Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

Season 3: History Beyond the Episodes

Recommended Posts

Discussion of season 3 overall: what TPTB could have done, comparison to actual historical events, and what they missed out on. Future history and spoilers are allowed.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Great idea!

I'll have more later, but skipping over Anne's kidnapping is a head scratcher.

I think they should have waited to recast until the sixties were over, Foy is 35, she could have certainly played someone in the her very early 40's.

I think it was also a mistake to recast the Duke and Duchess, for similar reasons, but especially since it was ONE episode, certainly they could have managed makeup for that, and his death and meetings with Charles would have probably had more impact.

I'm disappointed in Colman as QEII in general, and I can't tell if it's only the writing, or if she is just failing to act nuance that Foy did so well.  Her face could be stern and composed, but she always made us see her inner feelings.  With Colman?  She's just coming off as a nasty resentful bitch.  (see several scenes, including both Wales episodes especially.)  They left her time in both of those episodes, many close ups without words, while alone, which Foy has always used to great effect, showing us her thoughts.  For example, after Charles left her room and their fight...but we got nothing from her, just more of the stare and frown, which I'm getting tired of.

Another thing, and I'm not sure how different it is from previous seasons, because we certainly had quite a bit of it there as well.  But DAMN.  Is everything a "mommy issue" with these people?  OR, is that all the writers can think to write about.  

Mommy didn't school me properly.

Mommy left me alone and I resented her.

Mommy is a cold hearted bitch who never loved me or hugged me (Charles, and the Duke for just a couple.) 

Mommy doesn't understand me.

I could go on here, but it's making them all look like weak crybabies who never grew up.  It's old.  

Season 3 had me doing something I've never done before, wanting to slap these idiots silly, and honestly disliking them.  Writing?  Acting?  Both?

(I hope I didn't misunderstand this topic, and the "season 3 in general" is not only limited to historical things.)

Obviously, they are setting this up for the whole Charles and Diana "blockbuster" and probably Sarah Fergeson as well.  That may have been the reason for the boring and excessive "I can't cry" crap with QEII as someone in the episode pointed out.

I was surprised they hit Margaret's scandal on her island this soon, I think that part happened later in real life.  

Season 3 felt like a rush to the "good stuff" season for me several times, and that?  Didn't really work for me, even though I'm looking forward to the younger royals taking the stage more.

The stuff when Charles says he realized the he "just replaced him" (Duke David) I felt a massive white washed, TRU LUV story coming on for Charles and Camilla in future seasons.  Also I seriously doubt the Queen Mother and Mountbatten conspired to keep Camilla and Charles apart.  That sounds like yet another way to set up the whole "Charles was deprived of his true love just like his Nazi grandpa."

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

With all the political stories going on throughout the season, I am surprised that the situation in Northern Ireland was never mentioned.   I guess they are saving that for season 4 and the death of Lord Montbatten, but some context would help.  I assume Elizabeth would have been briefed about the government's decision to send troops into NI.  Even a sentence or two to set up the events next season would help.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if its the writing or cast, or what. But its really hard to have any sympathy or care about any of them. I'm not sure that's their intent. But from what we see from the royal family except for the Queen they all whine and complain. Poor Margaret see how sad she is? How hard it is being the sister to the Queen. Its hard to feel sorry for her when she acts like a spoiled brat and doesn't do anything but complain or seek attention. She doesn't work. She's not good at filling in for her sister, she'd never do any of the work the Queen does. She does two visits in America and is tired from them.  Charles of course has Mommy issues, Tony had Mommy issues and only married Margaret because of them. Philip can't stop whining about how much he's not allowed to do now into three seasons and listening to him whine about money? Gee, I feel really sorry for you, it must be hard to be married to the wealthiest woman in the world, have several castles, cars, horses, and full staff and anything else you could buy. While the Queen is just so unfeeling and really comes off as out of touch when at least in the first two seasons you could see she had sympathy. Even when she dressed down Eden for the whole Suez thing being mostly his fault she was still sorry and seemed like it. This Queen never shows any sympathy. While they do keep bringing up the country being in an economic crisis and huge debt that doesn't really seem to register with her or her husband. She skips off down to her beautiful and expensive stable to her horse and jets off to France and America for almost a month just so she could learn to new horse techniques. Wow, must be nice to be able to do that and afford to do that. Why was she so negative when Anne suggest selling stuff around the palace to fund Alice's nunnery that was actually helping people? 

From what they show us with the government its really not any better. A horrible crisis happens in Wales, which was the government's fault and along with Coal board all try to avoid blame and shift it to the Queen. God forbid anyone take any responsibility. The Prime Minister who won't do anything despite how bad everything is around the country. Or the men getting so bent of shape when the miners called them on their crap in that meeting. Are we suppose to find any of these people likable? The royal family? The government? No one really is. Churchill botched the fog but in the end he finally got off his butt partly because to save his skin but also due to his secretary being killed. But he finally did something. No one seems to do anything this season then be annoyed when someone dares to ask them to.

Charles being so sympathetic with Great-Uncle Nazi and thinking their in the same boat. What so no one has talk to him about his Nazi sympathies and other bad qualities? Its hard to imagine the Queen Mother and Philip not telling him all about Edward VIII especially given their all still so worried that anything different will lead to the abdication. Should he be more upset that he was used by "the one"? He had no idea the whole time Camilla was still seeing Andrew.   Its really hard to see why he wouldn't hate her forever for that.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I kind of felt for Wilson, because he is trying to deal with a mess he didn't cause, but will be blamed for.

Other than being puzzled about the skipping the kidnapping attempt, or Anne's successes as a rider or anything else she did during that period (I wonder if they will go back a few years next season, I don't think the audience would notice), what bothered me the most is that there is no mention at all of the other European countries. The UK was quite at loggerheads with France during that period, it would have been interesting to explore this a little bit.

It's kind of a shame, because it felt as if the show was just repeating old episodes in a new context instead of exploring new themes. I mean, the notion that someone would actually try to kidnap a princess must have been quite a shock back then. It lead to more security for the royal family.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

This seemed to be all set up for a sympathetic Charles/Camilla story frankly.

Charles was the only one that came off well this season, and now the whole apparent whitewash of everything they did in one of the best episodes EVER on the show,  Vergangenheit, apparently just so they can't juxtapose the "great love of Edward and Wallace" with "the great love of Camilla and Charles."

OH PLEASE!  Also, WTF?

Can I believe Charles didn't know or didn't believe the Marburg files and/or Tommy Lasselles, and the mountain of evidence the both Wallace and Edward supported Hitler, hated and blamed the Jews, even after the war?  That Wallace was stuck in that marriage after Edward's idiotic abdication, and something the show didn't address, but lots of documentary style, and tabloid style hints that say his "great love" was based on Wallace being great at domination and bondage, and Edward was crazy about that sexually?  (Obviously Edward may have had "mommy issues" as well, oh wait, he did, the show loves those, and highlighted them at the funeral of Bertie.)

Anyway, so now Charles flat out says that he realized he's taken Edward's place int he family.  Again, WTF?  So this time the "family" will win, thanks to Mountbatten and his Grandmother conspiring (even though they hated each other) to get Camilla to marry Anne's fuckbuddy Parker-Bowles, and has Camilla make a phone call to Charles implying she's being forced to do that, but really is more interested in Charles!  ??!!!

She was obsessed with Parker-Bowles, and Charles was completely uninterested in marriage at 23, from nearly every account of this "great love" The Crown is denying him.

Good God.

I guess we know where they will go with the Charles/Diana/Camilla story now.  Charles, the victim of his heartless family.  Camilla?  The other victim.

ETA

It's quite possible Charles was never told about Edward, and was too dull to pay attention to the multiple exposes about him.  His brother Edward made a YouTube available "documentary" clearing Uncle Eddie called Edward on Edward.  No idea if they really believe this, or if it's an attempt, yet again, to protect the monarchy.  

Either way, ignoring it all, even their own season two episode, obviously is serving well for the the slant they are probably choosing to use on the future King's storyline.

