The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

Paddy@CIRL

flazio wrote: »

Anyone know the filming locations for Mountbattons assassination? I don't think they were the real Classiebawn castle and Mullaghmore port. Did they find real Irish locations or was it a case of Wales and or Scotland standing in?

Definitely not the actual locations, as Benbulbin is south of Classiebawn in reality, but was depicted as being north of the castle in the show.

(Extra nerdy, apologies )

JDD

I disliked the Fagan episode. In reality there was no ten minute conversation with him. I have no particular issue with the Queen herself, perhaps she is a nice lady who would chat to a burglar for ten minutes, but considering they put gloves on for every garden party, so they don't have to touch commoners hands, I think it's unlikely. The scene painted her in a very sympathetic light, when it really didn't need to. Her purported distain for Thatcher was already very clearly set out. The Fagan episode's sole purpose was to show that she was in fact VERY concerned for the plight of the common man. I dunno, perhaps she is. But given the way she runs The Firm (and lets not pretend, she is both CEO and Chairman, she makes the decisions) and how it has treated outsiders I don't think there's a hope she would have exchanged more than two words with the man.

Diana, for all her faults, I could have seen chatting with him. But the Queen doesn't have that sort of touch with people.

Don't get me wrong, I think Mrs Elizabeth Windsor is truly excellent at her job. I highly rated her for her diplomacy when she visited Ireland there six or seven years ago. She seems like a smart cookie and her grandchildren seem to be very close to her - something that perhaps is because she wasn't so close to her own children. She still seems to be physically able and sharp as a tack at 90-whatever and that's no mean feat, even for someone with the best of healthcare. She is someone to be admired.

But I think this series portrays her more sympathetically, as a woman of the people, than perhaps she deserves. It's a bit like the Church. Protecting and covering up scandals, on the premise that damage to the Church would automatically translate into the world being a worse place for everyone, was the reason why so much awfulness was allowed to fester for so long. It seems to me that everything she does is to ensure the monarchy survives, on the premise that the UK would be a much worse place if it did not survive. It's unfortunate that the steps the Firm has taken - not protecting Diana from the press, not protecting Meghan from the press, isolating Prince Harry, *supposedly* covering up William's affair, encouraging the children into unsuitable marriages, and allowing them to be spoilt to make for being so absent, might be the treatment that ends up killing the patient.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

In reality there was no ten minute conversation with him.

They certainly didn't have a 'lets put the country to rights' conversation. The Queen made several attempts to get help, but nothing happened. She really was lucky Fagan was not more aggressive. I think he was with her for about 10 minutes until, as Fagan put it, she skuttled out of the room to get the attention of a maid.

By accounts, they treated Fagan well considering once they arrived to arrest him.

George White

NutmegGirl wrote: »

Read that it was Scotland . But not the exact location

It was shot up northeast in a place called Keiss, a few miles from John O'Groats.

However, it doesnt look that bad. It's almost accurate. "Brisbane" on the other hand is Malaga, and a lot of Aussies have been complaining rightly at how Spanish their city looks.

The next few seasons might be uneventful enough, Diana's death aside. The 90's were a placid enough era. Of course the Firm itself had its tragedies. Death of Margaret, Diana and the Queen Mom.

I hope ( in the last season) they do do the Irish trip, she was very good on that.

Born into a Republican family I have to admire a 95 year old who keeps putting that much effort into public engagements.

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

The next few seasons might be uneventful enough, Diana's death aside. The 90's were a placid enough era. Of course the Firm itself had its tragedies. Death of Margaret, Diana and the Queen Mom.

I hope ( in the last season) they do do the Irish trip, she was very good on that.

Born into a Republican family I have to admire a 95 year old who keeps putting that much effort into public engagements.

The Queen called 1992 her "annus horribilis". Not so placid.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Born into a Republican family I have to admire a 95 year old who keeps putting that much effort into public engagements.

