- Notice
VanterreDuPont
Member
I definitely think it's highly naive and unlikely to believe that the Middleton family didn't encourage the relationship between Kate and William. Are we really, genuinely of the belief that there was no effort on their part to pull off what would be a history making social coup?
I think it doesn't suit people's Cambridge vs. Sussex nonsense, but the truth is every woman who married into the royal family has had to have a degree of manipulative finesse. These women are all extremely dynamic, underestimated, charismatic and intelligent in their own right. A lot of it was by design. Let's be real. Yes the Middletons conspired to seal their family in the annals of history, yes Camilla conspired to marry in and try to rebuild her image after years of mockery and humiliation, yes Meghan knew who Prince Harry was before she met him.
Yes women deny and downplay these qualities across the board because they will be absolutely eviscerated for admitting to them.
The difference is, I genuinely believe that Meghan realised her life was far better before The Firm, in way that unsettled her beyond belief - while Kate and Camilla are operating on a sunken cost dynamic. The latter two have spent the majority of their adult lives entwined with their (now) husbands and chasing the approval of the system. They've lost so many alternative years of personal development and experiences outside of that mission that it wouldn't be worth them leaving. Meghan was always going to do better outside of it than in.
I think it doesn't suit people's Cambridge vs. Sussex nonsense, but the truth is every woman who married into the royal family has had to have a degree of manipulative finesse. These women are all extremely dynamic, underestimated, charismatic and intelligent in their own right. A lot of it was by design. Let's be real. Yes the Middletons conspired to seal their family in the annals of history, yes Camilla conspired to marry in and try to rebuild her image after years of mockery and humiliation, yes Meghan knew who Prince Harry was before she met him.
Yes women deny and downplay these qualities across the board because they will be absolutely eviscerated for admitting to them.
The difference is, I genuinely believe that Meghan realised her life was far better before The Firm, in way that unsettled her beyond belief - while Kate and Camilla are operating on a sunken cost dynamic. The latter two have spent the majority of their adult lives entwined with their (now) husbands and chasing the approval of the system. They've lost so many alternative years of personal development and experiences outside of that mission that it wouldn't be worth them leaving. Meghan was always going to do better outside of it than in.
Last edited:
theweekend
Well-known member
Dominic West is very convincing in the role of Dominic West
Curly Top
VIP Member
I've just watched two of the new series. Gillian Anderson is phenomenal as Mrs Thatcher. I can't believe she is the same person as the mum in Sex Education. I loved her scenes in Balmoral. They tie in with what I have read about the royal family in Scotland.
The actress playing Princess Diana is doing a very good job. Her voice and mannerisms are spot on, similarly the woman playing Princess Anne.
The production is very lavish and the attention to detail is superb. I am enjoying all the fashions and locations.
I will try not to binge the series and make each episode last as series 5 will be a long way off.
The actress playing Princess Diana is doing a very good job. Her voice and mannerisms are spot on, similarly the woman playing Princess Anne.
The production is very lavish and the attention to detail is superb. I am enjoying all the fashions and locations.
I will try not to binge the series and make each episode last as series 5 will be a long way off.
cosmo girl
VIP Member
They should've kept Claire Foy but aged her.
black ripped skinnies
VIP Member
As northerners, me and the husband were a bit shocked/disappointed that the miners strike was completely over looked. Such a big part of our history, and a really crucial part of thatchers time as PM!
VanterreDuPont
Member
I cried a great deal, admittedly.
I think Elizabeth portrays Princess Diana very well as a well rounded human - charming, egoistic, motherly, irritable, manipulative, insightful and vulnerable.
I was particularly moved by the scene where the spirit of Dodi (or his Father's internal grieving dialogue) challenges his Father putting so much emphasis on exalting the Western world over his own. It felt very layered and poignant for this show.
I did wonder if the show leant more into the idea of Prince Charles being in Diana's corner in her last few days and weeks as he is now King...
William and Harry's restrained grief and rage felt very suffocating. I like how consistently the program has emphasised that the royal family are generationally quite emotionally stunted and lacking in the tools to offer each other real space to process their turmoil. The idea the show presents is that they lean on outdoor activities to distract, as a rule.