Edited by Umbelina · Reason: '
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I guess we know where they will go with the Charles/Diana/Camilla story now.  Charles, the victim of his heartless family.  Camilla?  The other victim...

...Either way, ignoring it all, even their own season two episode, obviously is serving well for the the slant they are probably choosing to use on the future King's storyline.

I don’t think we know that. Let’s wait and see. I doubt that they would take a simplistic approach to what is coming and paint some as victims and others as “something else.” That would create an unnecessary backlash. 
 

Rather, I think - and hope - that we will get a more balanced approach to the Charles/Diana/Camilla storyline. Perhaps that’s the reason for the emphasis on “true love” this season. As I said in the episode thread, the last half of S3 seems to be a setup for the explosion coming in S4. A realistic approach would be to demonstrate the fallout when the royals tell one another who to love.

Edited by Ellaria Sand
  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I don’t think we know that. Let’s wait and see. I doubt that they would take a simplistic approach to what is coming and paint some as victims and others as “something else.” That would create an unnecessary backlash. 
 

Rather, I think - and hope - that we will get a more balanced approach to the Charles/Diana/Camilla storyline. Perhaps that’s the reason for the emphasis on “true love” this season. As I said in the episode thread, the last half of S3 seems to be a setup for the explosion coming in S4. A realistic approach would be to demonstrate the fallout when the royals tell one another who to love.

Yes, that is presuming that whole Mountbatten/Queen Mother conspiracy EVER happened, which many of the "what was true, what was not" reviewers are saying is impossible, since they disliked one another intensely.

I don't see anything other than painting Charles as a caring victim, and his mother as heartless, and his family as interfering in his love life happened here.  The two Welsh episodes alone made that perfectly clear, Charles with his sympathy for the plight of the Welsh, then smacked down by his mother.  His mother visits after a horrible tragedy, and can't bring herself to even empathize with grieving parents.  Then we get to that ridiculous phone call from Camilla, when everyone, including her, has said in the past that she adored her first husband and wanted to marry him, and that Charles had no intention of being serious at that time.

Then they actually had Charles compare himself to Uncle Edward, several times, and at the end, in actual words, saying he had now replaced him as the victim the family would go after, for loving the wrong person, and for having his own mind.

THEN they completely ignored their own episodes last season about Edward, and painted him as a victim as well, a hero who stood up to the same people poor Charles was now facing, and did it all for LOVE.

Honestly, I don't see another conclusion to draw here.  Elizabeth was consistently a cold, uncaring, mean "mother" to the fun loving, shy, empathetic Charles who never had a real mommy.  Part of that was the endless, monotonous, and frankly nauseating mommy issues this show never seems to tire of, regardless of the character, it's always mommy's fault.

However I honestly hope you are right.  I just don't think you are, this disjointed season seemed to be racing toward the juicy story of Charles sex and love life, and IMO, was designed for people to root for the future King.  (If the monarchy survives Elizabeth's death, which I doubt, but already addressed in the Tabloid's thread here.)

Again, I really do hope you are right.  I've loved this show, but this season is not doing it for me, and a big part of that is the above.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

This seemed to be all set up for a sympathetic Charles/Camilla story frankly.

Charles was the only one that came off well this season, and now the whole apparent whitewash of everything they did in one of the best episodes EVER on the show,  Vergangenheit, apparently just so they can't juxtapose the "great love of Edward and Wallace" with "the great love of Camilla and Charles."

OH PLEASE!  Also, WTF?

Can I believe Charles didn't know or didn't believe the Marburg files and/or Tommy Lasselles, and the mountain of evidence the both Wallace and Edward supported Hitler, hated and blamed the Jews, even after the war?  That Wallace was stuck in that marriage after Edward's idiotic abdication, and something the show didn't address, but lots of documentary style, and tabloid style hints that say his "great love" was based on Wallace being great at domination and bondage, and Edward was crazy about that sexually?  (Obviously Edward may have had "mommy issues" as well, oh wait, he did, the show loves those, and highlighted them at the funeral of Bertie.)

Anyway, so now Charles flat out says that he realized he's taken Edward's place int he family.  Again, WTF?  So this time the "family" will win, thanks to Mountbatten and his Grandmother conspiring (even though they hated each other) to get Camilla to marry Anne's fuckbuddy Parker-Bowles, and has Camilla make a phone call to Charles implying she's being forced to do that, but really is more interested in Charles!  ??!!!

She was obsessed with Parker-Bowles, and Charles was completely uninterested in marriage at 23, from nearly every account of this "great love" The Crown is denying him.

Good God.

I guess we know where they will go with the Charles/Diana/Camilla story now.  Charles, the victim of his heartless family.  Camilla?  The other victim.

ETA

It's quite possible Charles was never told about Edward, and was too dull to pay attention to the multiple exposes about him.  His brother Edward made a YouTube available "documentary" clearing Uncle Eddie called Edward on Edward.  No idea if they really believe this, or if it's an attempt, yet again, to protect the monarchy.  

Either way, ignoring it all, even their own season two episode, obviously is serving well for the the slant they are probably choosing to use on the future King's storyline.

Well, this is drama and the writer has chosen to present Charles as a naive young man who resents his parents so much that he is easily manipulated by the duke of Windsor and makes him to his idol. 

I don't think that knowing the Nazi connection (whether it's true or not) is essential but the abdication. Is it really believable that Charles as a young man decided "not to give up his true love" - instead of trying to do his duty and only realizing only afterwards who his true love was? 

Irl, according to Sarah Bradford's Elizabeth, Mountbatten told Charles that Uncle David neglected his duties, shamefully abdicated and led an useless life and warned him to follow his example. 

As the Prince of Wales and the King, Edward dated a woman who had once divorced but remarried and the press abroad made their romance known by publishing their holiday pictures. Wallis didn't ask divorce until the fall 1936 and she got it only the next spring. If her husband hadn't been so kind and Edward not the King, they would have been the guilty party in the divorce court. 

Neither the Court nor his family forced Edward "out". His Private Secretary only did his duty when he warned him that the British press didn't keep silent any longer and the best way to avoid scandal was to send Wallis out of country. Queen Mary begged his son not to abdicate. The duke of York never wanted to to become the King, in fact he was horrified for it. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, that is presuming that whole Mountbatten/Queen Mother conspiracy EVER happened, which many of the "what was true, what was not" reviewers are saying is impossible, since they disliked one another intensely.

That’s interesting.  I’ve watched over the past couple of years some of those Windsor documentaries that show up on Netflix, and I remember that one strongly emphasized point was how much Charles adored both his grandmother and Lord Mountbatten.  When watching this season, I kept wondering if any stories about the plot points of the season ever make their way to the real Charles, because these two characters really are terrible to fictional Charles (and conspiring together to do it), and I would imagine that it would be hurtful to hear about that kind of (false?) depiction of someone you loved.

And the whole Lord Mountbatten treason plot (which I know one person in the episode thread mentions is true to one biography of Mountbatten, but which I found through light googling is not really accepted in terms of Mountbatten’s interest in it) really paints Mountbatten in an extra bad light.  Anyway, the real Charles’s feelings about all this kept popping into my head.

Edited by Peace 47
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, IrishPirate said:

@ohiopirate, Lord Mountbatten wasn't assassinated until 1979, still a ways into the future.

I'm only just starting Episode 7, so I think the show is saving that for Season 4.

Shannon

For me the issue is the Troubles began in 1969.  By overlooking the decade before Lord Montbatten's assassination, it can be very easy for the show to oversimplify a complicated subject and make the Irish Catholics the bad guys.  Which the IRA was, but so were the loyalist paramilitary groups, the Protestant police force and the Royal Army.  Harold Wilson sent the army into Northern Ireland in 1969 to help quell the violence, which had the opposite effect.  I know that the Troubles doesn't begin to affect our characters in the Crown until 1979, but the show had opportunities this season to lay the groundwork.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

To me, Charles represents Britain.  His sister is full Roundhead, and his first wife was the cavalieriest of Cavaliers.  Charles is half Roundhead, half Cavalier, a duality of competing dynamics.  He has been mostly dutiful, but also done his own thing from time to time.  In the series The Windsors, they point out that Charles has sponsored some controversial charities, and also conspicuously did not attend a visit by some Chinese Communists.  The speech that Show Charles gave in Tywysog Cymru was embellished for the sake of drama, but I think it reflected the independent side of Real Charles.   If nothing else, Peter Morgan won't have to make up a lot of fictional personality traits for Charles, as he has with Queen Elizabeth.  

