The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

Sleepy

While I admired last season's attempt to make Charles sympathetic, they seem to have rather undone that this season and seem to be a little quick to give him the vast majority of the blame for his failed marriage to Diana. Seeing a lot of posts on Twitter attempting to liken Diana's experience of marrying into the family to Meghan Markle's :rolleyes:

It really felt like the season was a little rushed on timelines: Fergie was reduced to an extra in the background and a lot of the huge moments of the 80s (the troubles in Northern Ireland and the hunger strikes, Live Aid, The fall of the Berlin Wall, The Miners Strikes etc. were totally ignored.

The thing I'm taking most from the series is that, as is so often the case with positions of power, it seems that of Queen Elizabeth's progeny the only one suitable to succeed her on the throne was the one who would have been least interested in doing so: Princess Anne.

skooterblue2

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Sex trafficking and paedophilia not that bad round your neck of the woods, then?

Kindly re-read and focus on the word "compared". Andrew is a saint and bastion of higher moral fibre "compared" to other members of the Royal household. The comparison is not to my peers but to his peers.

You also have to remember Andrew went to the Falklands, been promoted several times, learned a real skill and I think he was involved in the SAR off South Georgia (I do stand to be corrected), his men had positive things to say about him. Up until recently has had a very positive public opinion. He was never close to or associated the same way other people were with the Diana death.

Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?

skooterblue2

cml387 wrote: »

Charles is an honorary CIC of the Paras.Ceremonial really.

He is also Royal Navy as well. Its like that quote out of Father Ted with Brendan Grace, so to paraphrase:
"They never found the correct role for poor Charles". Failed husband, failed officer , failed academic, failed royal.

skooterblue2

Relikk wrote: »

It would have mattered 400 years ago, but certainly not now. The British monarch is a figurehead and no valorous deeds are a requirement to become King or Queen, just blood and lines of succession.

They might not be flavours of the month at the moment but they have an enormous power. They own massive amounts of land and money. If they were ran out of Buckingham palace, they would still have enough to put a choke on the UK.

Lady Spangles

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Kindly re-read and focus on the word "compared". Andrew is a saint and bastion of higher moral fibre "compared" to other members of the Royal household. The comparison is not to my peers but to his peers.

You also have to remember Andrew went to the Falklands, been promoted several times, learned a real skill and I think he was involved in the SAR off South Georgia (I do stand to be corrected), his men had positive things to say about him. Up until recently has had a very positive public opinion. He was never close to or associated the same way other people were with the Diana death.

Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?

I can't deny that Andrew saw active service in the Falklands etc. But, on the whole, he's not a great human being. There's no glossing over his involvement with Epstein and that dreadful TV interview he recently gave in which he only incriminated himself even deeper. You can't just cancel that out by saying some people kinda like him and he went on a navy boat once. And, honestly, the British people would never accept him.

Honestly, the best successor to the Queen would probably be Princess Anne (as someone else mentioned above). She's had no scandal attached to her that I can recall offhand, she actually works hard in her royal capacity, her kids are just normal civilians with no titles etc. She seems quite down to earth and no-nonsense. However, the fact that she declined all titles and royal privileges for her own kids suggests she probably has zero interest in ever being monarch herself.

skooterblue2

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I can't deny that Andrew saw active service in the Falklands etc. But, on the whole, he's not a great human being. There's no glossing over his involvement with Epstein and that dreadful TV interview he recently gave in which he only incriminated himself even deeper. You can't just cancel that out by saying some people kinda like him and he went on a navy boat once. And, honestly, the British people would never accept him.

Honestly, the best successor to the Queen would probably be Princess Anne (as someone else mentioned above). She's had no scandal attached to her that I can recall offhand, she actually works hard in her royal capacity, her kids are just normal civilians with no titles etc. She seems quite down to earth and no-nonsense. However, the fact that she declined all titles and royal privileges for her own kids suggests she probably has zero interest in ever being monarch herself.

You do know what the word "compared" means. Charles, Louis, Philip and other have been upto far worse stuff than ANYTHING Andrew may have done. They protected Saville, Saville was a small town local hero. He couldnt have survived for very long on his own. Who do you think he was procuring all those children for? Saville was running the network but who do you think was running Saville? They had loads of MPs, Senior Civil servants, Police all under the thumb. Who do you think protected Saville until the day after he died?

