The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

Itssoeasy

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think it'll be a bit strange in that Elizabeth was the elder sister by 4 years in real life but Bonham Carter is something like 8 years older than Colman?

Well I've no issue with bonham carter playing the role of princess Margaret but it's a bit far fetched for one character to age over twenty years(the diference between Vanessa Kirby and Helena bonham carter) if the series is Picking up after the last. I mean it's not news that princess Margaret enjoyed herself during her life but jaysus it must have been some session. I don't think the actress who played the queen mother in the first two series was that much older than Claire foy.

RickBlaine

Helena Bonham Carter looks a lot like an older Claire Foy than Olivia Colman

pinkypinky

I've just watched the first two episodes of the new series. Both Olivia Coleman (45) and HBC (53) are great but I think they both look too old. The Queen was only 38 in 1964 and Margaret 34. I know this season will span about 15 years but...

sunbeam

Having watched all of Season 3, I cannot believe that they entirely skipped

the wedding of Princess Anne in 1973. It may not have been a major plot point but surely they could have tagged it on at the end of the Charles and Camilla episode. No sign of Captain Mark Philips anywhere and Anne would have been pregnant with Peter at the Silver Jubilee celebrations. Perhaps they were saving the budget for Charles and Di in season 4, but it still seems like a strange omission, especially when they gave Anne such a strong introduction this season.

maudgonner

They do like to mess with the timeline though, not everything is done chronologically. I'd expect it to pop up yet, possibly

when the marriage starts to fall apart, I can imagine them doing an episode where they show the whole relationship, beginning to end. We also haven't seen the kidnapping attempt yet. I like the Anne character and the actress playing her.

Lady Spangles

The new cast are all fantastic. But the scene stealer, for me, turned out to be Princess Anne. She nailed it. I wasn't expecting that at all and I hope she's in a lot more scenes next season.

Aberfan was the most powerful episode. I've heard so much about the disaster, but never before seen it re-enacted and it was just davastating.

ollkiller

Aberfan Episode 3. Such a harrowing incident but they did it so well. Absolutely terrifying.

liamtech

Fantastic Show and good season 3 i really enjoy it

just one not unimportant complaint to make

I seem to recall several MASSIVE events taking place in northern Ireland around this time

- Civil rights movement
- Bloody sunday
- deterioration in Anglo -Irish Relations including the Burning of the British Embassy
- The Birth of the Troubles

Obviously in the opinion of the producers it was far more important to cover

- Prince Charles learning Welsh
- Margaret getting drunk repeatidly
- The Duke of Edinborough being a fan boy of the apollo landings, etc .. etc..

Im not being overly negative - i was dying for this to be honest its a fantastic show - love the politics of the various era's, and the international crises, and how they related to Britain at that time - and all of the events covered definitely warranted covering - but still

Frankly i just cant understand how they ignored/omitted one of the most serious issues facing the United Kingdom; Namely that one of its constituent members was

in a state of Civil War - The troubles started in this era it should have gotten some coverage - otherwise this is a white wash

The Troubles should be a proper serious plot point in the next season, otherwise as a historical show, this fails badly in my view

alchemist33

liamtech wrote: »

Fantastic Show and good season 3 i really enjoy it

just one not unimportant complaint to make

I seem to recall several MASSIVE events taking place in northern Ireland around this time

- Civil rights movement
- Bloody sunday
- deterioration in Anglo -Irish Relations including the Burning of the British Embassy
- The Birth of the Troubles

Obviously in the opinion of the producers it was far more important to cover

- Prince Charles learning Welsh
- Margaret getting drunk repeatidly
- The Duke of Edinborough being a fan boy of the apollo landings, etc .. etc..

