Season 3: History Beyond the Episodes

[PeterPirate]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Quote

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.

In 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.

Yes, but my ruminations in this thread are about what happens in real life, not what happened in the show.

Edited November 25, 2019 by PeterPirate

[Joan of Argh]

Maybe they're trying to build sympathy for Charles to prepare us for his yearning to be Camillas tampon.  😲

[ProudMary]

16 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

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.  

I think you're actually referring to the magnificent African-American contralto Marian Anderson here, and not to Marion Davies, white actress and mistress of William Randolph Hearst. 

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I think you're actually referring to the magnificent African-American contralto Marian Anderson here, and not to Marion Davies, white actress and mistress of William Randolph Hearst. 

Omg, thanks for that!  I actually typed "Lucy Barnes" before checking and getting "Lucy Mercer" right.  But I forgot to check Marian Anderson.  

[PeterPirate]

Eric Idle, with "Queen Elizabeth", discusses Great Britain's financial problems on Saturday Night Live, circa 1977.  

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/monologue-save-great-britain-telethon/3007322

Edited November 25, 2019 by PeterPirate

[Calamity Jane]

I so wanted to love this season, but it just fell flat for me. I like Olivia Colman, but I don’t think she was right for the part after all. Or perhaps it was the writing, not sure. HBC as Margaret felt all wrong, too. I greatly preferred the previous actress. Tobias Menzies was good, most of the others were good, but Elizabeth is at the heart of the show, and by the end of season, I just hated her. Again, actress or writing. 

Another issue that has started bothering me is that in nearly every case, Americans are portrayed as country bumpkins to score points for the royals. In the case of the astronauts, it really defies belief that they would be unable to give a smooth answer to Philip’s quite predictable question. They were not bumptious young flyboys, they were seriously educated and experienced men in their thirties, part of whose training was “charm school” to sharpen their skills in how to talk to and behave around the public. Buzz Aldrin in particular was strongly affected by his journey to space, but many have expressed how seeing Earth from that distance altered their way of thinking about life.

Also, LBJ did play up his aw shucks persona, but he was one of the wiliest politicians ever in DC. I’m sure he enjoyed the Margaret show, and I’m equally sure he wasn’t bamfoozled by her, he had been around and survived far too long to be taken in that easily. Maybe her visit gave him cover to do what he knew had to be done but didn’t want to concede too easily.  Letting the UK go bankrupt would have been colossally destabilizing at the height of the Cold War.  

The only Americans who seemed to meet approval were the horse breeders as there were apparently no benefits to the royals in running them down. I’m not sure why the show does this so much, but it’s beginning to grate pretty badly. 

it will be interesting to see what season 4 brings, but I’m not panting for it to arrive. There were moments to enjoy, but overall I was so disappointed. 
 

[Athena]

A reminder that politics is off-topic unless in the context of the show. Do not use historical discussion for personal political opinions. 

[buckboard]

Princess Alice was never interviewed by anyone at the Guardian and the reception of the royal family documentary wasn't as harsh as related on The Crown.  But she was a fascinating woman:

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a29860476/princess-alice-john-armstrong-the-crown-journalist-article-true-story/

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a29310694/who-is-princess-alice-prince-philip-mother-the-crown-facts/

Edited November 29, 2019 by buckboard

[WatchrTina]

On 11/22/2019 at 8:05 AM, merylinkid said:

Anne basically telling the kidnappers "no." 

This may be an urban legend but my recollection is that what she was reported to have actually said (when instructed by the would-be kidnappers to get out of the car) was "Not bloody likely."  I've always loved that story.

Edited November 27, 2019 by WatchrTina

[dubbel zout]

Brought over from ep 4 ("Bubbikins"):

Note: Phillip is closely tied to the Romanovs in another way. His father, Prince Andrew, was a first cousin to Nicholas II of Russia by virtue of Andrew's father, George I of Greece, and Nicholas' mother, Marie Feodorovna of Russia, being brother and sister.

Philip's DNA was used to help definitively identify some of the bones of the murdered Romanovs. He was in a unique position to do that, being, as noted above, related on both his father and mother's sides to the family. Prince Michael of Kent is related only through his mother, though he was also a DNA donor and attended the reburial of the family.

