The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

A series I got into only due to the OH watching it and me sitting in.

Only seen the last 2 series really.

Surprised they didn't mention the miners strike or the IRA hotel bombing when Thatcher was in the series.

They could have gotten two seasons, or a longer season, out of the 80s to be honest. Miners strike, Ira bombings and attempts on the Queen in Scotland and on Thatcher in Birmingham. All of the Cold War stuff. Reagan went horse riding with the Queen in Windsor as early as 1981. She conferred a knighthood on him in 1989. They met a lot between those dates. Fergie could have featured more. Easily 15-20 episodes there.

Fuascailteoir

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You should read up on how Thatcher solved the mystery on who tried to get her.

They got this canadian in selling some ridiculously priced farm machinery in the 6 counties. All legitimate of course because someone who turned up in the 6 counties would be investigated like that. He would turn up on farms and make a poor pitch to farmers who couldnt afford it. But then he would say it was a wet old day and will we spend it by the fire and open a bottle of whiskey that came out of the boot of his car. He would say it would be terrible to waste the day.... and shure whiskey was only a marketing expense. Eventually after enough farms were visited they got the stories they wanted and the names reveal themselves. Then all the bomb makers (and experienced tradesmen they were too) had accidents. Case closed.

That is some seriously stupid work of fiction

skooterblue2

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

That is some seriously stupid work of fiction

It was from some book written by a woman assigned to the det/14 int coy. You think one person built a bomb got a load of paper work done, found out where the conference was held months in advance. Got a contract, fixed the bomb and covered it over for 6 months undetected? That was a team. Things got very personal with Thatcher after Airey Neave was murdered.

Biafranlivemat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It was from some book written by a woman assigned to the det/14 int coy. You think one person built a bomb got a load of paper work done, found out where the conference was held months in advance. Got a contract, fixed the bomb and covered it over for 6 months undetected? That was a team. Things got very personal with Thatcher after Airey Neave was murdered.

The story cannot be true, whoever made it up, does not know Irish farmers.


In real life the 'Canadian' and his whiskey, would be talked about, at the Creamery, the Pub and after Mass, word would spread quickly.
The 'Canadian” would suddenly disappear and his remains discovered in a bog in Co Monaghan in 2007.

skooterblue2

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

The story cannot be true, whoever made it up, does not know Irish farmers.


In real life the 'Canadian' and his whiskey, would be talked about, at the Creamery, the Pub and after Mass, word would spread quickly.
The 'Canadian” would suddenly disappear and his remains discovered in a bog in Co Monaghan in 2007.

Everyone knows that the IRA was full of informers either paid or coerced. According to the story I read, the Canadian returned back and someone else took charge. He was selling a legitimate product but was on MI-5s salary but it was a ridiculously priced product relative to income of the border county farms. My uncles occasionally have reps/salesmen dropping into the farm, some welcome, some not.

You know "when the spirit goes in the truth comes out".

skooterblue2

cml387 wrote: »

Argentina and Chile were not on good terms but Argentina was not going to "annexe" Chile and the Thule theory is bonkers. Where are you getting this stuff?

Took me a while but yes the argies where planning on taking Chile while the world was looking the other way.

https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20040302081517/http://www.seprin.com/menu/notas6620.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DVy3D2eglE
Skip in 10 minutes.

Fuascailteoir

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Everyone knows that the IRA was full of informers either paid or coerced. According to the story I read, the Canadian returned back and someone else took charge. He was selling a legitimate product but was on MI-5s salary but it was a ridiculously priced product relative to income of the border county farms. My uncles occasionally have reps/salesmen dropping into the farm, some welcome, some not.

You know "when the spirit goes in the truth comes out".

