The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

Sardonicat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

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".

Also, they actually love each other and she's not an attention seeking nutcase.

skooterblue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

Also, they actually love each other and she's not an attention seeking nutcase.

I dont think so...... She was all over Captain Bowles. Charles is just a society travel pass. She would have chosen Charles on Day One if she really loved him.

JDD

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont think so...... She was all over Captain Bowles. Charles is just a society travel pass. She would have chosen Charles on Day One if she really loved him.

I agree with that. I think she was happy married to Parker-Bowles, whom she loved but knew he was having affairs. She was happy having an affair with Charles because he adored her, but I don't think she adored him in the same way. It was probably half as a way to get even with her husband, and half because Charles appreciated her so much.

If only Diana had been happy enough to put up with the affair, and Charles had been more discreet and made more of a show of appreciating Diana, the status quo might have lasted.

She only divorced Parker Bowles after the telephone messages between her and Charles had been released by the papers. She couldn't stay married to him then. And when Diana died I think there was an expectation that she would marry Charles. From the public's point of view, if the future king was going to cheat on his young wife over a long period of time, it had better be with the love of his life, rather than just for the sake of a good laugh.

I'd say she's ended up a situation that she never planned to be in. Married to a man that she passed over in favour of her first husband, into a family that is notoriously insular, and portrayed by the media as a horsey, plain, scarlet woman. No wonder she keeps her head down and doesn't court the media.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

I agree with that. I think she was happy married to Parker-Bowles, whom she loved but knew he was having affairs. She was happy having an affair with Charles because he adored her, but I don't think she adored him in the same way. It was probably half as a way to get even with her husband, and half because Charles appreciated her so much.

If only Diana had been happy enough to put up with the affair, and Charles had been more discreet and made more of a show of appreciating Diana, the status quo might have lasted.

She only divorced Parker Bowles after the telephone messages between her and Charles had been released by the papers. She couldn't stay married to him then. And when Diana died I think there was an expectation that she would marry Charles. From the public's point of view, if the future king was going to cheat on his young wife over a long period of time, it had better be with the love of his life, rather than just for the sake of a good laugh.

I'd say she's ended up a situation that she never planned to be in. Married to a man that she passed over in favour of her first husband, into a family that is notoriously insular, and portrayed by the media as a horsey, plain, scarlet woman. No wonder she keeps her head down and doesn't court the media.

Thats an interesting take on it.

skooterblue2

JDD wrote: »

I agree with that. I think she was happy married to Parker-Bowles, whom she loved but knew he was having affairs. She was happy having an affair with Charles because he adored her, but I don't think she adored him in the same way. It was probably half as a way to get even with her husband, and half because Charles appreciated her so much.

If only Diana had been happy enough to put up with the affair, and Charles had been more discreet and made more of a show of appreciating Diana, the status quo might have lasted.

She only divorced Parker Bowles after the telephone messages between her and Charles had been released by the papers. She couldn't stay married to him then. And when Diana died I think there was an expectation that she would marry Charles. From the public's point of view, if the future king was going to cheat on his young wife over a long period of time, it had better be with the love of his life, rather than just for the sake of a good laugh.

I'd say she's ended up a situation that she never planned to be in. Married to a man that she passed over in favour of her first husband, into a family that is notoriously insular, and portrayed by the media as a horsey, plain, scarlet woman. No wonder she keeps her head down and doesn't court the media.

That is some insight into Charles psyche ....... King of England in the waiting and passed over for the household help. Second choice of the second choice. That is harsh. I wonder how he would survive out in the real world without a title?

JDD

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is some insight into Charles psyche ....... King of England in the waiting and passed over for the household help. Second choice of the second choice. That is harsh. I wonder how he would survive out in the real world without a title?

Honestly, he probably would have married a plain, horsey, woman who didn't have the charisma or personality that Camilla apparently has. I could see him as a university professor.