[Roseanna]

I have undestood that Camilla dated Charles when her relationship with Andrew was broken and he was abroad as an officer. Charles didn't have plans to propose to her, not even tell how much he liked her. There was nothing curious that Charles got a post abroad for months. When he was away, she married Anrew who was an alpha male unlike Charles and whom she loved.

Charles was crushed to loose Camilla, but many men have survived such disappointments. He was young and dated many women, but although he proposed to one or two, he was refused until he was over 30. 

Camilla seems to have been a friendly, sensible an unambitious girl who only wanted to become the comfortable private life as a wife of the man she loved, Andrew. But he was constantly unfaithful.  

There was nothing inevitable but it was rather circumstances that drove them together again. Charles was crushed because of Mountbatten's murder and Camilla was disappointed with her marriage.

But what kept them together was evidently that they weren't only lovers, they were best friends. Charles needed a woman who could give him what his mother has never given him. And Camilla was "easy" to be with: no moods, no demands, no scenes.

[Roseanna]

The most important deviance in portraying Charles is that he is presented from the early age to put duty over love like the duke of Windsor. 

Irl, he always spoke that, when chosing his wife, he must use his head, as his wife must know what is waiting for her: she must embrace his royal style of life which he regarded a sacrifice on her part. 

Of course, in chosing Diana Charles didn't use his head as he didn't know her but bended on the pressure of his father and the press. It was namely the news that a blonde woman has spent a night in the royal train which threatened Diana's reputation that made Philip to write his famous letters, urging his son to propose or break up. Unfortunately, Charles understood only the first part.   

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, mledawn said:

Is there a massive conglomerate of Team Philip fans out there justifying these annoying Philip-centric episodes? Tobias is doing a fantastic job but he's playing someone who is a known jerk irl, so sympathy is hard to come by.

Christmas crackers! Love them.

Honestly, it seemed that this season simply had "star designed" episodes, probably part of the reason it just didn't hold together for me, and is, by far, my least favorite season of The Crown.

This was "Philip's" episode, "Margaret" had her's, a couple of them, "Charles" had his, but that was less for the "star" I think and more to introduce their obvious main storylines to come, (Diana, Camilla, Charles) "Mountbatten" had his, that idiotic coup invention which managed to bore me silly.

Meanwhile, the Queen stood around frowning and staring for nearly the entire season, and was, if anything, even less interesting that the others.

I think "Anne" stole the season, though she wasn't given much to do, every single thing she does do was interesting, compelling, and fascinating to watch.  Pity they didn't give her her romance/wedding, OR the kidnapping!  I guess her "star power" didn't merit that, or her representatives didn't demand it.

What a slump this season was.  I hope they can recover, and bring us a better season 4, but I have my doubts.

I agree with everything in this review:  https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/11/the-crown-season-3-review

Quote

The season makes for a less sexy, more studied viewing experience. The first half of the season, which focuses on political skirmishes in the late ‘60s, is especially slow going. The transition between casts is hampered further by some of The Crown’s most boring episodes, all of which lean too far into sentiment. (A little alarmingly, the season uses a devastating mining disaster in Wales to construct an episode that hinges on whether or not the queen cries.) Director and executive producer Benjamin Caron makes much use of profiles and silhouettes, especially in the first few episodes, as if to beat the viewer over the head with the idea that these characters are not just royals but also people, a theme we are by now quite familiar with.

I'm actually quite bummed, I loved this show, and was SO looking forward to this season.  In the end though?  Meh.

[SoWindsor]

Why did they jump to 78 and Margaret’s divorce and completely skip over Anne’s engagement and wedding?

Im so confused. 

[Umbelina]

21 minutes ago, SoWindsor said:

Why did they jump to 78 and Margaret’s divorce and completely skip over Anne’s engagement and wedding?

Im so confused. 

My guess?  Because HBC is a big star, and they gave episodes to the BIG STARS this season.

[SoWindsor]

45 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

My guess?  Because HBC is a big star, and they gave episodes to the BIG STARS this season.

Feels like a total miss especially because Anne was fantastic. They could have done Margaret’s divorce next season.

I miss Claire Foy and especially Vanessa Kirby. 

[toolazy]

On 11/21/2019 at 2:50 PM, Umbelina said:

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

There was a whole episode devoted to it in season 2.

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, toolazy said:

There was a whole episode devoted to it in season 2.

One out of 30 or so.  Meanwhile, mommy issues abound in nearly every episode.