I'm an American, but I find English/British history interesting because it is full of duality.  It has been an empire, and it has been invaded and conquered.  The terms "English" and "Anglo-Saxon" are derivatives of the names of peoples who came over from Germany.  The most famous king was part Welsh.  The Magna Carta was created in England.  As was the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Edited by PeterPirate
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Part of that was the endless, monotonous, and frankly nauseating mommy issues this show never seems to tire of, regardless of the character, it's always mommy's fault.

This family has had mommy (and/or daddy) issues for 200 years, the show is not making that up. 

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Like 7
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Quilt Fairy said:

This family has had mommy (and/or daddy) issues for 200 years, the show is not making that up. 

Wish we would hear more of the daddy issues then, because I'm getting pretty bored with that mommy trope.  😉

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

As I was reading up on Princess Anne I saw that there was an attempted kidnap on her in 1973 so I am very surprised that wasn't mentioned given that the season finishes up in 1977. 

Also how do you not make any reference to Northern Ireland at all as others have mentioned. We get a whole ep on Chuck learning Welsh, Phil fanboying Astronauts and having another crisis of masculinity but we don't get a word on Ireland?

I'm also a bit surprised there has been no mention of Thatcher yet, I know she isn't PM yet and we will probably see her meeting with the Queen next season but by the end of this season she surely would have been on the scene somewhere. Surely that would have been noteworthy at least in passing.

Edited by Kfir
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/20/2019 at 7:31 PM, Umbelina said:

Honestly, I don't see another conclusion to draw here.  Elizabeth was consistently a cold, uncaring, mean "mother" to the fun loving, shy, empathetic Charles who never had a real mommy.  Part of that was the endless, monotonous, and frankly nauseating mommy issues this show never seems to tire of, regardless of the character, it's always mommy's fault.

IMHO this whole show is a propaganda piece meant to rehabilitate the crown before QEII's death and Charles coming to the throne. But truly they also have little choice. If they want to make this show they have to sort of toe the line and not really make anyone angry. Thus a lot of the bad people on the show are the dead ones.

  • Like 5
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not through the season yet, but I can't believe they don't cover Anne's kidnapping.   That was a big deal.    The show is the Crown, it would have been nice to see the Queen's reaction to the news of her only daughter being almost kidnapped and Anne basically telling the kidnappers "no."    I mean seriously how did they think they were going to get her out of the car if she didn't cooperate?

As for Aberfan, you think the Coal Board was bad at the public meeting right after the disaster?   That was only the warm up act.    The country began making donations to the families who lost their children.   A fund was set up to administer the donations.   The Coal Board appropriated 150,000 pounds from this fund to reimburse the Board the cost of removing the tips.  I kid you not.   The Coal Board took money from the grieving families to pay for their own safety and to keep it from happening again.   It wasn't until the 2000s that Wales repaid the money to the fund.   

  • Like 2
  • Useful 2
  • Surprise 6
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I'm not through the season yet, but I can't believe they don't cover Anne's kidnapping.   That was a big deal.    The show is the Crown, it would have been nice to see the Queen's reaction to the news of her only daughter being almost kidnapped and Anne basically telling the kidnappers "no."    I mean seriously how did they think they were going to get her out of the car if she didn't cooperate?

As for Aberfan, you think the Coal Board was bad at the public meeting right after the disaster?   That was only the warm up act.    The country began making donations to the families who lost their children.   A fund was set up to administer the donations.   The Coal Board appropriated 150,000 pounds from this fund to reimburse the Board the cost of removing the tips.  I kid you not.   The Coal Board took money from the grieving families to pay for their own safety and to keep it from happening again.   It wasn't until the 2000s that Wales repaid the money to the fund.   

I was reading somewhere and apparently the Coal Board felt that the miners were not smart or capable enough to administer the money themselves, so they being good Englishmen had to keep the money to make sure it was being spent wisely.  They had to make sure that the miners did not waste the money on drink and other frivolous things like poor people always do.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

Picking up on discussion from the S3E10 thread...

I have been wondering why this season felt different for me. Then, I saw other posters making this observation: by the end of S3, we are watching a dramatization of events that I am somewhat familiar with (David's death, Charles/Camilla, Margaret/Roddy). It is a different challenge - and, in some ways, a different show - when the audience recalls these events, watched some of them happen live (Charles/Diana's wedding) and read tabloid coverage of it (Charles/Diana marriage, divorce).

Seasons 1 & S2 were a wonderful dive into history and figures that we may not have known much about. Future seasons will be "less history" for me and more of an interpretation of events that I remember.

One of the elements that disappointed me in S3 was the introduction of Charles/Camilla's relationship. I didn't sense any chemistry between the two actors. (Maybe that's because they had little screen time together). I also didn't really learn much of anything that I didn't already know.

The interpretation of that relationship is crucial to how future events are viewed. These are two of three people that nearly topple the modern day monarchy. I wanted to see more of Camilla. She still is a bit of an enigma in the show. Weepy, besotted Charles didn't do much for me. Many viewers have preconceived notions about Charles/Camilla/Diana having lived through it. I was hoping that the show would present these people differently, with more depth, than what we have come to understand about them. Maybe that will come in S4 but there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done.

On 11/20/2019 at 7:31 PM, Umbelina said:

However I honestly hope you are right.  I just don't think you are, this disjointed season seemed to be racing toward the juicy story of Charles sex and love life, and IMO, was designed for people to root for the future King.  (If the monarchy survives Elizabeth's death, which I doubt, but already addressed in the Tabloid's thread here.)

Again, I really do hope you are right.  I've loved this show, but this season is not doing it for me, and a big part of that is the above.

Again, this sentiment happens because viewers "know" what's coming. I think it is up to the writers to establish a different perspective that we, as viewers, may not have considered. Of course, that will be hard because so much is already known. 

Yes, I am disappointed in the way they introduced the Charles/Camilla relationship. However, I'm not assuming that this is propaganda to "prop up" the future king. Rather, I see a bunch of incredibly flawed people making the same bad decisions over and over again. Putting "the crown" before all else has never worked out well for any of them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I for one am happy they showed that Camilla only started with Charles because she was mad at Andrew Parker-Bowles.    That part of the story gets far too little coverage.    She might have liked Charles, but she loved Andrew.   Charles didn't marry her because she wanted to marry Andrew.    It wasn't just the cruel outdated Royal Family keeping him from his twu luv.   

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I for one am happy they showed that Camilla only started with Charles because she was mad at Andrew Parker-Bowles.    That part of the story gets far too little coverage.    She might have liked Charles, but she loved Andrew.   Charles didn't marry her because she wanted to marry Andrew.    It wasn't just the cruel outdated Royal Family keeping him from his twu luv.   

From what I have read, Camilla never wanted to be queen back in the 70s as well.  She was not some flighty young girl who could not decide between Andrew and Charles.   She knew what being Charles's wife would entail and wanted no part of it.  I am not thrilled that the show took away her agency.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Yes, I am disappointed in the way they introduced the Charles/Camilla relationship. However, I'm not assuming that this is propaganda to "prop up" the future king. Rather, I see a bunch of incredibly flawed people making the same bad decisions over and over again. Putting "the crown" before all else has never worked out well for any of them.

Where did this season show any flaws of Charles?  I'm honestly asking, not being snarky.  To me he was depicted as sensitive, and honestly interested in the Welsh people even after his dubious "welcome" to that abused country.  He was sad that an entire town of predominantly Welsh speakers was flooded to provide "water for Liverpool."  He was thoughtful and kind, learned as much as he could about Welsh issues and heartbreaks, and reflected quite a bit of that by rewriting his speech.  He identified with the Welsh as being neglected but used for the purposes of The Crown.  Then he was shown as shy and fun loving with Camilla, as close to his sister, and as a dutiful member of "the firm."  They also made a point of showing him to be kind and interested in that Welsh child, being a friend.  They went so far as to have him directly and indirectly compare himself to the "misunderstood and abused uncle hero who had a mind of his own (like Charles) then married for love and was shut out by the family."  