I also liked that rather than deciding Mohammed Al Fayed altogether fabricated the idea that Dodi and Diana were star crossed lovers, the show portrayed it as a blend of deep grief, guilt and misunderstanding given the consistent time spent by the duo up until their deaths.
The conversation between Dodi and Diana in the Ritz felt like the first time they really understood each other. It may not be how it really played out, but I think it was a beautiful way to honour their passing and respect the pressures of their time on earth.
What The Crown has been good at, ultimately, is reminding viewers that no person has a stay on earth that is free of humiliation, loss, pain and deception along with joy.
I think Elizabeth portrays Princess Diana very well as a well rounded human - charming, egoistic, motherly, irritable, manipulative, insightful and vulnerable.
I was particularly moved by the scene where the spirit of Dodi (or his Father's internal grieving dialogue) challenges his Father putting so much emphasis on exalting the Western world over his own. It felt very layered and poignant for this show.
I did wonder if the show leant more into the idea of Prince Charles being in Diana's corner in her last few days and weeks as he is now King...
William and Harry's restrained grief and rage felt very suffocating. I like how consistently the program has emphasised that the royal family are generationally quite emotionally stunted and lacking in the tools to offer each other real space to process their turmoil. The idea the show presents is that they lean on outdoor activities to distract, as a rule.
I also liked that rather than deciding Mohammed Al Fayed altogether fabricated the idea that Dodi and Diana were star crossed lovers, the show portrayed it as a blend of deep grief, guilt and misunderstanding given the consistent time spent by the duo up until their deaths.
The conversation between Dodi and Diana in the Ritz felt like the first time they really understood each other. It may not be how it really played out, but I think it was a beautiful way to honour their passing and respect the pressures of their time on earth.
What The Crown has been good at, ultimately, is reminding viewers that no person has a stay on earth that is free of humiliation, loss, pain and deception along with joy.
Gym&Tonic
VIP Member
I agree actually. I remember this period well and it was a very, very rocky time for the monarchy. Barely a day would go by without them being on the front pages for some misdemeanour, be it Charles and Diana‘s leaked phone calls, their mud slinging at each other, Diana’s panorama interview and Fergie having her toe sucked by the swimming pool.
They were deeply unpopular as an institution and their marriage woes made them look all like hypocrites. The Queen was a cold, remote and distant figure and when Windsor Castle burned down there was a huge outcry when it became clear that the public were expected to pay for repairs. She eventually backed down from that but there was genuine talk of us becoming a republic in the media, it was even debated on prime time TV. I think if you had a time machine and went back to then and told people there would still be a monarchy in thirty years time they’d probably laugh at you. That’s how bad things were. From what I’ve seen so far series 5 almost glosses over all of that. It should have been so juicy but isn’t if that makes sense and I certainly don’t understand why a whole episode was decimated to fucking Mohammed Al Fayed?
They were deeply unpopular as an institution and their marriage woes made them look all like hypocrites. The Queen was a cold, remote and distant figure and when Windsor Castle burned down there was a huge outcry when it became clear that the public were expected to pay for repairs. She eventually backed down from that but there was genuine talk of us becoming a republic in the media, it was even debated on prime time TV. I think if you had a time machine and went back to then and told people there would still be a monarchy in thirty years time they’d probably laugh at you. That’s how bad things were. From what I’ve seen so far series 5 almost glosses over all of that. It should have been so juicy but isn’t if that makes sense and I certainly don’t understand why a whole episode was decimated to fucking Mohammed Al Fayed?
Libbylulu
VIP Member
I would have liked to have seen more of the 70’s 3 day week, the Queen sitting in BP by candlelight during the power cuts.
The program didn’t cover the Brighton bombing or the miners strike. Huge national events of the 80’s.
And they portrayed Diana, the daughter of and Earl as someone who wouldn’t know her way around Society. That scene where they mocked her for not knowing who to curtsy too. Diana knew them, having been raised as a child at Park House on the Sandringham Estate. She and her brother played with Andrew and Edward as children. She also went to finishing school in Switzerland so all those lessons where her grandmother is barking at her like a victorian governess are bizarre!
From March-October 1964 the cast aged so much they were a complete new cast. That was crazy that we were expected to believe both Claire Foy and Olivia Coleman were portraying the same era and age just months apart. Yet from S3-4 1964-1990 they didn’t bother aging them. Would’ve made more sense to keep the first main cast for S3. Then Shifted up to middle age when S4 opened in 1979 with Olivia Coleman.