[PeterPirate]

The ending to Tywysog Cymru is one of my favorite moments of the series.  For one thing, the actor does an A+ job playing Richard II.   

But it dawned on me that my all-time favorite scene from a TV show also utilizes Shakespeare.  It's the ending to the season 3 finale of The West Wing, featuring a fictional musical theater production called Wars of the Roses, purportedly based on various  Shakespearean plays, notably Henvy VI and Henry V.  

[TV Diva Queen]

On 11/24/2019 at 11:07 PM, Joan of Argh said:

Maybe they're trying to build sympathy for Charles to prepare us for his yearning to be Camillas tampon.  😲

I can never ever forget reading that in the papers.  Still to this day, when I see pics of the two of them, I think of that phone call.  

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, TV Diva Queen said:

I can never ever forget reading that in the papers.  Still to this day, when I see pics of the two of them, I think of that phone call.  

I can never forget listening to that phone call!

Hearing him say it, and the rest, was so ... OMG, give me a bar of soap, and some earplugs STAT!  

I do believe, more than any other thing he's done, THAT will keep him from trying to force the country to accept adulterous Camilla as Queen, but frankly, I don't think the majority will accept adulterous Charles as King either.  Not when it's spread across the headlines for years.

He may die before QEII, who knows, they are all getting up there, and there is also the old tinfoil hat theory that the Monarchy continuing is much more important than Charles' life...

[toolazy]

On 12/2/2019 at 3:11 PM, Umbelina said:

My guess?  Because HBC is a big star, and they gave episodes to the BIG STARS this season.

Depressing, but probably accurate.

[GaT]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but this seemed like the best place. This is Anne in 1973, she looked great.

[merylinkid]

I love how they make Anne very much a product of her time.   In the Investiture one when she is on the phone with Charles, she is bopping around her room in jeans and barefeet listening to rock musive.   Later in the one where they separate Charles and Camilla and she is driving to the palace she is singing along to Starman (which made e tear up a little).   Just your typical teenager.   Although I think by the time Charles got involved with Camilla the first time, Anne was already married.    

[Pallas]

Camilla was first involved with Charles in the early '70's, while her long-time boyfriend, Andrew Parker-Bowles, continued to pursue other women, including Princess Anne. All four were single. Camilla and Parker-Bowles married first, however: in July 1973, four months before Anne married Mark Phillips.

[kwnyc]

9 hours ago, GaT said:

I wasn't sure where to post this, but this seemed like the best place. This is Anne in 1973, she looked great.

Definitely the best mashup of the gene pool of Liz & Philip's progeny. Young Andrew was not bad looking, and in photos of young Prince Edward, you can see Harry (and predict the eventual hair loss...).

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I love how they make Anne very much a product of her time.   In the Investiture one when she is on the phone with Charles, she is bopping around her room in jeans and barefeet listening to rock musive.   Later in the one where they separate Charles and Camilla and she is driving to the palace she is singing along to Starman (which made e tear up a little).   Just your typical teenager.  

Anne was born in 1950, so she was 19 years old in 1969 in Charles's investiture. At least when she had an affair with Andrew Parker Bowles in the beginning of 70ies she was no more a teenager.

She was elected to the British equestrian team in the Summer Olypics 1976. That demanded a lot of work for years and thus self-disipline. So irl she was hardly "typical".

She also liked men who could ride and talk about horses.

Of course the writer could describe Anne as he liked. But considering how much we have seen Elizabeth and Margaret with horses, it's pity that we now only saw Anne's riding boots.

[kwnyc]

Quote

She was elected to the British equestrian team in the Summer Olypics 1976. That demanded a lot of work for years and thus self-disipline. So irl she was hardly "typical".

I've always found this particular factoid about Anne amusing.

She's also extremely hard-headed.

Edited December 5, 2019 by kwnyc
additional info

[Razzberry]

Still "seeing" each other?  Anne and Andrew Parker Bowles in 2016.  

[Roseanna]

On 11/25/2019 at 8:25 PM, Calamity Jane said:

The only Americans who seemed to meet approval were the horse breeders as there were apparently no benefits to the royals in running them down. I’m not sure why the show does this so much, but it’s beginning to grate pretty badly. 

I think it's simply quite common that when portraying other nationalities or ethnic groups who are not important except for the plot, they are decribed as stereotypes as opposites to "us", in this case the British.