I imagine it must monumentally suck to be Prince Charles. A rubbish childhood - distant parents, a bullish father, a hated secondary school. And then to be waiting for 50 years (and probably more) for the death of your mother so that you can fulfil your destiny and become king for what - 10 years? Your first wife more universally loved than you. Your son being seen by many people as a better choice for next King (that must be a difficult issue for them both to navigate). And being perpetually cast as a boring, stuffy eccentric who cheating on his beautiful young wife, and then for her to be martyred so that you could never rebuild that element of your public persona.

He would have been far better off had he not been born to a Queen. And unsurprisingly, most "commoners" see that. Look at Harry's two first serious girlfriends. Both of them scuppered when they realised what a ****show they'd have to put up with. Meghan Markle only married him because she didn't quite get what she was marrying into, and Harry already had one foot out the door.

skooterblue2

JDD wrote: »

Honestly, he probably would have married a plain, horsey, woman who didn't have the charisma or personality that Camilla apparently has. I could see him as a university professor.

I imagine it must monumentally suck to be Prince Charles. A rubbish childhood - distant parents, a bullish father, a hated secondary school. And then to be waiting for 50 years (and probably more) for the death of your mother so that you can fulfil your destiny and become king for what - 10 years? Your first wife more universally loved than you. Your son being seen by many people as a better choice for next King (that must be a difficult issue for them both to navigate). And being perpetually cast as a boring, stuffy eccentric who cheating on his beautiful young wife, and then for her to be martyred so that you could never rebuild that element of your public persona.

He would have been far better off had he not been born to a Queen. And unsurprisingly, most "commoners" see that. Look at Harry's two first serious girlfriends. Both of them scuppered when they realised what a ****show they'd have to put up with. Meghan Markle only married him because she didn't quite get what she was marrying into, and Harry already had one foot out the door.

Not sharp enough to be a university professor, more likely to end up in the civil service. Yeah he would have been so much happier with a much plainer woman that Diana. I wouldn't pay too much heed to that childhood. Edward was a terror at school and Andrew was popular with his men in the RN. Charles was really the runt of the litter. He is more of a spoilt brat if he couldn't have had more opportunities in life. Not leadership or kingly qualities. In the Air Force, Coronel in the Paras, playing polo, Mount Batten for a mentor, educated at Eton. Imagine if he had to be his grandfather and lead England through the second world war and foster public morale. This man couldnt motivate me to get me up out of bed in the morning let alone fight a war. George the 6th had an awful stutter but you know what? He became the king his country need him to be, "or whatever that means"!.

Megan Markle liked what she saw but didnt know what the Royal Family were like behind closed doors and knew what it meant to be a "Subject of the Queen". Guess she found out fast enough, luckily Hollywood will have her back.

JDD

You can't but feel a bit sorry for him though. The mandarins who raised him at the palace when he was growing up probably treated him exactly as he was - a King in waiting. The only person that outranked him was his own mother, and I imagine she wasn't around much. There's no child brought up in that environment and those circumstances who wouldn't end up being a spoilt brat. Remember, the Queen wasn't heir apparent until she was 10. She had a fairly normal life with her parents up to that point.

Andrew is definitely more charismatic, and more sporty - which is important in the royal family. As the spare, he probably got more freedom. And as a younger child, probably got more time with his mother. All this would combine to make sure he had an easier path through his teenage years. There are dandelions and there are orchids in this life. - Andrew would have found a way to thrive whatever stony soil he found himself on. Anne probably falls into that category too. And then there are orchids, who wilt without their ideal environment. Charles was and is most definitely an orchid.

If Charles had the same upbringing as Diana provided to her children, and had a suitable wife - Camilla or someone like her - right from the start who knows what kind of man he would have become? Even still, I agree, I wouldn't want him inspiring a nation in a war. But that's a big ask of anybody. Lets not forget, King George also regularly cheated on his wife, and only had to read speeches written for him on the radio. It's not quite the same game nowadays.