The program didn’t cover the Brighton bombing or the miners strike. Huge national events of the 80’s.
And they portrayed Diana, the daughter of and Earl as someone who wouldn’t know her way around Society. That scene where they mocked her for not knowing who to curtsy too. Diana knew them, having been raised as a child at Park House on the Sandringham Estate. She and her brother played with Andrew and Edward as children. She also went to finishing school in Switzerland so all those lessons where her grandmother is barking at her like a victorian governess are bizarre!
From March-October 1964 the cast aged so much they were a complete new cast. That was crazy that we were expected to believe both Claire Foy and Olivia Coleman were portraying the same era and age just months apart. Yet from S3-4 1964-1990 they didn’t bother aging them. Would’ve made more sense to keep the first main cast for S3. Then Shifted up to middle age when S4 opened in 1979 with Olivia Coleman.
I think the stag served two purposes:
1. show the family's love of hunting
2. maybe it's too "arty farty" and I'm overthinking this, but I think it's a "parallel" or "metaphor" for Diana: Diana, a name of the Goddess of the hunt and how Diana is often described (even in her own words) as "lamb to the slaughter", "the huntress becoming hunted [by paps]" and all that.
So Diana's "initiation" into the family is helping shoot a major stag, during a hunt with Philipp, who crucially is another "outsider" (ie married in), but also the manager of the family in private and interestingly the last episode of this series and his... "threat" and advice...
I think the stag is a "representation" of Diana, ironically/fatefully killed by her (with her help, her direction and Phil at the gun).
If one wanted to read even more into it, it kinda even foreshadows the modern popular conspiracy theory of Phil allegedly ordering Diana's death.
So you can read multiple things into the stag bit, but the Diana/stag connection/mirroring is undeniable imo (the Phil conspiracy aside).
As soon as Diana showed up at Balmoral I knew she'd be the one to take the stag down.
I liked Olivia this season quite a bit, much better than last. HBC I always liked as Margaret.
The cast this series was altogether fanastic.
I don't get why they made such a faithful copy of Diana's wedding dress and then we saw so little of it? I was a bit disappointed by that.
Also disappointed by the portrayal of Camilla as his only mistress. She wasn't his only. He had more. Eg Kanga.
Also disappointed at Charles's portrayal as father, he was a better father than publicly known/shown. Much warmer and more caring, though yes, Harry's birth eg was scheduled to fit his polo...
I liked that they showed that the "Diana's mad" stories came from Charles's camp. That is, allegedly, very true. (In the same way women now are described as "crazy" for wanting texts back etc, you know the stories when guys admit their ex wasn't in fact all that crazy? They behaved like dicks and drove the woman into madness during the relationship? That.)
I think the protrayal of Liz as mother was spot on. It has been said for a long time that she wasn't the best mother, in the way shown pretty much. (absent, cold, never gets involved with anything, buries her head in the sand)
Some things were I think changed to compensate for the few episodes they had, but too much history. It's called "The Crown", so the focus is Liz and then around her a lot happened, obvs they can't faithfully recreate the whole Charles/Diana/Camilla relationship, that's why I think that even if in reality they weren't in touch for 5 years, they omitted this in the show, as he was allegedly during the honeymoon constantly on the phone to Camilla. [awfully phrased, but I think you get my drift]
I hated Diana's wedding anniversary gift in the 9th episode, I think they overshot it a bit with that one.
I wish in the last series they'd shown a bit more how Margaret and Tony's marriage fell apart, how vile they were towards each other.
Oh and one last thing: I hate how docile, nice and sweet they portray the queen mum. She wasn't like that. She gave Diana a massive bollocking for wearing a black dress during the engagament, as "black is only ever worn for mourning" and the cleavage was too tart-like. (that black velvet dress at the opear or some bday party or what it was)
1. show the family's love of hunting
2. maybe it's too "arty farty" and I'm overthinking this, but I think it's a "parallel" or "metaphor" for Diana: Diana, a name of the Goddess of the hunt and how Diana is often described (even in her own words) as "lamb to the slaughter", "the huntress becoming hunted [by paps]" and all that.