But if you take the British Prime Ministers, they aren't described very positively, either. Churchill clings to power despite his old age and illness, Eden tries to supplant Churchill by going to the King and makes a monstrous mistake in Suez, Macmillan is cuckolded by his wife and made a fool by trusting Profumo, Heath is totally cold towards miners. Only Wilson has no fundamental flaw or mistake after the Queen learns that he is no spy.

But the difference is that we hardly notice this because every Prime Minister, except Heath, is described as an individual. At least until the Queen says to Macmillan that she has had three Prime Ministers: too old, too sick and too weak.

But even that doesn't negate that Churchill has charisma and past achiecemants during the war, and the shows tells movingly of his refusal to accept his decay due the old age. Plus his demons that he tries to suppress but also decribe by painting the pond.  

BTV, the Americans laughed at Eden when he lay unconcious after taking drugs and saw it as a fitting symbol of the decay of the British empire. 

[Llywela]

On 11/24/2019 at 5:44 PM, Umbelina said:

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.

For the record, Charles's investiture took place at Caernarfon, which is still a predominantly Welsh-speaking community today, even more so back then, so the majority of the locals present for the occasion would have been first language Welsh speakers.

[Roseanna]

On 12/2/2019 at 6:46 PM, Umbelina said:

I think "Anne" stole the season, though she wasn't given much to do, every single thing she does do was interesting, compelling, and fascinating to watch.  Pity they didn't give her her romance/wedding, OR the kidnapping!  I guess her "star power" didn't merit that, or her representatives didn't demand it.

What a slump this season was.  I hope they can recover, and bring us a better season 4, but I have my doubts.

I agree with everything in this review:  https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/11/the-crown-season-3-review

I'm actually quite bummed, I loved this show, and was SO looking forward to this season.  In the end though?  Meh.

On 12/3/2019 at 12:48 AM, SoWindsor said:

Why did they jump to 78 and Margaret’s divorce and completely skip over Anne’s engagement and wedding?

Im so confused. 

On 12/3/2019 at 1:11 AM, Umbelina said:

My guess?  Because HBC is a big star, and they gave episodes to the BIG STARS this season.

I think that the writer believed that because Anne wasn't liked irl, nobody in interested in her in the show, either. But thinking back, it could be a good idea to compare Charles and Anne more.  

However, the biggest mistake was not to deal Northern Ireland during "the troubles" at all. It could be a good idea to compare the natural disaster (although caused by human neglect) in Aberfee and the Black Sunday in Derry where the British army shot unarmed civilians. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Roseanna
correcting spelling

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I think it's simply quite common that when portraying other nationalities or ethnic groups who are not important except for the plot, they are decribed as stereotypes as opposites to "us", in this case the British.

But if you take the British Prime Ministers, they aren't described very positively, either. Churchill clings to power despite his old age and illness, Eden tries to supplant Churchill by going to the King and makes a monstrous mistake in Suez, Macmillan is cuckolded by his wife and made a fool by trusting Profumo, Heath is totally cold towards miners. Only Wilson has no fundamental flaw or mistake after the Queen learns that he is no spy.

But the difference is that we hardly notice this because every Prime Minister, except Heath, is described as an individual. At least until the Queen says to Macmillan that she has had three Prime Ministers: too old, too sick and too weak.

But even that doesn't negate that Churchill has charisma and past achiecemants during the war, and the shows tells movingly of his refusal to accept his decay due the old age. Plus his demons that he tries to suppress but also decribe by painting the pond.  

BTV, the Americans laughed at Eden when he lay unconcious after taking drugs and saw it as a fitting symbol of the decay of the British empire. 

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

However, the biggest mistake was not to deal Northern Ireland durin "the troubles" at all. It could be a good idea to compare the natural disaster (although caused by human neglect) in Aberfee and the Black Sunday in Derry where the British army shot unarmed civilians. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
 

It kills me that the show glossed over the fact that the British Army was in Northern Ireland on Harold Wilson's order.  They had opportunities to drop a line or two of dialogue into the script to set up season 4 but the show chose not to go that route.  So now we will get Uncle Dickie going out with a bang without any context, and only the IRA will have blood on their hands.  

[Razzberry]

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It kills me that the show glossed over the fact that the British Army was in Northern Ireland on Harold Wilson's order.  They had opportunities to drop a line or two of dialogue into the script to set up season 4 but the show chose not to go that route.  So now we will get Uncle Dickie going out with a bang without any context, and only the IRA will have blood on their hands.  