NutmegGirl

He wasn’t educated at Eton though, that’s the problem. Get the impression he would have been happier there, closer to home.
He was in Gordonstoun in Scotland and hated it with a passion and that’s why you can’t ignore his childhood. He was obviously not an outdoorsy type as a child like Philip would have liked and Anne seems to be
Seemed to be much more arty and interested in architecture, organic farming etc so I would imagine Philip couldn’t understand or empathise with him in the slightest. It seems like Philip was left in charge of family matters so I’d say overall he had a rough childhood.
Your personality is fairly well set by early adulthood and his school years would have left a huge mark on him. The fact he sent his sons to Eton whereas Anne sent her kids to Gordonstoun shows exactly what he thought of it . I’m sure Diana also didn’t want her boys that far away so that played a part too.
I think also re leading in war years, most monarchs would step up to the plate, duty is ingrained in them from the minute they start breathing, and he was the heir from birth, so diff experience to the queen and he might have relished the chance to lead. At the end of the day it’s not his fault he still hasn’t had his chance, must be hard basically having to wish your parent dead to get your main job, at a time when most other people are well retired or even dead.
I think he’d have been happier as a organic farmer/landowner with other interests living in the country , hunting etc
Same as the queen would have been happier in country breeding horses and dogs

skooterblue2

NutmegGirl wrote: »

At the end of the day it’s not his fault he still hasn’t had his chance, must be hard basically having to wish your parent dead to get your main job, at a time when most other people are well retired or even dead.
I think he’d have been happier as a organic farmer/landowner with other interests living in the country , hunting etc
Same as the queen would have been happier in country breeding horses and dogs

The Queen could have abdicated and allowed a succession 25 years ago and allow Charles to ascend. I could have seen that happening and the disaster that would have followed!!!!

Charles would have wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles right after Diana had been buried (shure why not do it on the same day?). Tony Blair would have to say it was of concern to the Parliament and there would be a public outcry when they realise what really happened. It would have split the country. I doubt Charles would take advice even from Philip.

There is a time to ascend to the throne, there is a time to rule and there is a time to step down and allow the next generation to take over. Who hasnt seen this on farms and in family businesses? Charles will want to change all the things about the crown he sees wrong instantaneously. This is not going to work well.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Its your duty to lead when you are regent, you have to put your hobbies aside and assume your responsibilities. I have no doubt any of us, had to set aside our hobbies and pass times when we became heads of our households, business or farms. That is life.

Sardonicat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The Queen could have abdicated and allowed a succession 25 years ago and allow Charles to ascend. I could have seen that happening and the disaster that would have followed!!!!

Charles would have wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles right after Diana had been buried (shure why not do it on the same day?). Tony Blair would have to say it was of concern to the Parliament and there would be a public outcry when they realise what really happened. It would have split the country. I doubt Charles would take advice even from Philip.

There is a time to ascend to the throne, there is a time to rule and there is a time to step down and allow the next generation to take over. Who hasnt seen this on farms and in family businesses? Charles will want to change all the things about the crown he sees wrong instantaneously. This is not going to work well.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Its your duty to lead when you are regent, you have to put your hobbies aside and assume your responsibilities. I have no doubt any of us, had to set aside our hobbies and pass times when we became heads of our households, business or farms. That is life.

We don't get the trade off if palaces, servants and free money, though, so not quite the same, eh?

skooterblue2

Sardonicat wrote: »

We don't get the trade off if palaces, servants and free money, though, so not quite the same, eh?

No, its not the same. What price do you place on peace of mind? Anxiety, depression, dread, elation, in the focus of paparazzi commentary? No money, palace, car or title would compensate me. Life is too short for living in a gilded cage.

Sardonicat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No, its not the same. What price do you place on peace of mind? Anxiety, depression, dread, elation, in the focus of paparazzi commentary? No money, palace, car or title would compensate me. Life is too short for living in a gilded cage.