The Queen was more concerned with her own inability to cry than with 116 dead children and 26 dead adults in a tiny town, killed ONLY because of English greed and disregard for even basic safety issues.  We never saw HER question how it all happened, or show empathy.  They went on to make her, yet again, cold to Charles, and then outright attack him in her room.  THEN they contrived a Mountbatten/Queen Mother conspiracy to STEAL Charle's TRU LUV away.

Charles adored the QM, and idolized the self inflated preener Mountbatten, and they both betrayed him on the show?  Seriously folks?  

So now, I don't see this season as having "a bunch of flawed people."  To me it was lovely, innocent, caring, thoughtful, dutiful Charles against the world of his family.

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I for one am happy they showed that Camilla only started with Charles because she was mad at Andrew Parker-Bowles.    That part of the story gets far too little coverage.    She might have liked Charles, but she loved Andrew.   Charles didn't marry her because she wanted to marry Andrew.    It wasn't just the cruel outdated Royal Family keeping him from his twu luv.   

Well, that certainly isn't the narrative the show seems to be exploring.  Instead, Charles is abused hero who had his love callously snatched away by the nefarious royal family.

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I have read, Camilla never wanted to be queen back in the 70s as well.  She was not some flighty young girl who could not decide between Andrew and Charles.   She knew what being Charles's wife would entail and wanted no part of it.  I am not thrilled that the show took away her agency. 

Yeah, another problem with the handling of this obviously huge future story.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, another problem with the handling of this obviously huge future story.

I wonder if we will get any of the other women who considered Charles but also came to the same conclusion as Camilla--that he was not worth the hassle of marrying into the Crown and being the mother of the next king.  I know that Montbatten was pushing one of his granddaughters as a possible wife for Charles before he died.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Others seasons have ignored historical accuracy to some degree here and there but this season jumped the shark!

I binge watched and couldn't believe the absolute nonsense I was witnessing.

The episode about Aberfan really made me angry because everything I've read about it emphasized how the teacher was found cradled over the children to protect them.... but in the episode he yells at the kids to go hide under desks then he stays standing at the window like an idiot until it smashes through.

In real life he was seen as a hero and it emphasized how he loved his students but you'd never know that from the show. 🙄

I guess they didn't want that much contrast.... A man who threw himself over the children to protect them...as opposed to an ice queen who couldn't squeak out a tear let alone protect anyone.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I have been wondering why this season felt different for me. Then, I saw other posters making this observation: by the end of S3, we are watching a dramatization of events that I am somewhat familiar with (David's death, Charles/Camilla, Margaret/Roddy). It is a different challenge - and, in some ways, a different show - when the audience recalls these events, watched some of them happen live (Charles/Diana's wedding) and read tabloid coverage of it (Charles/Diana marriage, divorce).

Seasons 1 & S2 were a wonderful dive into history and figures that we may not have known much about. Future seasons will be "less history" for me and more of an interpretation of events that I remember.

What we remember is what we have seen in the TV and what we have read in newspapers, magazines and books. But we don't know what actually happened behind the closed doors where the real drama was palyed - we have only Diana's version and Charles' version and various other versions (servants and Diana's lovers, Camilla hasn't told hers).

And many in the audience the marrriage Charles and Diana is history, It's been 38 years of their wedding and 22 years of Diana's death.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

What we remember is what we have seen in the TV and what we have read in newspapers, magazines and books. But we don't know what actually happened behind the closed doors where the real drama was palyed - we have only Diana's version and Charles' version and various other versions (servants and Diana's lovers, Camilla hasn't told hers).

And many in the audience the marrriage Charles and Diana is history, It's been 38 years of their wedding and 22 years of Diana's death.   

In several ways, including phone calls, and gifts, Camilla actually has told some of her story.  The entwined C's as a "wedding gift" to Charles?  Certainly tell us that she expected the affair to continue.  I suppose that some could argue it was about their friendship, but seriously?  A WEDDING GIFT sent with him on his honeymoon?  

Please. 

Also, her massive obsession/love/attraction to her first husband is also pretty well documented, and many of her friends have commented there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

One of the elements that disappointed me in S3 was the introduction of Charles/Camilla's relationship. I didn't sense any chemistry between the two actors. (Maybe that's because they had little screen time together). I also didn't really learn much of anything that I didn't already know.

The interpretation of that relationship is crucial to how future events are viewed. These are two of three people that nearly topple the modern day monarchy. I wanted to see more of Camilla. She still is a bit of an enigma in the show. Weepy, besotted Charles didn't do much for me. Many viewers have preconceived notions about Charles/Camilla/Diana having lived through it. I was hoping that the show would present these people differently, with more depth, than what we have come to understand about them. Maybe that will come in S4 but there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done.

Again, this sentiment happens because viewers "know" what's coming. I think it is up to the writers to establish a different perspective that we, as viewers, may not have considered. Of course, that will be hard because so much is already known. 

Yes, I am disappointed in the way they introduced the Charles/Camilla relationship. However, I'm not assuming that this is propaganda to "prop up" the future king. Rather, I see a bunch of incredibly flawed people making the same bad decisions over and over again. Putting "the crown" before all else has never worked out well for any of them.

I agree with you that Charles and Camilla's relationship should have given more space. I didn't understand why he fell for her.

However, the machinations of Lord Mountbatten and Queen Mother to break the relationship were quite unnecessary as it was made clear that Camilla was in love with Andrew.  

Irl Charles didn't even plan to propose to Camilla. Probably he thought that he was too young to marry, at 25. 

Unlike in the show, the young Charles never spoke of choosing "a true love" inspite of all, but that he must think marriage rationally because, except that he couldn't divorce, his wife must adopt his and royal life which would be hard.

Actually, I don't think that was in principle wrong - marrying a king or a prince isn't only personal matter but it also means a job of princess and queen, plus losing privacy for good. 

Love matches have failed, too - or been distrastrous to the country, like Nicholas and Alexandra of Russia. 

 

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

In several ways, including phone calls, and gifts, Camilla actually has told some of her story.  The entwined C's as a "wedding gift" to Charles?  Certainly tell us that she expected the affair to continue.  I suppose that some could argue it was about their friendship, but seriously?  A WEDDING GIFT sent with him on his honeymoon?  

I don't think that an outsider can interpret the meaning of that kind of gift.    

Charles told in TV that his relationship with Camilla begun anew only after his marriage with Diana had failed.

Kindly put, they married without knowing the other at all, having spent very little time alone. Charles wanted a wife who would be his friend, support him. ease his loneliness and like the country life. Diana wanted catch the most eligible bachelor and waited for his husband adore her all the time. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I agree with you that Charles and Camilla's relationship should have given more space. I didn't understand why he fell for her.

I never said that.  I don't think they needed "more space."  She would have probably been a disastrous "wife" for him, especially since she was in love with another man, and used to affairs.

38 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

However, the machinations of Lord Mountbatten and Queen Mother to break the relationship were quite unnecessary as it was made clear that Camilla was in love with Andrew.  

I SERIOUSLY doubt anything of the sort happened, and I think the show made it all up, and pinned in on dead people.  I think it's possible the mustaches were involved, and possibly the Queen or Philip, but ...

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think that an outsider can interpret the meaning of that kind of gift.  

I think the gift, and the timing, and that he took it ON HIS HONEYMOON is pretty self-explanatory, especially since Diana had already found out he was continuing his affair.

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Charles told in TV that his relationship with Camilla begun anew only after his marriage with Diana had failed.

He's a liar.  IMO of course.

6 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Kindly put, they married without knowing the other at all, having spent very little time alone. Charles wanted a wife who would be his friend, support him. ease his loneliness and like the country life. Diana wanted catch the most eligible bachelor and waited for his husband adore her all the time. 