So Diana's "initiation" into the family is helping shoot a major stag, during a hunt with Philipp, who crucially is another "outsider" (ie married in), but also the manager of the family in private and interestingly the last episode of this series and his... "threat" and advice...
I think the stag is a "representation" of Diana, ironically/fatefully killed by her (with her help, her direction and Phil at the gun).
If one wanted to read even more into it, it kinda even foreshadows the modern popular conspiracy theory of Phil allegedly ordering Diana's death.
So you can read multiple things into the stag bit, but the Diana/stag connection/mirroring is undeniable imo (the Phil conspiracy aside).
As soon as Diana showed up at Balmoral I knew she'd be the one to take the stag down.
I liked Olivia this season quite a bit, much better than last. HBC I always liked as Margaret.
The cast this series was altogether fanastic.
I don't get why they made such a faithful copy of Diana's wedding dress and then we saw so little of it? I was a bit disappointed by that.
Also disappointed by the portrayal of Camilla as his only mistress. She wasn't his only. He had more. Eg Kanga.
Also disappointed at Charles's portrayal as father, he was a better father than publicly known/shown. Much warmer and more caring, though yes, Harry's birth eg was scheduled to fit his polo...
I liked that they showed that the "Diana's mad" stories came from Charles's camp. That is, allegedly, very true. (In the same way women now are described as "crazy" for wanting texts back etc, you know the stories when guys admit their ex wasn't in fact all that crazy? They behaved like dicks and drove the woman into madness during the relationship? That.)
I think the protrayal of Liz as mother was spot on. It has been said for a long time that she wasn't the best mother, in the way shown pretty much. (absent, cold, never gets involved with anything, buries her head in the sand)
Some things were I think changed to compensate for the few episodes they had, but too much history. It's called "The Crown", so the focus is Liz and then around her a lot happened, obvs they can't faithfully recreate the whole Charles/Diana/Camilla relationship, that's why I think that even if in reality they weren't in touch for 5 years, they omitted this in the show, as he was allegedly during the honeymoon constantly on the phone to Camilla. [awfully phrased, but I think you get my drift]
I hated Diana's wedding anniversary gift in the 9th episode, I think they overshot it a bit with that one.
I wish in the last series they'd shown a bit more how Margaret and Tony's marriage fell apart, how vile they were towards each other.
Oh and one last thing: I hate how docile, nice and sweet they portray the queen mum. She wasn't like that. She gave Diana a massive bollocking for wearing a black dress during the engagament, as "black is only ever worn for mourning" and the cleavage was too tart-like. (that black velvet dress at the opear or some bday party or what it was)
Last edited:
Libbylulu
VIP Member
I always found it strange that when Prince Philip retired from public life he upped sticks and went to live in a cottage on the Sandringham estate with Penny. How could this not be odd when the Queen was alone in London and Windsor? One thread through the Crown is how being Royal can be lonely. I never bought into ‘she’s back in the arms of her beloved Philip’ when she died, just sadly thinking he’s done her dirty.
Penny of course was the non family member at his funeral and his will is sealed for a 100 years so we don’t see how much was left to her, I guess.
Penny of course was the non family member at his funeral and his will is sealed for a 100 years so we don’t see how much was left to her, I guess.
theweekend
Well-known member
I get the rumours about Kate following Will to St Andrew’s and I like the theory but bloody Nora they’ve thrown Mrs Middleton well and truly under the bus haven’t they? Could have been a bit more subtle. Conversely Charles has had a laughably favourable portrayal
Dwight
Chatty Member
I just found this thread and wanted to read without planning to comment since it's kinda between series atm I suppose but I just read through and I'm really surprised that the general consensus on the Michael Fagan episode is that it was a waste of time.
That episode made me cry my eyes out tbh. I'm a northerner, from a city just about as anti-conservatives as there is in the country. I remember a lot of the devastation Thatcher brought, it's shaped my life tbh. My entire family and community was affected dramatically by that era & many have never recovered from it still to this day, or before they died. The Michael Fagan episode really personified that to me - I thought focusing on that one man, his life solely and the completely break down of everything he had and knew rather than trying to make a broader, generalised view of the devastation drove home the point very well. Her policies destroyed, not only half of the country (the Northern half of course) but thousands of people and their communities in the process. I knew many people who were or easily could have been Michael Fagans ...in fact tbh, in much of the North still it's very easy for that fate, or worse still, to find you due to the aftermath of her time as PM; especially so with current economic events. I seriously envy any of you that couldn't empathise with or weren't moved somewhat by that episode.