The story is a complete fabrication. Patrick McGee was caught as he had left a partial fingerprint on a registration card for the room where the bomb was planted. So it was down to thorough police work. The bomb itself was a small device but was planted to do maximum damage. This was not some major operation like some of the truck bombs. A travelling salesman calling around south armagh looking for information in exchange for whiskey would have done well to have lasted about a day. The problem with your story is believing anything that would come from army intelligence

Brussels Sprout

I was too young to remember anything from the Thatcher era, apart from her ousting, but I distinctly remember her son being caught up in a failed coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea in 2004. He was arrested in South Africa and although, I can't find any pictures of it, I remember someone had a big sign saying "Save me Mummy" outside his trial. He got away with a fine and a suspended sentence so perhaps she did.

pc7

Finished it today, feel it was just so rushed and so much glossed over. Really think they should have made two seasons to cover period.
I love Gillian Anderson, but first few episodes felt it was too OTT, she seemed to ease off it a bit as it went on and improved.
Diana was portrayed well. Still prefer Claire Foy to Coleman.
Think Charles and Philip are excellently cast. Anne and Margaret brilliant too.
Season grew on me, but not a patch on 1&2.

Brussels Sprout

I watched from Season 3 episode 4 up until the end of Season 4 in the last few weeks and I really enjoyed it. My one criticism, as has been mentioned by others, is the way that time jumped.

Those 17 episodes spanned from 1967 - 1990 which isn't too bad however if you drill into that certain time periods were dwelled upon while others were skipped entirely: There was a big emphasis on events in the late 60's but the 70's seemed to be almost entirely skipped over. This can be seen by looking at the Prime Ministers of that era:

• Ted Heath served from 1970-1974 and featured in 1 storyline (the miner's strike)
• James Callaghan served from 1976-1979 and didn't feature at all

The other jarring jump was at the very end of Season 4. The penultimate episode featured events from 1985 while the final episode jumped to 1989 (Diana's trip to New York) and then onto the end of 1990 (Thatcher resigning).

Given that there are now going to be 2 more seasons spanning just the next decade it seems like they could have spent more time in the 70's and 80's.

skooterblue2

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I was too young to remember anything from the Thatcher era, apart from her ousting, but I distinctly remember her son being caught up in a failed coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea in 2004. He was arrested in South Africa and although, I can't find any pictures of it, I remember someone had a big sign saying "Save me Mummy" outside his trial. He got away with a fine and a suspended sentence so perhaps she did.

Diplomatic immunity. Son of a former Prime Minister. Have a look for Count Dankulas interview with Simon Mann on Youtube. "Scratcher" abandoned him with Sandline and executive outcomes.

skooterblue2

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

The story is a complete fabrication. Patrick McGee was caught as he had left a partial fingerprint on a registration card for the room where the bomb was planted. So it was down to thorough police work. The bomb itself was a small device but was planted to do maximum damage. This was not some major operation like some of the truck bombs. A travelling salesman calling around south armagh looking for information in exchange for whiskey would have done well to have lasted about a day. The problem with your story is believing anything that would come from army intelligence

I am no fool for Military Intelligence either. I dont believe that Patrick McGee left a partial thumb print, I believe for a seasoned operator it was planted. The IRA is full of informers from the top brass down. Sean O Callaghan to Freddie Scappaticci all informing on each other. They still never found the "Fisherman". The cell organisation is the best there is but it is not perfect.

cml387

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I watched from Season 3 episode 4 up until the end of Season 4 in the last few weeks and I really enjoyed it. My one criticism, as has been mentioned by others, is the way that time jumped.

Those 17 episodes spanned from 1967 - 1990 which isn't too bad however if you drill into that certain time periods were dwelled upon while others were skipped entirely: There was a big emphasis on events in the late 60's but the 70's seemed to be almost entirely skipped over. This can be seen by looking at the Prime Ministers of that era:

• Ted Heath served from 1970-1974 and featured in 1 storyline (the miner's strike)
• James Callaghan served from 1976-1979 and didn't feature at all

The other jarring jump was at the very end of Season 4. The penultimate episode featured events from 1985 while the final episode jumped to 1989 (Diana's trip to New York) and then onto the end of 1990 (Thatcher resigning).

Given that there are now going to be 2 more seasons spanning just the next decade it seems like they could have spent more time in the 70's and 80's.

That's becasue it's not intended to be a history of post war Britain.
The series is concentrating on dramatic moments in the royal family and so if periods are skipped it's because nothing interesting was going on. Obvious really.

JDD

cml387 wrote: »

That's becasue it's not intended to be a history of post war Britain.
The series is concentrating on dramatic moments in the royal family and so if periods are skipped it's because nothing interesting was going on. Obvious really.