This is my worry as well.  I was hoping since the time-line is so.. flexible that Northern Ireland would be covered next season, but with Wilson already out of office that doesn't seem likely.  Maybe Bloody Sunday will get a mention in passing.

I see a pattern of deference with British writers who apparently want a "Sir" or "Dame" honor to their name.  Daisy Goodwin pens the fairy tale "Victoria" and Peter Morgan seems intent on showing how "normal" the royal family is.  Meanwhile a rich field remains unplowed.   For laughs he uses the unsophisticated hillbilly cousins across the pond, which can be funny, but only if there's a kernel of truth to it.   To me LBJ was funny, but the astronauts?  A swing and a miss.  Same with the Kennedys. They'd be funnier to someone who already held those views which have been around since George III was in diapers, so  I think it's clear who the real audience is that he caters to.  He did receive a "CBE" but from what I understand that's a Commander, not a Knighthood, and doesn't get the "Sir". Not yet anyway.

[Umbelina]

I think the biggest mistake was forcing the new cast too soon.

They should have finished up the sixties with Foy and ensemble, and then NEXT year gone into the seventies.

The Queen was about 38 when this season began.  I'm guessing/estimating 1964?  They fudged around with the dates of things so much this season that I'm honestly confused.  Foy is 35.  Margaret's scandalous photos were published in 1976.  At that point the Queen was 50, and Colman playing her makes more sense.

Ending with Charles'  investiture makes sense.  The Queen was 43 in 1969, well in range for Foy to play, with that horrible hat and just a bit of padding/makeup.   I'm sure there were plenty of other beats to play from the sixties.  The Moon Landing was in 1969 as well, so Menzies wouldn't get "his" episode though.  

Honestly, much of this season seemed to simply cater to making sure "BIGGER STARS!" got screen time.

Do princess Anne's wedding and kidnapping next season with Colman.  I'm shocked that they skipped over that in what feels like a mad rush forward.

I applaud actresses aging naturally, I'm completely for that, so this is no insult at all to Colman, but although she's 45 IRL, she looks every bit of that, and also "reads" older, partly perhaps because she's rarely ever smiled in season 3, and had all of those frown lines constantly on display which easily made her look as if she were in her mid fifties.  

Hopefully next season will be better.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Umbelina
typo

[Jeeves]

I agree with pretty much everything recently posted above. I loved Seasons 1 and 2, and was excited when Season 3 was released. But - meh. I made liberal use of the FF key. Bless Olivia Coleman's talented heart, she did IMO a great job displaying the various versions of HM's resting bitch face. 

I pretty much disliked everyone in Season 3. Except Anne. And Princess Alice. I tried to re-watch Season 3 this weekend, thinking maybe it would be better. Nah. Couldn't get through episode 1 and gave it up.

I don't know if the monarchy can survive much longer anyway. I wonder if Prince Andrew's enmeshment with J Epstein will be the final blow. 

I mean, HM is a very nice girl, as the Beatles sang. But. She was reared and heavily influenced well into her own old age, by her mother - an aristocrat born in 1900. IMO the British monarchy is as creaky and crumbling as the structure of Buckingham Palace itself.

As long as the British populace tolerates and supports (literally) them, the Windsors will keep rolling along. But although I give Charles props for many good works, he's such a tin-eared doofus (like the rest of his siblings TBH) who's put his foot wrong too many times, to inspire loyalty or admiration when he catches the crown on Liz's death.

Maybe she *will* outlive him, in which case the not-quite-middle-aged William may get more of a boost in public approval than Chas ever would have. 

I've been idly wondering, if the Brits do abolish the monarchy, will there be some kind of rehoming and retraining program for the Windsors?

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I agree with pretty much everything recently posted above. I loved Seasons 1 and 2, and was excited when Season 3 was released. But - meh. I made liberal use of the FF key.

I didn't fast forward once.  First time through, I was so hopeful that eventually we would see more than Colman's frowns and stares, I kept waiting for her to let loose and wow me.  (Vanity Fair said almost the same thing a week or so later, that review is in the media thread.)  I WANTED to love it, and the new cast.