She was a naive virgin who had a crush on him for most of her teen years, and dreamed of marrying him, as did many, many young women of that time.

He was a callous cad who took vows he never intended to keep, and used her as a brood mare, and a beard for his relationship with Camilla.  

He was 4 years short of twice her age.

I have exactly ZERO sympathy for him, at the very least he should have been honest with Diana from the start.  Let her decide if being royalty was worth having a loveless marriage, and a third party fucking her husband.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

On 11/23/2019 at 3:22 PM, Umbelina said:

I never said that.  I don't think they needed "more space."  She would have probably been a disastrous "wife" for him, especially since she was in love with another man, and used to affairs.

I answered to Ellaria Sand.

I meant simply that why the young Charles fell in love with Camilla should have dealt more throughly.  

Irl Camilla's relationship with Andrew was broken and he was abroad on duty.

Also, Princess Anne couldn't marry Andrew because he was Roman Catholic. 

 

On 11/23/2019 at 3:22 PM, Umbelina said:

He's a liar.  IMO of course.

She was a naive virgin who had a crush on him for most of her teen years, and dreamed of marrying him, as did many, many young women of that time.

He was a callous cad who took vows he never intended to keep, and used her as a brood mare, and a beard for his relationship with Camilla.  

He was 4 years short of twice her age.

I have exactly ZERO sympathy for him, at the very least he should have been honest with Diana from the start.  Let her decide if being royalty was worth having a loveless marriage, and a third party fucking her husband.

How could we know for sure that Charles lied in TV?  That Diana suspected that his affair continued all the time, is no proof whatsoever.  

Of course Charles was wrong to introduce Camilla as his friend, not as his former girl-friend, but in the same time Diana was wrong to present herself (at least half) as a person she was not in order to catch him and make the best match in the country. F.ex. she pretended to like the country when she in fact hated being in Balmoral.

Charles was persuaded to propose by his father (whose letter he misunderstood), his friends and the press that fell for Diana and didn't let the couple enough time to date. But Diana said yes without asking time to get to know him alone or at least ask for advice - her sister had dated Charles and her brother-in-law and grandmother worked at Court.  

Even if Diana's suspicious were true, her strategy - jealous rows - was hardly such that could make a successful marriage.

Charitably put, she couldn't help herself as she became with sick bulimiaa and there was no understanding about it at the time, and even less mental health problems due to her insecure childhood and overpowering stress because of her totally changed life. 

In all relationships, there is no objective truth because people see same happenings from their own POV. But as a drama, I think "a victim and a cad" isn't as interesting as "two incomplete people who want from the other something that they themselves can't give the other".  

 

I don't believe that love alone guarantees that the marriage succeeds. There must also be friendship, respect, common values and aims, and the will to stay together and treat the other well.

I think that the main reason because Edward and Sophie's as well William and Kate's marriage has succeeded, is that those couples have lived together before the marriage. Both women also had time to ponder whether they could handle their future role.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I don't believe that love alone guarantees that the marriage succeeds. There must also be friendship, respect, common values and aims, and the will to stay together and treat the other well.

I think that the main reason because Edward and Sophie's as well William and Kate's marriage has succeeded, is that those couples have lived together before the marriage. Both women also had time to ponder whether they could handle their future role.

Or if Charles and Diana went on more then twelve dates before he proposed. They both were so different and had such different personalities its hard to imagine they wouldn't have realized that had they dated longer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Or if Charles and Diana went on more then twelve dates before he proposed. They both were so different and had such different personalities its hard to imagine they wouldn't have realized that had they dated longer.

Plus, the were even seldom alone. The courting was superficial that she called him "sir" until he proposed. They never discussed or write letters about their expectations in life and marriage.

There was difference, not only in age but character, education and hobbies. Charles had an university education and liked books, the country life and "old-fashoned things" and needed both his friend and to be alone a lot. He was a bachelor set in his ways, used to be pampered by his staff and listen to the advice of his friends. He was willing do his duty that he was taught to as an heir to the throne, marry and produce heirs, unlike his uncle who had abdicated. 

Diana was an immature drop-out who worked part-time and lived in a flat with other girls waiting for a marriage she believed based on love she had read in romance books. She liked the pop culture and shopping, hated the country life (on the contrary she pretended to Charles) and wanted to be alone with Charles and adored by him all the time. 

The only thing they had common before the marriage is that they both liked children.    

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Plus, the were even seldom alone. The courting was superficial that she called him "sir" until he proposed. They never discussed or write letters about their expectations in life and marriage.

There was difference, not only in age but character, education and hobbies. Charles had an university education and liked books, the country life and "old-fashoned things" and needed both his friend and to be alone a lot. He was a bachelor set in his ways, used to be pampered by his staff and listen to the advice of his friends. He was willing do his duty that he was taught to as an heir to the throne, marry and produce heirs, unlike his uncle who had abdicated. 

Diana was an immature drop-out who worked part-time and lived in a flat with other girls waiting for a marriage she believed based on love she had read in romance books. She liked the pop culture and shopping, hated the country life (on the contrary she pretended to Charles) and wanted to be alone with Charles and adored by him all the time. 

The only thing they had common before the marriage is that they both liked children.    

Well, said. They were so completely different in every way. But they never took the time to find out. Its hard to imagine with such different personalities it wouldn't realized it had they dated long. Diana was calling him Sir until he proposed? Neither thought that was odd? How comfortable was she on their dates if she's calling him Sir? Or just be herself? Or him be himself? Especially if they were never alone. How can they really get to know each other when they are never alone? Just talking to each other, they would have realized they have nothing in common. The whole thing could have been avoided if anyone used their brains. The establishment or royal family or both didn't care who he married as long as she was a virgin. Which knocked out most women and meant Charles's only options were eighteen or nineteen. Yeah, that seems a like a great idea. Newly minted adults with very little life experiences. What could go wrong? Nothing else mattered not interests, education, hobbies or anything else that is actually important in a successful marriage. As nice was Diana was at nineteen she was interested in shopping, pop culture and had no skills, education and a drop out. None of these things are bad in fact they are very typical for her age but none of that made her a good fit or for her to have any idea what she was getting herself into. No girl her age would have. Charles and Diana both not bothering to really get to know each other. Charles thinking his father's letter meant something it didn't. Plus, he's ignored his advice before. Why now? Yes, the attention was growing. So Charles thinks he needs to propose because of the media? Sure it would have been a let down. But wouldn't that have been better then the complete disaster of the marriage that came? The marriage had zero chance of working. I like to compare their relationship to a drunken Vegas wedding except they could blame it booze. 

Edited by andromeda331
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/20/2019 at 2:25 AM, andromeda331 said:

I don't know if its the writing or cast, or what. But its really hard to have any sympathy or care about any of them. I'm not sure that's their intent. But from what we see from the royal family except for the Queen they all whine and complain. 

I don't disagree with this generally. Except for Anne. 

Last night I finished watching Season 3, and I have to admit that most of it was such an effing downer that I made liberal use of the FF key several times.

In this season we see many nuanced versions - of the Queen's RBF. Although, TBH,  the country was in such a mess that she'd have had to be clinically insane or drunk to smile and grin her way through those years. The politicians of both parties were apparently in over their heads and also as has been said, the truth about the Coal Board (and government) in re Aberfan is worse than the show portrayed, which was bad enough. I kept thinking, Jeez this is a downer and then remembered, well, hell, Britain in the 70's was a downer. So. 

The ray of life and honesty in this mess of muck, was Anne. I adored how she just owned that big family scene, sitting across from her parents, grandmother, and great-uncle Dickie. Nailed it with her parting comment, "Well, was that too emotional?" Heh. She didn't whine or complain, was shown being supportive of Charles, in her own rough and tumble way. She displayed a healthy pragmatism in her bedroom scene with Andrew P-B - which is consistent with the image I've formed of her personality from what has been published about her over the years. The woman doesn't fuss, she just gets on with things, and has always seemed to have plenty of things that she enjoys, as well as carrying out a boatload of royal duties, year in and year out, without a squawk.