Im not being overly negative - i was dying for this to be honest its a fantastic show - love the politics of the various era's, and the international crises, and how they related to Britain at that time - and all of the events covered definitely warranted covering - but still

Frankly i just cant understand how they ignored/omitted one of the most serious issues facing the United Kingdom; Namely that one of its constituent members was

in a state of Civil War - The troubles started in this era it should have gotten some coverage - otherwise this is a white wash

The Troubles should be a proper serious plot point in the next season, otherwise as a historical show, this fails badly in my view

I suppose the question is, was the Queen directly involved in these events and the answer may well be no. But there is one event they won't be able to dodge in the next season (Inoresume next season, as I've only got through 4 episodes so far) which will be Mountbatten's death.

pinkypinky

I'm only 4 episodes in but had heard they omit any references to

The Troubles. This seems like such a mistake. You sprinkle 2 or 3 references to it this season and then you start season 4 with, quite literally, a bomb. The death of Mountbatten had serious and ongoing ramifications for the British royal family and you can't ignore it. You could even go as far as to speculate whether Charles have been talked into marrying Diana if he hadn't been seriously grieving for his great-uncle, who was more of a father to him than his actual father?

liamtech

alchemist33 wrote: »

I suppose the question is, was the Queen directly involved in these events and the answer may well be no. But there is one event they won't be able to dodge in the next season (Inoresume next season, as I've only got through 4 episodes so far) which will be Mountbatten's death.

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'm only 4 episodes in but had heard they omit any references to

The Troubles. This seems like such a mistake. You sprinkle 2 or 3 references to it this season and then you start season 4 with, quite literally, a bomb. The death of Mountbatten had serious and ongoing ramifications for the British royal family and you can't ignore it. You could even go as far as to speculate whether Charles have been talked into marrying Diana if he hadn't been seriously grieving for his great-uncle, who was more of a father to him than his actual father?

With the way this show has been going, by demonstrating the role of the monarchy in the various events of the time, i do genuinely believe the troubles belong here

once you involve the government of the day, then it becomes a necessity - the only reason to avoid mention of the troubles, is political; that is to say, dont mention the troubles, as Brexit has inflamed tensions

but as to it warranting mention;

- Burning of British Embassy was a serious moment in the foreign relations of the UK
-Bloody sunday was reported GLOBALLY
-They have already mentioned that season 4 will include the Miners Strike - a de-facto Civil war in a part of the UK - is at least as important as this
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Airey_Neave
-Obviously Mountbatten
-The Hunger Strike - wide spread support globally (whether you agree with it or not)
-Bombing the Conservative Conference
-Loyalist murders, a group(s) which EXPLICITLY state themselves as being Loyal to the Crown

The Crown has covered international relations as they relate to britain, with various coups, disputes, issues relating to the cold war, and how the UK reacted to them
I think they dodged the troubles this time- but it is going to have to be covered next season as a MAIN plot point - if its not then it is a white wash - and the show will lose credibility

neris

In relation to the Aberfan episode I came across this on the BBC website about the disaster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-150d11df-c541-44a9-9332-560a19828c47

flazio

In relation to Northern Ireland, every major event in the Royal life seems to get just one episode, so if they are going to address Northern Ireland troubles, the death of Mountbatten would be the episode to do it.

liamtech

flazio wrote: »

In relation to Northern Ireland, every major event in the Royal life seems to get just one episode, so if they are going to address Northern Ireland troubles, the death of Mountbatten would be the episode to do it.

I would respectfully disagree with this - they have covered the relationship with America (ups and downs) in several episodes - along with the various cabinet meetings, and policies of the Government of the day

The troubles DOMINATED british politics for a period of time

In terms of episode numbers

One at least to cover the outbreak of the troubles (bloody sunday, battle of bogside, british troops deployed, burning of embassy) - should have been this season

One to cover loyalism - a group explicitly FOR loyalty to the crown - should have been this season

One for Mountbatten

One for the bombing of the Tory Conference in Brighton

And generally an over riding theme on the deterioration of Anglo-Irish relations and its knock on for Anglo-American politics

Lady Spangles

Got to be honest, I was also baffled by their total disregard for the outbreak of the Troubles. That was a huge event for all of us on these islands and it didn't warrant so much as a mention? Really? I get that the Queen wasn't directly involved. But she wasn't directly involved in Suez, or the pea-soup fog in season 1, or any number of other political events they covered.

