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ering-enacting-Dianas-Panorama-interview.html
Strangely, when people watch films, they know it's fiction.
When they watch the Crown, they believe it's factual?
Charles has access to the best legal teams; but I expect they (Royal family) will just wait for it to run its course.