And, yes PLEASE, couldn't they have somehow included the attempted kidnapping of Anne? It was real life drama, and a lone unbalanced loser almost pulled it off. But Anne robustly refused to get out of the car, her police protection officer took a bullet or two for her, and a passerby who used to be a boxer, finally got the kidnapper onto the ground.

They could have cut a few minutes of Her Majesty's RBF to squeeze in that kidnapping attempt, and IMO the series would have been all the better for it. Michael Fagan's intrusion into HM's bedroom happened in 1982; I wonder if that will be in this show.

But anyway, I'm definitely on Team Anne this season. Well written, and well played.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I don't disagree with this generally. Except for Anne. 

Last night I finished watching Season 3, and I have to admit that most of it was such an effing downer that I made liberal use of the FF key several times.

In this season we see many nuanced versions - of the Queen's RBF. Although, TBH,  the country was in such a mess that she'd have had to be clinically insane or drunk to smile and grin her way through those years. The politicians of both parties were apparently in over their heads and also as has been said, the truth about the Coal Board (and government) in re Aberfan is worse than the show portrayed, which was bad enough. I kept thinking, Jeez this is a downer and then remembered, well, hell, Britain in the 70's was a downer. So. 

The ray of life and honesty in this mess of muck, was Anne. I adored how she just owned that big family scene, sitting across from her parents, grandmother, and great-uncle Dickie. Nailed it with her parting comment, "Well, was that too emotional?" Heh. She didn't whine or complain, was shown being supportive of Charles, in her own rough and tumble way. She displayed a healthy pragmatism in her bedroom scene with Andrew P-B - which is consistent with the image I've formed of her personality from what has been published about her over the years. The woman doesn't fuss, she just gets on with things, and has always seemed to have plenty of things that she enjoys, as well as carrying out a boatload of royal duties, year in and year out, without a squawk.

And, yes PLEASE, couldn't they have somehow included the attempted kidnapping of Anne? It was real life drama, and a lone unbalanced loser almost pulled it off. But Anne robustly refused to get out of the car, her police protection officer took a bullet or two for her, and a passerby who used to be a boxer, finally got the kidnapper onto the ground.

They could have cut a few minutes of Her Majesty's RBF to squeeze in that kidnapping attempt, and IMO the series would have been all the better for it. Michael Fagan's intrusion into HM's bedroom happened in 1982; I wonder if that will be in this show.

But anyway, I'm definitely on Team Anne this season. Well written, and well played.

She was the only one I liked besides Alice. I liked how she was. She pointed out her father was using her to fix his own mess up. Then she found away to get out of the interview she didn't want to do and fix the problem by serving up her grandmother. I liked that she not only said all that to Andrew but meant it. She says what she means. I loved when Philip got mad at her for being Anne and her remark on where she got that from. I loved that whole scene when she was being questioned by her parents, grandmother and Dickie. No nerves, nothing, not even when she told them she slept with Andrew and that last comment before she left was awesome. She had so many great comments and remarks. 

I'm surprised they didn't do her wedding or kidnapping. I do wonder if their going to do it next season along the coming Charles and Diana. The pacing was weird until the last episode they were still in early 70s when suddenly they jumped at head to the Silver Jubilee. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

She was the only one I liked besides Alice. . . 

I'm surprised they didn't do her wedding or kidnapping. I do wonder if their going to do it next season along the coming Charles and Diana. The pacing was weird until the last episode they were still in early 70s when suddenly they jumped at head to the Silver Jubilee. 

Yes, Alice! I agree, she was another exception to the whiny Royals. I've been fascinated by her since I first saw a documentary, IIRC it's called The Queen's Mother-in-Law. She went through some amazing things in life - after being born deaf. (I think perhaps so profoundly hard of hearing that it was effectively deafness.) 

Also, Anne competed in the Olympics in 1976 and we don't see even a mention of it in this season either. Although, as you said, the jumpy timeline wraps up with the 1977 Jubilee in episode 10. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Roseanna said:

What we remember is what we have seen in the TV and what we have read in newspapers, magazines and books. But we don't know what actually happened behind the closed doors where the real drama was palyed - we have only Diana's version and Charles' version and various other versions (servants and Diana's lovers, Camilla hasn't told hers)

Agree. My point was that "knowing" about events means that we lived thru them, watched them on TV, etc. We can never assume that we know the full truth. And this is why the depiction of the Charles/Camilla/Diana relationship is going to be controversial and spark criticism. No matter how it is portrayed, someone will always take issue.

16 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I agree with you that Charles and Camilla's relationship should have given more space. I didn't understand why he fell for her.

However, the machinations of Lord Mountbatten and Queen Mother to break the relationship were quite unnecessary as it was made clear that Camilla was in love with Andrew.  

I didn't feel that there was chemistry between the actors. They should have let the acting show us that there was this great attraction between them. Instead, it was a lot of words about it.  That attraction is the catalyst for everything that is to come.

As far as Mountbatten and the Queen Mum's plotting, I'm OK with it even if it didn't happen. It gave both actors something to do. And I'm fine watching Charles Dance be ruthless; he is so good at it.

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

In all relationships, there is no objective truth because people see same happenings from their own POV. But as a drama, I think "a victim and a cad" isn't as interesting as "two incomplete people who want from the other something that they themselves can't give the other".  

Well said. This show is not a documentary. The creator is going to to frame things his way based on his beliefs and knowledge. And I highly doubt that we will ever get 100% of the truth because no "outsider" can ever know it. I also sure that there are viewers that disagree with the choices that Peter Morgan has made. And that's fine. We can disagree with the storyteller and we can disagree with each other. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Random thoughts on Season 3.

Olding.  Elizabeth's extemporaneous remarks about Blunt were a new thing.  I don't recall a moment in the first two seasons when the Queen was that cutting and quick-witted with her words.  Which for me makes up for the lack of visual nuance.  

Margaretology.  In real life, Elizabeth could not have kept Margaret from performing state functions if the government had wished it.  But in the show Elizabeth, acting with Phillip's advice, was the one to freeze Margaret out.  

Tywysog Cymru. I am wondering, was this accurate to the general public knowledge or perception of Charles at the time?  I remember there were comments after season 1 that the show was going easy on David.  That just set things up for the lowering of the boom in Vergangenheit.  Maybe that's where they are going with Charles.

I am also wondering of the episode is accurate to the reality.  Did Charles play Richard II?  Did he wrestle with the conflicts between being a sovereign and being a human being?  Reading all these comments about Charles and Diana makes me think of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.  They had their share of marital problems, but somehow they stayed together and changed history.  For one thing, after Franklin's affair with Lucy Mercer was discovered, his mother forbade him from seeing with her again--he complied lest he be cut off from the family money.  And Eleanor and Franklin were a perfect match on a professional level.  She was able to accomplish things that he could not, and she never tried to do anything against his wishes.  A great example of this was when Eleanor arranged to have Marion Davies sing in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  She was implementing Franklin's desire to advance civil rights, while he was able to tell conservative critics that it was his wife, not him, who did it.  

So I am left wondering if the Charles depicted in Tywysog Cymru would have been able to work things out with his wayward princess.  I suppose that's a fantasy, but I also think the actual outcome was a tragedy.  As far as I know, there are no pictures of Camilla or Anne holding an AIDS-afflicted baby.  I like to think that's something that Charles approved of, although he may have been jealous that Diana was getting the limelight for it instead of him.   

Edited by PeterPirate
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

I first saw a documentary, IIRC it's called The Queen's Mother-in-Law.

Here it is.  My goodness, what an amazing woman she was.  

I think it also says something about this show that they introduced Alice as just a crazy nun in the first episode of the show, and waited two years to give us this love letter of an episode. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Diana was calling him Sir until he proposed? Neither thought that was odd? 

It sounds odd to us, but my "extensive research" (I watch a lot of British TV and movies) seems to indicate that calling members of the royal family "ma'am" (rhymes with ham) or sir is protocol for everyone (up to and including the prime minister). 

Same appears to be true whenever a "lesser" person is addressing someone of higher rank.

We're currently watching Poldark.  Demzelda called her boss "sir" until they slept together and he shortly thereafter married her; only then did she call him Ross.  Even then, she occasionally slipped at the beginning and still called him "sir."