Ann is another bampot. She cant hold a marriage together, she is known to be a bit eccentric. Her kids do have Royal titles eg Lady Zara. She hasnt been subjected to the same media scrutiny as Charles or Philip, trust me she is no better than Fergie for using privilege.

tromtipp

Zara Phillips doesn't have a title, nor does her brother. imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low

skooterblue2

tromtipp wrote: »

Zara Phillips doesn't have a title, nor does her brother. imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low

Lets not go near Edward with rumours and washing out of the Royal Marines.

skooterblue2

tromtipp wrote: »

imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low

That is because you dont know much about her. I bet she has been selling introductions the same as Fergie, Edward and Sophie and the Spanish royal family.

tromtipp

No, all I know is from people she worked with in the charity sector over the decades, and from her public utterances. Also that detail of not letting her children have titles. And her achievements in sport, admittedly easier when she could afford the best horses and trainers, but she still had to put in a lot of work. Each of those puts her slightly ahead of Charles and Andrew.

skooterblue2

tromtipp wrote: »

No, all I know is from people she worked with in the charity sector over the decades, and from her public utterances. Also that detail of not letting her children have titles. And her achievements in sport, admittedly easier when she could afford the best horses and trainers, but she still had to put in a lot of work. Each of those puts her slightly ahead of Charles and Andrew.

If she has had a few failed marriages that suggest things may not all be stable.

Think it might be best if we just skip to William, start with a fresh slate.

skooterblue2

Lady Spangles wrote: »

The choice to abdicate is the Queen's and the Queen's alone. And, from what I understand, she would never even consider it. Duty has been drilled into her from the moment she first drew breath and only intensified 100 fold after that other abdication that happened (a whole other reason why the word abdication probably makes her blood run cold).

Have you ever seen a family business or farm where the head refused to give it up in a timely fashion? There is a time for everything. There is a time to grow, to learn, to work, to manage, to advise and then retire. This is what ruins family institutions. The middle get frustrated and the youth desert for other projects. What good is getting a farm at 50 or trying to lead the family business at 60. Charles will be nearly 80 when and if he ascends. Way too old and also not the correct material.

tromtipp

skooterblue2 wrote: »

best if we just skip to William, start with a fresh slate.

who (allegedly) cheated on a wife who is prevented by protocol from speaking out, triggering a huge row with his brother, who understands how that pattern of behavior affected their mother (and them)?


republic. only way

extra gravy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If she has had a few failed marriages that suggest things may not all be stable..

She's been married twice. Are you this judgemental towards everyone or just the Royal family?

skooterblue2

tromtipp wrote: »

who (allegedly) cheated on a wife who is prevented by protocol from speaking out, triggering a huge row with his brother, who understands how that pattern of behavior affected their mother (and them)?

All true but when you are in the system as deep as he is with his family. Its not in his interest to take it apart. If anything he is heir to the oldest dynasty in the world and unbroken line (of course I dont swallow this BS and the real king is in Australia) since William the Conqueror came from Normandy. Still he doesn't have the taints of Saville and Epstein. He has his military service and SAR service done. He scrubs up quiet well. Harry less so but still more palatable than any that have gone before him for the last 80 years.

I am not absolving anyone's sins here, that is not within my power. Great men often do crappy things. I am great fan of Churchill but I do recognise he suppressed an Indian uprising with a famine. The same way I recognise that Ghandi had his "peccadilloes" as well. I would talk up Prince Charles if I could find a redeeming character asset.

odyssey06

I think the series does seem to presume you have a lot of famliarity with Britain in the 1980s.

It doesn't do a lot of exposition \ setting of the scene \ context.

Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.

skooterblue2

extra gravy wrote: »

She's been married twice. Are you this judgemental towards everyone or just the Royal family?

I currently am married and its difficult enough at the best of times. Would I get married again? Once was enough, thank you.

Happy4all

eviltwin wrote: »

Watched the first two yesterday. Gillian Anderson is spookily accurate as MT. I sometimes find myself forgetting it’s not the real thing.

She is so good, I forget she is Gillian Anderson.

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

All true but when you are in the system as deep as he is with his family. Its not in his interest to take it apart. If anything he is heir to the oldest dynasty in the world and unbroken line (of course I dont swallow this BS and the real king is in Australia) since William the Conqueror came from Normandy. Still he doesn't have the taints of Saville and Epstein. He has his military service and SAR service done. He scrubs up quiet well. Harry less so but still more palatable than any that have gone before him for the last 80 years.