In the end it was like eating a huge meal, all wonderful kinds of food, but there was always something wrong with the preparation, the order in which the food was served, it was always too hot or too cold, the dishes clashed with one another.  I was over full and yet still longing for something actually tasty.  Or at least a great glass of Brandy at the end...

In the middle of the meal there were some great dishes (Anne, Charles, Alice) but ... the portions of Anne and Alice were tiny, the only really satisfying ones were Charles' because he shone, and even though I dislike him IRL, I enjoyed them.

So I watched again, and again didn't fast forward, I sat through it all, with a more critical AND more hopeful eye, trying to catch the "brilliance" that others saw.  It didn't work.  I no longer had the first watch hopefulness/rooting for them innocence going for me.

I disliked it more on 2nd/3rd watch.  It was a jumbled mess, and mostly seemed to just be one of two things:

1.  Preparation for the BOFFO~!  WOW!! Diana/Charles/Camilla disaster/blockbuster to come.

2.  Give each of the "BIG STARS!" their episodes/moments to shine, regardless of what it actually did to the season.

4 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I pretty much disliked everyone in Season 3. Except Anne. And Princess Alice. I tried to re-watch Season 3 this weekend, thinking maybe it would be better. Nah. Couldn't get through episode 1 and gave it up.

I agree, and as I said above, I enjoyed the Charles' episodes as well, but mostly because the actor was fantastic.  However, there is a problem even there for me, Charles as abused hero does NOT bode well for future seasons.  Also, Charles became hero mostly by the character assassination of Elizabeth II.

Nice job show, you made me hate, for the first time ever, the person wearing THE CROWN.

4 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I don't know if the monarchy can survive much longer anyway. I wonder if Prince Andrew's enmeshment with J Epstein will be the final blow. 

I mean, HM is a very nice girl, as the Beatles sang. But. She was reared and heavily influenced well into her own old age, by her mother - an aristocrat born in 1900. IMO the British monarchy is as creaky and crumbling as the structure of Buckingham Palace itself.

As long as the British populace tolerates and supports (literally) them, the Windsors will keep rolling along. But although I give Charles props for many good works, he's such a tin-eared doofus (like the rest of his siblings TBH) who's put his foot wrong too many times, to inspire loyalty or admiration when he catches the crown on Liz's death.

I agree.  There is discussion of this in the Tabloid's thread.  Most disagree with me, but I think it's over once QE II dies.

4 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I've been idly wondering, if the Brits do abolish the monarchy, will there be some kind of rehoming and retraining program for the Windsors?

They are immensely wealthy, I'm sure they will be fine.  Honestly, I think both of Diana's boys would be thrilled if it was abolished, William perhaps secretly, and Harry, probably not so secretly.

I am reminded of a comment in the DVD commentary of Sense and Sensibility by Emma Thompson.  She was seated next to Prince Charles during the premier of the movie.  When the family moves to the "cottage" he leaned over and whispered to her, something like, "What a beautiful cottage, I'd love to live in/ have that cottage, do you know who owns it?"  She replied, again, something like "You do Sir."  She then muses about "how much they own" and how incredibly wealthy they are, even leaving out their government perks.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Umbelina
typo

[Umbelina]

It was pointed out in the episode thread that Margaret's love affair with Roddy went on for 8 YEARS, not the week or so the TV show implied.  Also, he was one of many affairs, perhaps the most serious, but still.

Here's a partial record of the adulterous affairs of Marge and Tony.  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/blue-movies-and-casual-flings-the-amazing-truth-about-princess-margarets-marriage-6594830.html

[Roseanna]

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It was pointed out in the episode thread that Margaret's love affair with Roddy went on for 8 YEARS, not the week or so the TV show implied.  Also, he was one of many affairs, perhaps the most serious, but still.

I know that, but if even part of all this had been told, we would be even much more bored.

So Morgan chose to concentrate on the ugly collapse of Margaret and Tony's marriage and that they both had an affair but the press told only about Margaret's affair. 

[SoWindsor]

On 12/6/2019 at 3:57 PM, Umbelina said:

I think the biggest mistake was forcing the new cast too soon.

They should have finished up the sixties with Foy and ensemble, and then NEXT year gone into the seventies.

The Queen was about 38 when this season began.  I'm guessing/estimating 1964?  They fudged around with the dates of things so much this season that I'm honestly confused.  Foy is 35.  Margaret's scandalous photos were published in 1976.  At that point the Queen was 50, and Colman playing her makes more sense.