As a septuagenarian, I miss the days when we used the terms "ma'am" and "sir" when addressing our elders.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Roseanna said:

F.ex. she pretended to like the country when she in fact hated being in Balmoral.

She grew up in what England calls "the country."  She loved "the country."  She hated Balmoral because she disliked hunting, and that is pretty much all they do up there.  It's cold, isolated, and her company was all "inlaws."  Not being a huge fan of dead animals, I probably wouldn't have liked it either.

Also, what young virgin girl smitten by a guy doesn't "pretend" or try to like whatever her future or new husband likes?  It doesn't matter if it's dirt bike racing to his choice of books or even stamp collecting.  That is pretty normal behavior, probably more from females, but even males will attend operas or rom com movies because that's what the woman he's interested in likes.  

15 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Charles was persuaded to propose by his father (whose letter he misunderstood), his friends and the press that fell for Diana and didn't let the couple enough time to date. But Diana said yes without asking time to get to know him alone or at least ask for advice - her sister had dated Charles and her brother-in-law and grandmother worked at Court.  

He was a GROWN MAN.  Yes, it was expected that he provide an heir.  Oh poor him, all that wealth and privilege, to become the eventually King, in exchange for something nearly every man in the world does, find a wife and have a child.  

15 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Even if Diana's suspicious were true, her strategy - jealous rows - was hardly such that could make a successful marriage.

She was jealous BECAUSE he was cheating on her, in front of her friends and inlaws.  Her grandmother in law provided the "love nest" for Charles and Camilla.  She wasn't imagining it, and she tried to cope with it several ways.  

15 hours ago, Roseanna said:

In all relationships, there is no objective truth because people see same happenings from their own POV. But as a drama, I think "a victim and a cad" isn't as interesting as "two incomplete people who want from the other something that they themselves can't give the other".  

I agree with that.  However, the show is painting Charles as a hero here, poor little unloved misunderstood, mistreated honorable, caring, wonderful guy, who had his TRU LUV stolen from him.  It's ridiculously slanted.

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Margaretology.  In real life, Elizabeth could not have kept Margaret from performing state functions if the government had wished it.  But in the show Elizabeth, acting with Phillip's advice, was the one to freeze Margaret out.  

Interesting!  I still don't quite understand what the elected government can demand of the royals.  If you feel like elaborating?  I'd love to hear it.

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Tywysog Cymru. I am wondering, was this accurate to the general public knowledge or perception of Charles at the time?  I remember there were comments after season 1 that the show was going easy on David.  That just set things up for the lowering of the boom in Vergangenheit.  Maybe that's where they are going with Charles.

I was disappointed that we didn't see whether or not the crowd applauded his speech, and definitely the aftermath on the Welsh, other than his teacher.  Honestly I also wondered how many Welsh in the crowd actually spoke Welsh too.  Instead we got Colman's same old stare and frown as she fooled with her jewelry after abusing Charles.

16 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I answered to Ellaria Sand.

I meant simply that why the young Charles fell in love with Camilla should have dealt more throughly.  

Irl Camilla's relationship with Andrew was broken and he was abroad on duty.

Also, Princess Anne couldn't marry Andrew because he was Roman Catholic. 

Sorry!  Someone hit my car yesterday, and I was distracted trying to find an insurance agent.  

I wasn't talking about Anne, that was never serious.  I was, of course, talking about Camilla.

On 11/20/2019 at 5:33 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

I don’t think we know that. Let’s wait and see. I doubt that they would take a simplistic approach to what is coming and paint some as victims and others as “something else.” That would create an unnecessary backlash. 
 

Rather, I think - and hope - that we will get a more balanced approach to the Charles/Diana/Camilla storyline. Perhaps that’s the reason for the emphasis on “true love” this season. As I said in the episode thread, the last half of S3 seems to be a setup for the explosion coming in S4. A realistic approach would be to demonstrate the fallout when the royals tell one another who to love.

I really hope you are right.  

This season trashed the hell out of Elizabeth, and his grandmother, all in service of Charles being heroic and the victim.  

The Mountbatten/Queen Mother collusion from all accounts is nonsense.  I think "the firm" did interfere with the possibly disastrous Camilla situation, but not like that.  

I also think Anne was correct, even if Camilla did marry the gawky Charles over the dashing APB?  She would have continued her affair with him, she adored him.

On 11/20/2019 at 7:00 PM, swanpride said:

Well, I am not happy about it. Elizabeth has become more boring.

Yes, one note, one look, BORING.  I'm so sick of that stare and frown, there is no nuance at all, and they seem to be painting her as completely uncaring, cold, all in service of their "Charles as victim" narrative.

I read an eyewitness account of her in Aberfan for example, from a young boy buried alive, rescued, lost some fingers (it should be easy to find) and he said she WAS crying as she walked away from the burial site, and after the young girl gave her flowers.

So her complete lack of empathy, contrasted with Charles' complete empathy in the twin Wales episodes seems pretty telling to me.

On 11/22/2019 at 8:32 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I was reading somewhere and apparently the Coal Board felt that the miners were not smart or capable enough to administer the money themselves, so they being good Englishmen had to keep the money to make sure it was being spent wisely.  They had to make sure that the miners did not waste the money on drink and other frivolous things like poor people always do.  

Horrifying.  They SHOULD have given updates in the afterword of this episode, as they did after "The Fog" episode.  Instead we get drivel about Elizabeth's inability to cry.  

What a waste.

On 11/23/2019 at 8:21 AM, merylinkid said:

I for one am happy they showed that Camilla only started with Charles because she was mad at Andrew Parker-Bowles.    That part of the story gets far too little coverage.    She might have liked Charles, but she loved Andrew.   Charles didn't marry her because she wanted to marry Andrew.    It wasn't just the cruel outdated Royal Family keeping him from his twu luv.   

Exactly.

APB was handsome, sexy, and she's was obsessed with him.  She used Charles to get even, found out she liked him (as a friend) and she had sex with him which apparently wasn't horrible.  It didn't stop her love of APB though.

 

One thing that I kept noticing throughout season 3, that struck me as either odd or at least surprising.

Charles, and to some extent, Philip and Margaret keep saying things that Diana not only said but eventually DID.  "Humanize" the royal family, get out their with real people, show emotion, show personality, adjust to the times.

Diana came in and actually did those things, the same kinds of things those mentioned above keep harping on about.  

As I said, Philip and Margaret say them as well, but I'll limit this next part to Charles, who most certainly keeps talking on and on about how modern he is, and how he has a voice, and of course his episode in Wales when he did bond with "normal" people and sympathize with them.  Honestly, Diana did all of that, and I can't help but think that she and Charles should have had so much in common, especially that common goal.

It's probably too simplistic to say that he was jealous of her for that, her ease about doing the same kinds of things he always wanted to do.  Certainly there have been many movies and quotes about him being jealous and insecure about her popularity.  Things could have been SO different were he not jealous of that, because she had great skill in accomplishing his dreams, it's a pity he didn't drop the jealously and bond with her over not only those shared visions and goals, but that they were actually being accomplished.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

22 minutes ago, Umbelina said:
Quote

Margaretology.  In real life, Elizabeth could not have kept Margaret from performing state functions if the government had wished it.  But in the show Elizabeth, acting with Phillip's advice, was the one to freeze Margaret out. 

Interesting!  I still don't quite understand what the elected government can demand of the royals.  If you feel like elaborating?  I'd love to hear it.

Well, in the episode, Elizabeth accedes to "instructions" from the government, and then she "commands" Margaret to go to the White House.  I don't know if there is much difference between those words and the word "demand".  

I have no idea what would happen if both of them did not wish to follow an instruction from the government.  If there are real-life examples of such things happening, I am not aware of them.  From reading comments here, it was Margaret's own lack of the sense of duty that kept her being asked to take on important royal assignments.

But the point I was getting at was:  What would happen if the government wanted Margaret to do perform an important royal assignment, and Margaret was willing to do comply, but Elizabeth did not want her sister to do so? In the episode they made it sound as if the decision to keep Margaret from accepting future similar duties in the future was made by Elizabeth.  I just doubt that Elizabeth has that kind of power in real life.  