I think its a case of no one suitable to leave the responsibility to. Every time Charles opens his mouth its like waiting for a car crash waiting to happen. Andrew is disgraced. Margaret isnt suitable and Edward is out of favour. She cannot live forever and the next generation will have to step up.

NutmegGirl

Deleted User wrote: »

The next few seasons might be uneventful enough, Diana's death aside. The 90's were a placid enough era. Of course the Firm itself had its tragedies. Death of Margaret, Diana and the Queen Mom.

I hope ( in the last season) they do do the Irish trip, she was very good on that.

Born into a Republican family I have to admire a 95 year old who keeps putting that much effort into public engagements.

I read recently that Peter Morgan, the writer, had said he’s going to stop around 20 years ago, 2000 ish
He said since then is too soon to have much perspective on what’s gone on
I reckon he’ll stop around 2002, the queens golden jubilee and also the year when both the queen mother and princess Margaret died
Initially when they started they were going for 6 seasons, then they went to 5 but he’s said as he was writing season 5 he realised there was enough material to do 6 so that’s his plan

Sardonicat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I think its a case of no one suitable to leave the responsibility to. Every time Charles opens his mouth its like waiting for a car crash waiting to happen. Andrew is disgraced. Margaret isnt suitable and Edward is out of favour. She cannot live forever and the next generation will have to step up.

Andrew, Edward and, I presume you mean Anne are very far down the pecking order. Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis are the next in line for the throne in order, after that Harry and then only if some vast tragedy wipes out all of William's offspring before they reach maturity.Charles' siblings aren't a consideration at all. I actually think Anne would be excellent. No fuss, just get on with her public roles and PM briefings then quietly into the background. I think the Monarchy under Anne would be a very, very stripped back affair.

JDD

Sardonicat wrote: »

Andrew, Edward and, I presume you mean Anne are very far down the pecking order. Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis are the next in line for the throne in order, after that Harry and then only if some vast tragedy wipes out all of William's offspring before they reach maturity.Charles' siblings aren't a consideration at all. I actually think Anne would be excellent. No fuss, just get on with her public roles and PM briefings then quietly into the background. I think the Monarchy under Anne would be a very, very stripped back affair.

Yeah, I think that Anne would have made a better monarch than Charles. Isn't there an old saying that the best kings were always the ones who didn't want to be king.

The Queen won't abdicate. So she may go on for another few years. Charles absolutely wants to be King, and there is nothing to really stop him. I'd imagine he will be king before he's 80, but he won't do the same amount of grift as his mother did at the same age. I don't think he'll get the same free ride in the newspapers either, and he might find once that he has done a few years he will have achieved his life's ambition and in actuality, monarchy interferes with his enjoyment of life, especially as he comes to his twilight years. I could see him abdicating in favour of William before he's 90.

So William might well become king in his fifties. It's a good age, his children will be mostly raised and he won't be absent all the time. He'll be young enough to be dynamic and energetic with also having a bit of perspective and cop on. Now, if he could just make sure he doesn't repeat his father's mistakes and make sure to keep his family together, he'll probably ensure that the monarchy goes on for at least one or two more generations.

I have to say I agree with the idea that the series should end in 2002. It would make very uncomfortable viewing to watch Harry's depression in his teenage years, or revelations about Prince Andrew. I also think the showmakers must have got some inside info of what went on inside the palace in the 60's/70's/80's. Any latter day sources I'm sure would completely dry up.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The next few seasons might be uneventful enough, Diana's death aside. The 90's were a placid enough era. Of course the Firm itself had its tragedies. Death of Margaret, Diana and the Queen Mom.

I hope ( in the last season) they do do the Irish trip, she was very good on that.

Born into a Republican family I have to admire a 95 year old who keeps putting that much effort into public engagements.

This season does have a definite feeling of being stretched IMO. Definitely the most lacking so far but that's not to say that it's bad.

Radio5

Has Fergie appeared yet? She and her 'financial advisor' did her best to ensure the early 1990's weren't too placid

There was also the fire at Windsor and Anne's remarriage.

I'm expecting two seasons of Dominic West whining about when he gets to be king.