I am not absolving anyone's sins here, that is not within my power. Great men often do crappy things. I am great fan of Churchill but I do recognise he suppressed an Indian uprising with a famine. The same way I recognise that Ghandi had his "peccadilloes" as well. I would talk up Prince Charles if I could find a redeeming character asset.

Minor point, but the Japanese Imperial household is by far the oldest dynasty and royal line.

skooterblue2

Happy4all wrote: »

She is so good, I forget she is Gillian Anderson.

Will you stop? I am getting all nostalgic for the 1990's and Agent Scully!!!! Wish I had kept that FHM copy!!

odyssey06

I wonder if the release of the Crown is influencing BBC4's schedules with documentaries about the 80s, Margaret Thatcher and an airing of The Falklands Play.

skooterblue2

odyssey06 wrote: »

Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.

That is not a bad thing if you are asking questions and reading up on it. I didnt know that the Thatcher government fell from favour with the Queen. I always thought Thatcher was the most prefered Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and it was a perfect hand in glove relationship and neither did I know about much about Mark Thatcher's disappearance. I dont know much about Mark Thatcher except he is always on the periphery of some dodgy deal with MI-6 in the background. He always flashes his diplomatic passport and walks away.

The Falklands didnt just happen like that either. The Argentinians were looking to annex Chile but they wanted to test the international water first. The Royal navy were at an all time low with Thatcher selling off many assets. Plus there were many shoddy cost savings in the army. My favourite was the DMS boot, particularly hated in peat bog land terrain. A lot of technology didnt work properly. The British knew the Falklands and Chile were coming up but didnt want to appear as the aggressor. The real reason for defending the Falklands was not British Sovereign Territory (most of the deeds of the falkland farms are owned by Argentine citizens and leased back) or British citizens. The real reason is it is a foothold to a place called Thule in Antarctica (See the last pages of the Marshal Cavendish Binder series). When the Pole shifts and the ice cap melts, the British want to get into virgin territory to mine it. A whole continent never mined, think of those rare earth minerals? Forget Afghanistan, This would be land that man has never set foot on.

Look what happened afterwards, orders for Harrier Jump jets for US Marine Corps, both of the air craft carriers were scrapped and replaced, totally rebooted the UK economy. Margaret Thatcher had a landslide election.

skooterblue2

odyssey06 wrote: »

I wonder if the release of the Crown is influencing BBC4's schedules with documentaries about the 80s, Margaret Thatcher and an airing of The Falklands Play.

The Falklands was an amazing conflict if you look into all the goings on. The RN were within two weeks of going home if it wasnt for Sir Michael Rose and the Spanish speaking Royal Marine Captain who spooked the Argentines with messages that the argentines were taking heavy casualties, there was no resupply of food and ammo/Casevac on the way and to hold the positions regardless. The argentines promptly gave up on hearing that.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Kindly re-read and focus on the word "compared". Andrew is a saint and bastion of higher moral fibre "compared" to other members of the Royal household. The comparison is not to my peers but to his peers.

You also have to remember Andrew went to the Falklands, been promoted several times, learned a real skill and I think he was involved in the SAR off South Georgia (I do stand to be corrected), his men had positive things to say about him. Up until recently has had a very positive public opinion. He was never close to or associated the same way other people were with the Diana death.

Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?

Just stop! Andrew can't even show his face in public and has been 'retired'. His acts are far worse than the rule breakings of the others, and god help us, his achievements (promotions :rolleyes:), really :pac:


Andrew should have been king in the 1800's would have loved what the power and privilege would have allowed him get away with.

miamee

We finished watching this series last night, it was really good. I thought there was one weak episode (maybe I was tired ) the one focused on Margaret and the cousins but enjoyed the rest e=immensely. It was very much all abou Diana, wasn't it? I have to disagree about Gillian Anderson, she did a great job but at times was almost a caricature of Margaret Thatcher. It was only by the last episode or two that I stopped seeing Anderson in a Thatcher suit and could actually believe her as Thatcher.

I seem to be in the minority. I would have thought Charles came out looking quite well, yes it dragged this all up again, But, back in the midst of the maelstrom Charles was hated compared to Saint Diana.

This drama highlighted how even the water carrier in the polo team probably had a chance with Diana. Whereas, it was emphasised how much Charles loved Camilla - Princess Philip (we all think he's mad!) - and reminded us Charles was a victim too. A pampered, privileged bore, but a victim.