That episode made me cry my eyes out tbh. I'm a northerner, from a city just about as anti-conservatives as there is in the country. I remember a lot of the devastation Thatcher brought, it's shaped my life tbh. My entire family and community was affected dramatically by that era & many have never recovered from it still to this day, or before they died. The Michael Fagan episode really personified that to me - I thought focusing on that one man, his life solely and the completely break down of everything he had and knew rather than trying to make a broader, generalised view of the devastation drove home the point very well. Her policies destroyed, not only half of the country (the Northern half of course) but thousands of people and their communities in the process. I knew many people who were or easily could have been Michael Fagans ...in fact tbh, in much of the North still it's very easy for that fate, or worse still, to find you due to the aftermath of her time as PM; especially so with current economic events. I seriously envy any of you that couldn't empathise with or weren't moved somewhat by that episode.
Last edited:
LoopyLou47
VIP Member
I think it was to show how desperate he was to be accepted by the establishment and how he just wasn't, no matter how much money he had. It may also be setting the scene for the aftermath of Diana and Dodis deaths, when he completely turned against the Royals and started saying Prince Philip murdered them. I think it was a really interesting episode, and a comment on how desperate some people are be accepted by people they see as above them, to the point they will excuse any poor behaviour on their behalf. It also introduced Sidney Johnson, who I had never heard of but was a really interesting man.
LaBlonde
VIP Member
i wish they’d somehow just put josh o’connor in aged up makeup 
he was the perfect charles and i’m missing his portrayal massively.
i’m only halfway through but have to say that i really enjoyed the al fayed episode too, though i so get the annoyance that it took the place of other potential storylines. their choices sometimes are strange, i’m still confused as to why they didn’t include anne’s kidnap attempt in the last series!
he was the perfect charles and i’m missing his portrayal massively. i’m only halfway through but have to say that i really enjoyed the al fayed episode too, though i so get the annoyance that it took the place of other potential storylines. their choices sometimes are strange, i’m still confused as to why they didn’t include anne’s kidnap attempt in the last series!
bananabutter
VIP Member
Another reason why the Megan Oprah interview IMO didn’t work compared to Diana is she’s approaching 40 and Diana was 19 when she joined the royal family so the naivety aspect isn’t there with Megan. Also, Diana didn’t pretend she didn’t know what a life in the royal family meant, she wanted to perform her duty for the country whereas Megan acted as though she had no idea what the expectations would be.
Spacemonkey1972
VIP Member
I’m not too keen on this latest season. They’ve missed out too much important stuff in my opinion. Princess Anne kidnapping, the Brighton bombing of the Tory government which (like them or not) was awful. Fergie and Andrew. It became the Diana show. As I said on the secret celeb gossip, she ruined many a life. Julie Carling to name 1. Yes Charles should have been allowed to marry Camilla in the first place, Margaret knew all about that too. But the show has made Charles the only bad guy which I feel isn’t fair
Curly Top
VIP Member
I found the scenes with William and Kate excruciating especially when he was at the Middleton's home commenting on the Queen whilst she was on TV. It seemed ludicrous that he would be talking like that to people he'd only just met.
Like everyone, I loved Lesley Manville's portrayal of Princess Margaret in her later years. Her acting with a stroke was exceptional. She actually made her likeable and really brought out her fun-loving side. The scenes with her and Imelda Staunton were so uplifting to watch - I love to think of them having such a close relationship.
The ending was superb and very moving. That last scene with Philip by that beautiful stained glass window was so well judged. It was a fitting end to the series.
Like everyone, I loved Lesley Manville's portrayal of Princess Margaret in her later years. Her acting with a stroke was exceptional. She actually made her likeable and really brought out her fun-loving side. The scenes with her and Imelda Staunton were so uplifting to watch - I love to think of them having such a close relationship.
The ending was superb and very moving. That last scene with Philip by that beautiful stained glass window was so well judged. It was a fitting end to the series.