As a side note, can you imagine Dominic West coming to the realisation he's being considered to play elder Prince Charles, can't have been good for his ego. 'Yes, Dominic, we think you'd be an excellent choice for a declining Prince Charles.'

odyssey06

Radio5 wrote: »

Has Fergie appeared yet? She and her 'financial advisor' did her best to ensure the early 1990's weren't too placid
There was also the fire at Windsor and Anne's remarriage.

Yep would be great if they covered Fergie's inaugural Premiership victory with Man Utd in 1992-93.

Sorry, couldn't resist

JDD

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm expecting two seasons of Dominic West whining about when he gets to be king.

As a side note, can you imagine Dominic West coming to the realisation he's being considered to play elder Prince Charles, can't have been good for his ego. 'Yes, Dominic, we think you'd be an excellent choice for a declining Prince Charles.'

I've never really thought of Charles as being "in decline" because that would assume some kind of pinnacle in the first place. That man has looked 60 years old for the past 40 years, which bizarrely works quite in his favour now.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

I've never really thought of Charles as being "in decline" because that would assume some kind of pinnacle in the first place. That man has looked 60 years old for the past 40 years, which bizarrely works quite in his favour now.

Ah, here, he must have been a hottie when younger, how else could the multi-millionaire, heir to the throne of the UK snap up good looking blond like Diana.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, here, he must have been a hottie when younger, how else could the multi-millionaire, heir to the throne of the UK snap up good looking blond like Diana.

Cos she was as thick as a plank, thought she was special and craved a life where her loveliness and specialness was reflected back at her. She got exactly what she wanted.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Cos she was as thick as a plank, thought she was special and craved a life where her loveliness and specialness was reflected back at her. She got exactly what she wanted.

There is no doubting that, she commanded more love from the British (and wider afield) people than the rest of the Royal Family (including the ring leader) put together.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no doubting that, she commanded more love from the British (and wider afield) people than the rest of the Royal Family (including the ring leader) put together.

Not everyone loved her. The mass hysteria that broke out after her death and her virtual canonisation since has clouded the memories of many. She was viewed as attention seeking, manipulative ,press courting and frankly deluded by a many,. I knew plenty of British people, including avowed monarchists, who couldn't stand the sight of her. It absolutely baffles me that so many people fell for the head down, eyes up, innocent victim act. Of course it's a terrible tragedy when a young mother dies, no matter who she is, and Diana certainly had the common touch, but she was no more than an attractive, privileged neurotic with an endless need for attention and the ability to manipulate and feed the need for the press hunger for her. It cost her her life in the end and robbed her children of their mother.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Not everyone loved her. The mass hysteria that broke out after her death and her virtual canonisation since has clouded the memories of many. She was viewed as attention seeking, manipulative ,press courting and frankly deluded by a many,. I knew plenty of British people, including avowed monarchists, who couldn't stand the sight of her. It absolutely baffles me that so many people fell for the head down, eyes up, innocent victim act. Of course it's a terrible tragedy when a young mother dies, no matter who she is, and Diana certainly had the common touch, but she was no more than an attractive, privileged neurotic with an endless need for attention and the ability to manipulate and feed the need for the press hunger for her. It cost her her life in the end and robbed her children of their mother.

Okay, I've a very different memory of the peoples' reaction to her. I saw the outpouring a continuation after her death, rather than a starting point.

She was famous for charity 'work' and was never off the cover of Hello Magazine. Kate is popular today, but Diana a lot more so... if my memory does serve me.

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, here, he must have been a hottie when younger, how else could the multi-millionaire, heir to the throne of the UK snap up good looking blond like Diana.

He wasn't that bad looking when he was younger - he was considered Britain's most eligible bachelor at one point. For the time he was quite dashing, and he knew how to wear the hell out of a double breasted suit. Edward was probably the best looking of the three, but they are all very similar looking to each other, Edward and Charles especially.