I also disagree with the level of Irish affairs. It was a 10 55ish minute episode series. If anything I was surprised with the amount of Irish affairs it covered. It was never going to be a 'and now the Irish bit' of the episode series.

VillageIdiot71

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think the series does seem to presume you have a lot of famliarity with Britain in the 1980s.

It doesn't do a lot of exposition \ setting of the scene \ context.

Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.

Just finished the series last night. I find it sparks memories - like Mark Thatcher getting lost in the desert. Other stuff, like the Commonwealth issue, I don't remember being an issue - but maybe it was for countries in the Commonwealth.

The series gets a big thumbs up for me, and I'm left with a picture of the gradual irrelevance of the monarchy over the period. Now, I know we don't want to confuse fact and fiction - always a risk with this sort of thing - but I found it certainly did make me reflect on the period. When libraries re-open, I think I'll be looking for a good Thatcher biography and maybe a history of the Falklands war, for instance.

Again at the risk of mixing fact and fiction, I notice an issue seems to be coming up around Diana's interview on the BBC - which I'd take it the next series would have to deal with.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54793572

The BBC added that a "key piece of information" in investigations following the interview was a handwritten statement from the princess.

Her note "said she hadn't seen the mocked-up documents and they had played no part in her decision to take part in the interview".

Strikes me as odd such a statement exists. "I haven't seen the fake documents you used to influence my brother, but in any event they didn't influence me."

miamee

miamee wrote: »

We finished watching this series last night, it was really good. I thought there was one weak episode (maybe I was tired ) the one focused on Margaret and the cousins but enjoyed the rest e=immensely. It was very much all abou Diana, wasn't it? I have to disagree about Gillian Anderson, she did a great job but at times was almost a caricature of Margaret Thatcher. It was only by the last episode or two that I stopped seeing Anderson in a Thatcher suit and could actually believe her as Thatcher.

I liked that episode, but also like HBC. No harm reminding us of the dangers of inbreeding :pac:

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Just stop! Andrew can't even show his face in public and has been 'retired'. His acts are far worse than the rule breakings of the others, and god help us, his achievements (promotions :rolleyes:), really :pac:

You are in the dark of the relationship between Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip and others in high office with Jimmy Saville and his roles as a philanthropist and Charity organiser.

What Epstein was doing in the States, Saville was doing in the UK. Same job different franchise. Saville was procuring children for nefarious purposes for people in high office, he was protected by members of the Royal Family. IF this was going on the Queen had to know and was turning a blind eye to it or was pushing buttons but no contact. There is only one thing worse than those activities, those that protect them and allow them to reoffend.

I used to worship Saville as a kid. "Jim'll fix it" every Saturday I think. My father never said but he knew there was something dodgy about him. "He gives me the creeps". How could a man who made kids dreams come true every do anything wrong? He must have been a character of the highest quality to be on the BBC. "You tell me and I will tell the people who matter!".

I never excused Andrew from any wrong doings. I just said there were far more sinister things going on in the background by other member of the Royal family.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You are in the dark of the relationship between Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip and others in high office with Jimmy Saville and his roles as a philanthropist and Charity organiser...


Saville was procuring children for nefarious purposes for people in high office, he was protected by members of the Royal Family.

What evidence is there of Saville doing this for the Royal family. Plenty of people hate the Royal family, and this is the kind of thing that they would spread, that and they are actually lizard people.


My reading of Saville was that he was a loaner and everyone looked the other way, from staff and medical staff, or rather they allowed him freedoms because they thought he was a good person. Allowing alone time with fragile patients. Were these nurses in on it too?


There was also supposed to be a Westminster paedo ring. That also was the fantasies of an actual pedophile. Debunked relatively recently.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I used to worship Saville as a kid. "Jim'll fix it" every Saturday I think. My father never said but he knew there was something dodgy about him. "He gives me the creeps". How could a man who made kids dreams come true every do anything wrong? He must have been a character of the highest quality to be on the BBC. "You tell me and I will tell the people who matter!"

Yeah, who didn't love Jim'll fix it as a kid (and a lot of adults). That your dad suspected him is an instance of foresight. But, he could easily have been wrong as it was only a gut instinct and no evidence.


Savillle was no Machieavelli, a member of some illuminati. He was a Nonce, that few believed was a nonce. Simpler times by far.