The only explanation I can think of is that they're

saving Northern Ireland for the assassination of Louis Mountbatten.

pc7

Finished Season 3 over the weekend, I enjoyed it but not as much as the first two seasons. Felt the Queen looked too old and po faced the whole time.

If the portrayal of Charles is anyway factual it explains why she hasn't let him become King yet!

pinkypinky

I've also finished it now. Agree with PC7 that it's down a notch on the first 2 seasons but still very enjoyable.

Think the actor playing Charles has done a really great job. He's got the voice and the walk down. It's obviously meant to be a sympathetic portrayal - we all know what's to come in future years.

Still thought at the end that HBC and OC look too old for the ages they're playing. I never forgot it was HBC.

Ann stole the season for me despite

them leaving out the kidnap attempt and her marriage.

maudgonner

A lot of people are talking about how it will be hard for them to portray Andrew in future series in light of recent developments. I actually found it quite hard to watch Mountbatten this season, since I became aware of the allegations about him and the boys from the Kincorra home. Nothing's been proven afaik, so I wouldn't expect them to address it in the programme or anything, but it's difficult to view the character sympathetically.

And I wish it wasn't Charles Dance playing him, because I love Charles Dance!

flazio

It's amazing what does and doesn't get remembered in history. We've all heard about tragedies such as Hillsborough, the Munich air crash, Grenville tower, Dunblane etc, but to think I'd never heard about 144 people of which about 4/5 were children getting wiped out like that is absolutely shocking. I suspect there's going to a lot more visitors to the area going forward. Just look at what's happening in Chernobyl

368100

pinkypinky wrote: »

I've also finished it now. Agree with PC7 that it's down a notch on the first 2 seasons but still very enjoyable.

Think the actor playing Charles has done a really great job. He's got the voice and the walk down. It's obviously meant to be a sympathetic portrayal - we all know what's to come in future years.

Still thought at the end that HBC and OC look too old for the ages they're playing. I never forgot it was HBC.

Ann stole the season for me despite

them leaving out the kidnap attempt and her marriage.

Maybe Anne's story will be shown in S4.

pinkypinky

I'd like to think it would be but it happened in 1974 (a year after her marriage) - this season went up to 1977.

SusanC10

368100 wrote: »

Maybe Anne's story will be shown in S4.

I read somewhere that the character of Capt. Mark Philips has been cast for S4. So hopefully they will show their meeting/marriage etc as a flashback.

walshb

I started off disliking Colman’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II. By the end of the season she trumped Claire Foy....

368100

walshb wrote: »

I stared off disliking Colman’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II. By the end of the season she trumped Claire Foy....

Ah I would put them on a par.....two very different stages of her life. Claire Foy did the part well showing how naive she was at the start......Olivia was able to portray her as more sure of herself but starting to tire from it all.

walshb

368100 wrote: »

Ah I would put them on a par.....two very different stages of her life. Claire Foy did the part well showing how naive she was at the start......Olivia was able to portray her as more sure of herself but starting to tire from it all.

Agreed on the stages of her life. I was thinking the same. Both very good.

ziedth

Was there ever any confirmation on why they didn't just age them? I found it distracting to be honest and what really saved it for me was Philip and Margaret in that they were probably better played (particularly the latter).

I think Olivia Coleman is every bit as good an actress as Claire Foy so there it's not a case of "who is better" I just wonder was it actually needed for such a relatively small jump in years.

flazio

For the record, I thought Vanessa Kirby did a great portrayal of Princess Margaret.
I think it's right they recast the leads because, even with prosthetics and make up, watching Claire and Matt act against actors who are roughly the same age as them but playing their near grown up children wouldn't sit right with me.

pc7

Just on the aging thing I really think Coleman looked too old for the time in question when you go look at videos of the time, I really think they could have aged Claire Foy a bit for this one and gotten away with it.

blueshade

It's light entertainment not an in depth historical expose. I enjoyed it and I'm glad that there wasn't lots of depressing Northern Irish politics in it.

flazio

Was announced ages ago but never discussed here.
Imelda Staunton is to take up the role of the Queen in season 5 but the 6th season has been cancelled.