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

He wasn't that bad looking when he was younger - he was considered Britain's most eligible bachelor at one point. For the time he was quite dashing, and he knew how to wear the hell out of a double breasted suit. Edward was probably the best looking of the three, but they are all very similar looking to each other, Edward and Charles especially.

Ah, I don't think he was ever model material, but I'm sure other's worse than him punched upwards... looking at you Paul Daniels (RIP)

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Okay, I've a very different memory of the peoples' reaction to her. I saw the outpouring a continuation after her death, rather than a starting point.

She was famous for charity 'work' and was never off the cover of Hello Magazine. Kate is popular today, but Diana a lot more so... if my memory does serve me.

Oh, she was certainly more popular. I not saying she wasn't. But the love was not universal, and that seems to be forgotten. I dont think Kate wants to have that kind of popularity. Unlike her late MIL. And photo ops hugging sick/injured/people is not work. It may have had a positive corollary, eg, Diana did help end the stigma against HIV positive people, but all those charitable acts were photo ops for St Martyr Poor Wronged Queen of Hearts (don't look at who was sleeping in my marital bed) Diana. And they worked, didn't they?

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Oh, she was certainly more popular. I not saying she wasn't. But the love was not universal, and that seems to be forgotten. I dont think Kate wants to have that kind of popularity. Unlike her late MIL. And photo ops hugging sick/injured/people is not work. It may have had a positive corollary, eg, Diana did help end the stigma against HIV positive people, but all those charitable acts were photo ops for St Martyr Poor Wronged Queen of Hearts (don't look at who was sleeping in my marital bed) Diana. And they worked, didn't they?

You're such a cynic Sardonic.

Immortal Starlight

Just finished the latest series and loved it. I thought Gillian Anderson was brilliant as Margaret Thatcher. Loved every time when she met the queen and said “your majesty” which took her about 5 minutes and when she curtsied I thought she’d never come back up again. So funny seeing her whip up kedgeree at Downing Street for her cabinet ministers. Loved the Charles and Diana saga and thought the casting was very kind to Camilla as she was never as good looking in reality as the actress who played her.

AndrewJRenko

Sardonicat wrote: »

It cost her her life in the end and robbed her children of their mother.

Choosing to not wear a seat belt cost her her life and robbed her children of her mother.

skooterblue2

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

............. and thought the casting was very kind to Camilla as she was never as good looking in reality as the actress who played her.

Sarah Jessica Parker with the right amount of make up? Neighhhhhhhh!!!

skooterblue2

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I thought Gillian Anderson was brilliant as Margaret Thatcher.

Maybe we need a proper series on Thatcher. One that paints her in both black and white. Opens all the sealed government papers. Attitudes to the Haughey government and the Irish, the North (England and Ireland), Attempted assassination, murder of her mentor Airey Neave, requests from the crown, Gibraltar, Falklands, relationships with Reagan.etc etc etc. It has to show the wasteful spending and the imbalance of the previous government too. This was a lady that too men took lightly.

Immortal Starlight

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

Just finished the latest series and loved it. I thought Gillian Anderson was brilliant as Margaret Thatcher. Loved every time when she met the queen and said “your majesty” which took her about 5 minutes and when she curtsied I thought she’d never come back up again. So funny seeing her whip up kedgeree at Downing Street for her cabinet ministers. Loved the Charles and Diana saga and thought the casting was very kind to Camilla as she was never as good looking in reality as the actress who played her.

To be fair she was and is better looking than all the photos published of her down through the years when the press were out to get her.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair she was and is better looking than all the photos published of her down through the years when the press were out to get her.

Part of it with age is, when you are working with horses you have to be up early in the morning and riding early in the cold. It brings a certain "hardness" to the face. I know a few people who ride horses and they have all very visible red cheeks. That is just the business they are in.

I cannot see how Mount-Batten in the position he was in, didnt do Charles a favour and post Capt Parker Bowles to Hong Kong for 10 years? She would have been a much better "fit" than Diana. Camilla Parker Bowles was into horses, familiar with the scene and just a better fit. Its not like it hasnt been done before with an "undesirable".