Mind you, for purposes of watching this TV drama, I am enamored by the idea that Elizabeth does have that kind of power.  It's a TV show.  Who killed Margaret?  It was Elizabeth, in the library, with the mustache.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Also, what young virgin girl smitten by a guy doesn't "pretend" or try to like whatever her future or new husband likes?  It doesn't matter if it's dirt bike racing to his choice of books or even stamp collecting.  That is pretty normal behavior, probably more from females, but even males will attend operas or rom com movies because that's what the woman he's interested in likes.  

Not all young girls are naive.

I just read about the couple of the highest Swedish aristocracy in the 18th centure. He was a middleaged admiral, she a maid of honor 16 years younger than he. When he proposed to her, they lived in different places, so they changed many letters. She especially wanted to know two things. She doubted that his freethinking was too remote from her religiosity and that his debts were too big in order they could live according to their position. He assured that his worldview had changed since youth and that his debts were smaller than rumored and could be paid in his year's pay. They also openly wrote abot sex before wedding as in the 18th a woman's enjoyment was also regarded important. The result was a emotionally and sexually happy marriage, as proven by their letters and his drawings of her.   

 

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But the point I was getting at was:  What would happen if the government wanted Margaret to do perform an important royal assignment, and Margaret was willing to do comply, but Elizabeth did not want her sister to do so? In the episode they made it sound as if the decision to keep Margaret from accepting future similar duties in the future was made by Elizabeth.  I just doubt that Elizabeth has that kind of power in real life.  

I think that Prime Minister Wilson - just as the audience - understood that Margaret succeeded with LBJ only because they both had similar reckless character. And just that prevented that she didn't get any more similar tasks - it was too risky.

I S1 Margaret was left to be the vice-Queen when Elizabeth was months away and she offended so many people that the Queen Mother has to come from Scotland and take the reins.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, in the episode, Elizabeth accedes to "instructions" from the government, and then she "commands" Margaret to go to the White House.  I don't know if there is much difference between those words and the word "demand".  

I have no idea what would happen if both of them did not wish to follow an instruction from the government.  If there are real-life examples of such things happening, I am not aware of them.  From reading comments here, it was Margaret's own lack of the sense of duty that kept her being asked to take on important royal assignments.

But the point I was getting at was:  What would happen if the government wanted Margaret to do perform an important royal assignment, and Margaret was willing to do comply, but Elizabeth did not want her sister to do so? In the episode they made it sound as if the decision to keep Margaret from accepting future similar duties in the future was made by Elizabeth.  I just doubt that Elizabeth has that kind of power in real life.  

Mind you, for purposes of watching this TV drama, I am enamored by the idea that Elizabeth does have that kind of power.  It's a TV show.  Who killed Margaret?  It was Elizabeth, in the library, with the mustache.  

Well, yeah, and it's also her ONLY income, and provides her house, food, horses, servants, travel, along with everything else she has.

Jus' sayin' 

😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:
1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I agree with that.  However, the show is painting Charles as a hero here, poor little unloved misunderstood, mistreated honorable, caring, wonderful guy, who had his TRU LUV stolen from him.  It's ridiculously slanted.

A hero? I’m sorry but I see nothing heroic in his portrayal. Overall, I saw a Charles that was hopelessly naive, insecure and lacking confidence...none of which I deem as admirable qualities. As a student in Wales, he demonstrated a willingness to learn and perhaps a longing for connections with “regular folk” but that didn’t scream heroism to me, either.

None of us know how they will take it forward since we aren’t writing the show. Our assumptions are colored by our own experience with these events since we lived thru them. As @Roseanna has stated so well, we can’t truly “know” the truth, regardless of how much we have read/watched. 

We can have opinions and we can disagree. I think that there is ample opportunity for the show to have Charles mature into an arrogant, sheltered adult that incorrectly assumed that he could have it both ways: a young, beautiful, naive wife and a mistress. Certainly others in history had done it before him.
 

Edited by Ellaria Sand
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

A hero? I’m sorry but I see nothing heroic in his portrayal. Overall, I saw a Charles that was hopelessly naive, insecure and lacking confidence...none of which I deem as admirable qualities. As a student in Wales, he demonstrated a willingness to learn and perhaps a longing for connections with “regular folk” but that didn’t scream heroism to me, either.

None of this know how they will take it forward since we aren’t writing the show. Our assumptions are colored by our own experience with these events since we lived thru them. As @Roseanna has stated so well, we can’t truly “know” the truth, regardless of how much we have read/watched. 

We can have opinions and we can disagree. I think that there is ample opportunity for the show to have Charles mature into an arrogant, sheltered adult that incorrectly assumed that he could have it both ways: a young, beautiful, naive wife and a mistress. Certainly others in history had done it before him.
 

I agree there is the naive part, although, since the show has decided to completely rewrite Duke Edward, I'm not even sure about that.

Queen goes to Wales surrounded by dead children, doesn't show, even in private later, ONE tiny morsel of compassion, let alone empathy.

Charles goes to Wales, is moved with empathy for the plight of the Welsh people, not even a disaster empathy, empathy for their flooded village, their plight in general, the abuse by England.  He's then  chewed out for it by his heartless mother.

---

That said, obviously the Diana stuff is going to be controversial here, it already is, and she hasn't showed up yet!  While people will obviously disagree, I think it will be kept civil.  There is so much real information out there, and I certainly realize the current popular point of view is anti Diana, pro Charles.  I don't share that view.  

---

I wonder if next season will go into the affair Margaret has with the gangster?

I also really hope they do flashbacks (at least) of Anne's kidnapping and her wedding.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Overall, this third season was somewhat of a let-down after the thoroughly enjoyable first two.  I hope Peter Morgan isn't getting bored, as often happens with creative types.  After two good seasons the grind of production starts wearing on them,  especially if something new captures their attention.   The third year slump - a lot like relationships.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I agree there is the naive part, although, since the show has decided to completely rewrite Duke Edward, I'm not even sure about that.

Queen goes to Wales surrounded by dead children, doesn't show, even in private later, ONE tiny morsel of compassion, let alone empathy.

Charles goes to Wales, is moved with empathy for the plight of the Welsh people, not even a disaster empathy, empathy for their flooded village, their plight in general, the abuse by England.  He's then  chewed out for it by his heartless mother.

I don't think that the duke of Windsor was rewritten. The audience was supposed to remember what happened in S1-2 and not believe how he saw himself and make a conclusion that he manipulated the naive Charles. Wallis did the same by saying that they never regretted that they give up everything for love - who could believe that after seeing them togerher in Vergangengeit?

As for Elizabeth in Wales, it was there and only there her job was to show empathy to people who had suffered. Whatever she really felt inside her or later in private, didn't matter a bit because it couldn't help other people. 

What was wrong with Charles's speech and what his mother rightly realized, was that he, a priviledged person, dared to identify his personal problems with the political, economical and cultural repression of the Welsh people for centuries. That's not real empathy - it's posing.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

He was a GROWN MAN.  Yes, it was expected that he provide an heir.  Oh poor him, all that wealth and privilege, to become the eventually King, in exchange for something nearly every man in the world does, find a wife and have a child.  

Some persons are mature at 18 and some are never.

Generally, I think that it's a question if the person's fate is decided by character, by circumstances, chance etc.

The duke of Windsor's fate was clearly influenced by his character, but it also demanded a certain kind of woman (his previous married mistressed wouldn't have dared to dream of marrying the King) and certain age where divorce, but not adultery if it was kept discreet, was the ultimate sin. 

Instead, Charles's fate wasn't so settled. He was proposed at last to one of his former girlfriends but being refused. Indeed a sensible girl! But unlike with his uncle, there was no psychological inhibitation to prevent him to fall in love with a single woman. 

After his granfather-surrogate, Mountbatten, was killed he was vulnerable when he met perhaps the only suitable young girl who was naive enough to accept his proposal without knowing into what she would got into as Princess of Wales.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size