Yes and no. It is supposed to cover what happened to the Royal Family, but if you're covering the moon landings and the Suez crisis, then it seems odd to leave out an assassination attempt on your Prime Minister.

That being said, I would say the showrunners have made an attempt to steer clear of NI politics during the series. It's all a little fresh and ongoing. Perhaps they know that the Queen was incensed at the bombing in Brighton, and makes does not hide her contempt of the IRA privately. Or perhaps she understands the underlying reasons for the IRA and would be happy to be rid of NI forever. Either way, that's going to cause awful ructions if they presented her views onscreen, which they would not be able to avoid doing if they covered the Brighton bombing.

What I'm more confused about is less the skipping over large historical events, and more skipping over large Royal Family events. Ann's kidnap attempt? Her wedding day? Andrew and Fergie's wedding day? Any hints at all about Fergie's lack of ability with money? Edward dropping out of the marines? I think they focussed a little too much on Charles and Diana and not enough on the rest of the family.

clairevoyant

how on earth could anyone in that family be half right or even middlin?

a mother who asks her children to make an appointment to see her

a mother who asks her minions to write out notes on what each child likes or dislikes etc

a mother who thought it was a great idea to leave her kids at home for 5 months while she was in Australia...............but "the tour was a resounding success"!!!!!

a family who cant marry who they love including Margaret

Phillip is a horrible man, it seems Edward is not much better

Diana wasn't all as innocent as she was made out to be I don't think..............but my God she didn't deserve that life

Anderson is brilliant as Thatcher but none of them will be as good as Churchill portrayed by jon Lithgow - he was brilliant imo

Tabnabs

I think Philip is one of the more interesting characters, I'd love to see a similar one/two season show done on him and the stuff he got up to.

cml387

It's a drama series so it needs a narrrative per episode. You can't just drop in these one-offs, other you just end up with a photo album of events unconnected with each other.

Also bear in mind that the series is intended for a world wide audience (especially American) so it's going to concentrate on what got their interest historically.

skooterblue2

Tabnabs wrote: »

I think Philip is one of the more interesting characters, I'd love to see a similar one/two season show done on him and the stuff he got up to.

Philip is a mover in the background. He is not so socially astute and media friendly like Diana and Harry. Dont be fooled by the social faux paux, he is no fool. I would say he has done plenty of diplomatic functions similar to Mount-Batten.

skooterblue2

clairevoyant wrote: »

how on earth could anyone in that family be half right or even middlin?

a mother who asks her children to make an appointment to see her

a mother who asks her minions to write out notes on what each child likes or dislikes etc

a mother who thought it was a great idea to leave her kids at home for 5 months while she was in Australia...............but "the tour was a resounding success"!!!!!

a family who cant marry who they love including Margaret

Phillip is a horrible man, it seems Edward is not much better

Diana wasn't all as innocent as she was made out to be I don't think..............but my God she didn't deserve that life

Anderson is brilliant as Thatcher but none of them will be as good as Churchill portrayed by jon Lithgow - he was brilliant imo

It would be a psychologist wet dream to document them all individually and as a family. I am sure it has happened before but never with as much media focus.

cml387

clairevoyant wrote: »

how on earth could anyone in that family be half right or even middlin?

a mother who asks her children to make an appointment to see her

a mother who asks her minions to write out notes on what each child likes or dislikes etc

a mother who thought it was a great idea to leave her kids at home for 5 months while she was in Australia...............but "the tour was a resounding success"!!!!!

a family who cant marry who they love including Margaret

Phillip is a horrible man, it seems Edward is not much better

Diana wasn't all as innocent as she was made out to be I don't think..............but my God she didn't deserve that life

Anderson is brilliant as Thatcher but none of them will be as good as Churchill portrayed by jon Lithgow - he was brilliant imo

They may be a disfunctional family, but don't take every word as "what actually happened".

And they can of course marry who they like, it's just that they can't be royal as well.;)

igCorcaigh

cml387 wrote: »

They may be a disfunctional family, but don't take every word as "what actually happened".

And they can of course marry who they like, it's just that they can't be royal as well.;)

Why did the Duke of Windsor have to go into exile in France?

cml387

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did the Duke of Windsor have to go into exile in France?