I'd agree with you there. I eoukdny do it myself any money. They do, though. And dont kid yourself they don't. Whatever about the monarch and direct heirs' sense of duty, the rest are utterly superfluous to requirement. Parasites.

Recliner

I've just finished watching a 5 part series on Netflix about the house of Windsor. Highly recommend it.
The producers had access to private papers and letters to and from the Royal family. Covers the period from George V up until around 2000.
If people were interested in the real life version of The Crown.

JDD

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The Queen could have abdicated and allowed a succession 25 years ago and allow Charles to ascend. I could have seen that happening and the disaster that would have followed!!!!

Charles would have wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles right after Diana had been buried (shure why not do it on the same day?). Tony Blair would have to say it was of concern to the Parliament and there would be a public outcry when they realise what really happened. It would have split the country. I doubt Charles would take advice even from Philip.

There is a time to ascend to the throne, there is a time to rule and there is a time to step down and allow the next generation to take over. Who hasnt seen this on farms and in family businesses? Charles will want to change all the things about the crown he sees wrong instantaneously. This is not going to work well.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Its your duty to lead when you are regent, you have to put your hobbies aside and assume your responsibilities. I have no doubt any of us, had to set aside our hobbies and pass times when we became heads of our households, business or farms. That is life.

I think something went on there. As much as the media play up Edward's abdication, and how that affected the Queen and that is why she will never abdicate, I think that's overplaying that card. She must have seen how every other European royal family have abdicated in favour of younger members over the past 30 years. No one would have bat an eyelid if she had decided to step down 15 years ago - or at least by the time of her golden jubilee.

I think there must have been some kind of showdown with Charles over splitting up with Diana. She prevented her own sister from marrying a divorcee. She turned a blind eye to her own husbands affairs. Everyone else had got on with the duty of presenting the fairytale to the public that royal family was perfect. Everyone was in love, and more than that, everyone married their first love. She must've blamed the breakdown of that marriage on Charles, and told him that if he split with Diana, or continued his affair with Camilla, she would never step aside for him. And I'd say she's a stubborn lady when she has made a decision.

That seems like the most likely reason to me for her not retiring.

cml387

So far up to the Fagan episode.

One thing that is jarring is Gillian Anderson's deep slow voice voice as Thatcher all the time.

She adopted that voice for public speaking, but she certainly wouldn't have used it at home or I suspect with the queen.

Sardonicat

I'd say the reason the Queen hasn't stepped down is because she doesn't have to. Shes still as sharp as a tack and fit for her age. I do believe she would stand aside if she had to because of her sense of duty. No-one prevented Margaret from marrying a divorcee. She was free to do so if she relinquished her title and money and she didn't want to do that. True love, eh?

JDD

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'd say the reason the Queen hasn't stepped down is because she doesn't have to. Shes still as sharp as a tack and fit for her age. I do believe she would stand aside if she had to because of her sense of duty. No-one prevented Margaret from marrying a divorcee. She was free to do so if she relinquished her title and money and she didn't want to do that. True love, eh?

Don't get me wrong, I think she can still do the job. But she must realise that in times gone by monarchs tended to die in their sixties and seventies, thus ensuring that the new king (or queen) ascended to the throne in their thirties or forties. If every monarch from now on was to hang on to power until they died, and given how much longer people live for now, each new monarch is going to be 70 at least. That will be the death of the monarchy, for sure.

JDD

cml387 wrote: »

So far up to the Fagan episode.

One thing that is jarring is Gillian Anderson's deep slow voice voice as Thatcher all the time.

She adopted that voice for public speaking, but she certainly wouldn't have used it at home or I suspect with the queen.

That's a good point. I suppose it's as a result of only having the public speaking really to go on when researching the role.

I was also confused with the whole Andrew being the favourite thing. I had always understood that Edward was her favourite?