Beause they couldn't send him to Siberia.:)

Essentially they didn't want Wallis around so they were offered a house in France and they got money from the civil list to shut them up.
Probably it was the insistence of the Queen Mother that had them exiled.

cml387

The depiction of the Queen forbidding him to come back to England is false. He was back and forth a few times.

skooterblue2

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Why did the Duke of Windsor have to go into exile in France?

He got pushed out. "If you are not going to rule then fupp off!!".
There is also the fact that the victor writes history. So it may be tainted.
Any dog who wont fight for his own patch isnt fit to rule it. Much like Charles marrying a divorceé and not having his own children and being a weak personality. He wasn't material to be a ruler. He was supposed to be head of the CoI but he didnt attend church. If I was stepping into his role after him I wouldnt want to be reminded of that failure. His "allowance" was tied to the Queens discretion. So I guess she gave him a few more pounds if he would never darken her door step again.

igCorcaigh

Thanks, so it wasn't a legal thing then.

I liked how they employed that double face device (from the painting) a few times. Can't remember the name for it.

The overriding theme of the conflict between the duty that accompanies the royal position, and the wishes of the private individual constantly resurfaces, and is really interesting.

skooterblue2

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Thanks, so it wasn't a legal thing then.

I liked how they employed that double face device (from the painting) a few times. Can't remember the name for it.

The overriding theme of the conflict between the duty that accompanies the royal position, and the wishes of the private individual constantly resurfaces, and is really interesting.

What do you think would have happened to Edward and Wallace if they remained in England? They would have been shunned by all their former social contacts, not because they were disliked but because they and their kin would be out of favour with the queen.

There has never been a better definition of a gilded cage than the House of Windsor in recent years.

skooterblue2

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Thanks, so it wasn't a legal thing then.

I liked how they employed that double face device (from the painting) a few times. Can't remember the name for it.

The overriding theme of the conflict between the duty that accompanies the royal position, and the wishes of the private individual constantly resurfaces, and is really interesting.

No, not a legal thing but your means are cut fairly short if you are at the mercy of a new monarch. She gave them enough money to stop them from starving but not enough to be getting notions.

JDD

Ah now, some of the stuff you can excuse. 5 months when the kids were young was a bit much alright, but they were still completely old school upper class when it came to parenting - in that they only saw their kids for an hour a day before bedtime and nanny did the rest. They probably thought that the kids would be fine without them and anyway, duty came first.

I don't think the kids in reality need to make an appointment to see their mother. They spend a lot of time together in Balmoral, and I imagine they can call in if its outside of "office hours", but like any CEO I'd say the Queen used to do a good 60 hour week, and if she wanted to have lunch with her children, I'd say she'd have to find time in the diary. That's what the minions are for.

I would hope that the "do me an A4 sheet on their likes and dislikes" never happened. There's not much excuse for that, even if the younger two were away at boarding school/the Navy. However, if she wanted to know the ins and outs of what was really going on e.g. Ann's marriage, she may not know if the kids didn't tell her and if everyone else was afraid to raise anything negative, especially gossip, with her. If she wanted to find out about Andrew's love life for instance, she may have been better getting the information from his security detail rather than from one of his siblings, or indeed from a direct question to him. The rest of us don't have this kind of information at our disposal.

clairevoyant

cml387 wrote: »

They may be a disfunctional family, but don't take every word as "what actually happened".

And they can of course marry who they like, it's just that they can't be royal as well.;)

well I think its not too far out of the way - I think princess Margaret's story seems to be one of the saddest. Princess Anne's lover it seems was sent away much like Princess Margaret's lover was. They interfered with Charles and Camilla and left both broken hearted and miserable for years with terrible circumstances

they didn't shine too nice a light on Phillip in Series 2 by any means. and id say he definitely "got stuff done" in the background

skooterblue2

clairevoyant wrote: »

they didn't shine too nice a light on Phillip in Series 2 by any means. and id say he definitely "got stuff done" in the background

...... I would say when he was dispatched to Paris, he was reminiscing "Pity uncle Louis wasnt up for some sport this weekend, he would have loved a final chase!". Make no mistake, Philip might have been on the ground on that night but it was the Queen who "pushed the button". Philip might have been doing his duty but the Queen is the Queen.