Sardonicat

JDD wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I think she can still do the job. But she must realise that in times gone by monarchs tended to die in their sixties and seventies, thus ensuring that the new king (or queen) ascended to the throne in their thirties or forties. If every monarch from now on was to hang on to power until they died, and given how much longer people live for now, each new monarch is going to be 70 at least. That will be the death of the monarchy, for sure.

Well, it means the pointless hangers on get to pointlessly hang in for longer. And that can't be good. I dont see the end of the Monarchy as a bad thing. The current one is excellent but that just comes down to luck in the end. Imagine if Uncle Eddie hadn't abdicated? Imagine if Margaret was born first? Wouldn't Anne be a much better choice for head if state but she will never be?

cml387

JDD wrote: »

That's a good point. I suppose it's as a result of only having the public speaking really to go on when researching the role.

I was also confused with the whole Andrew being the favourite thing. I had always understood that Edward was her favourite?

Nothing better demonstrates how this is a drama series rather than a drama-documentary (which in fairness it doesn't claim to be) than how the episode linked the Thatcher and the Windsor family dynamic.

One imagines that the whole program was constructed to build up to the queen's final line "All our children are lost". Certainly I don't remember Mark getting lost in the desert as being an earth shattering event at the time.

I still think it's worth watching but none of the Olivia Coleman episodes (maybe with the exception of Aberfan) come close to the quality of the first two series.

JDD

Oh yeah I agree. Olivia Coleman is a great actress, and gives the role a decent stab. But Claire Foy inhabited the role. It was a marvel to watch.

I think Camilla get the worst treatment in the series. She's a bit of a panto villain in it. I think I'd much prefer to go out for a few drinks with her than Diana. I don't think they continued the affair right from the start of the marriage. That said, I don't think Charles waited for his marriage to Diana to break down before he rekindled it either.

Diana's painted as a total saint in the series so far. If she wasn't a Princess, she would have rocked as PR agent. She absolutely courted publicity and knew how to play the victim card (the Taj Mahal picture, anyone?). I mean, I think she was overall a decent person and a great mother, but she had her own pathological need for attention.

eviltimeban

JDD wrote: »

I mean, I think she was overall a decent person and a great mother, but she had her own pathological need for attention.

Or, because she was going to get the attention anyway, she figured out how to use it to her advantage.

DellyBelly

Just finished the last series. Really enjoyed it. Never realised that Diana slept with so many men during the marriage.. Gotta say I was shocked with that

igCorcaigh

It's a stunning series overall, isn't it. I love the score by Martin Phipps, and the beautiful composition of each scene.

For me at least, some eye opening moments in British history were revealed, which I must research further.

Some incredibly funny moments too, with great wit. The portrayals of the Duke of Windsor and Simpson were pure theatre, as was that of Queen Margaret.

The depiction of the tragedy at Aberfan was incredibly moving.

There is a podcast available too from the Netflix team where the cast are interviewed and the stories explored. Well worth a listen.

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

So far up to the Fagan episode.

One thing that is jarring is Gillian Anderson's deep slow voice voice as Thatcher all the time.

She adopted that voice for public speaking, but she certainly wouldn't have used it at home or I suspect with the queen.

But are there any recordings of her private voice? If not what could Gillian work off. And while most politicians have a different public speaking voice to their talking voice they often used the talking voice in interviews - Thatcher never did.

I think Anderson did ok, Thatcher had an affected voice 'improved" by elocution.

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

I still think it's worth watching but none of the Olivia Coleman episodes (maybe with the exception of Aberfan) come close to the quality of the first two series.

funny enough I watched season 3 and half of 4 first. ( keeping the rest) , and then we decided to watch season 1 and 2. I find 2 by far the weakest. Margaret and the photographer - yawn. I also prefer Bonham Carter as Margaret. Also the actress playing Ann is great and she is missing from earlier episodes.

NIMAN

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.

skooterblue2

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.

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.

NIMAN

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.

Thats first time I have ever heard that story. I thought they got someone for it, Patrick Magee.