Ending with Charles'  investiture makes sense.  The Queen was 43 in 1969, well in range for Foy to play, with that horrible hat and just a bit of padding/makeup.   I'm sure there were plenty of other beats to play from the sixties.  The Moon Landing was in 1969 as well, so Menzies wouldn't get "his" episode though.  

Honestly, much of this season seemed to simply cater to making sure "BIGGER STARS!" got screen time.

Do princess Anne's wedding and kidnapping next season with Colman.  I'm shocked that they skipped over that in what feels like a mad rush forward.

I applaud actresses aging naturally, I'm completely for that, so this is no insult at all to Colman, but although she's 45 IRL, she looks every bit of that, and also "reads" older, partly perhaps because she's rarely ever smiled in season 3, and had all of those frown lines constantly on display which easily made her look as if she were in her mid fifties.  

Hopefully next season will be better.

Completely agree with this! 

[Umbelina]

Quote

Ohiopirate - oooh, that's a juicy bit about Lord M's granddaughter!  I could see that being his endgame.  How young was she, and what ever happened to her? 

Philip and Mountbatten's granddaughter had been close their entire lives.  They both felt too much like "family" (brother/sister, etc.) to marry, or to even consider it, despite Mountbatten's efforts.

[ruby24]

I was wondering about the Margaret/Roddy thing too. If that affair lasted eight years, I was wondering if he might come back for a while at the beginning of next season.

I've also been dying to see how they portray Charles and Diana's relationship. I know that he didn't really know her that well when they got engaged/married, but was there ever a time where he really loved her, or was it all just a sham?

I remember in The Queen, Peter Morgan was also pretty sympathetic toward Charles, showing him as genuinely upset over Diana's death and talking about her as a great mother, etc. So I am curious how they will show them together, as I know Diana at least claimed that she DID love Charles.

Edited December 17, 2019 by ruby24

[Scarlett45]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Philip and Mountbatten's granddaughter had been close their entire lives.  They both felt too much like "family" (brother/sister, etc.) to marry, or to even consider it, despite Mountbatten's efforts.

Well they were cousins- 1st cousins once removed. I know royals marry their cousins all the time (with Charles being a first cousin to Mountbatten’s daughter, Mom to the girl he was trying to propose as a wife), but for most of the 20th century even royals would consider that TOO CLOSE, especially since they had known each other their entire lives and interacted as cousins. 
 

I don’t blame them for not being interested. 

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

Peter Morgan was also pretty sympathetic toward Charles, showing him as genuinely upset over Diana's death and talking about her as a great mother, etc.

At the time Diana died, she and Charles had a pretty decent relationship, as exes and as co-parents. You'd have to be pretty heartless not to be sad about the death of your kids' mother, if only for how it affects them. Charles definitely has issues, but I don't think heartless is one of them.

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I've also been dying to see how they portray Charles and Diana's relationship. I know that he didn't really know her that well when they got engaged/married, but was there ever a time where he really loved her, or was it all just a sham?

Taking this to history talk. 

[Roseanna]

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

She would have probably been a disastrous "wife" for him, especially since she was in love with another man, and used to affairs.

I think we shouldn't believe that Anne's opinion about the three "three in the marriage" in the show tells something that is true irl.   

Unlike in the show, Camilla didn't have an affair with Andrew and Charles at the same time. Her relationship with Andrew was off during her romance with Charles and in any case he was on duty abroad.

Also unlike the show, there is no proof that Charles intended to propose to Camilla. If he had, it's unlikely that Camilla who lacked ambition would have accepted unless she had had fallen in love wih him and ceased to love Andrew - or even then, as she was realistic enough to know what the position of Princess of Wales demanded. 

And finally, however Camilla behaved as a single girl, there is no proof that she had affairs as Andrew's wife until she, tired of his constant affairs, made her to to renew her affair with Charles to whom she has been faithful since then. 

Whatever else anybody thinks of Camilla, one thing can't be honestly denied: that she and Andrew conducted their affairs out of sight of their children, nor in any way used their children as weapons against each other.

[Umbelina]

Camilla definitely used Charles to make Andrew jealous, and yes, she was sleeping with them both at the same time.  There are letters that do show Charles asked her not to marry Andrew and was distraught when it was announced.

She knew or should have known Andrew would continue to sleep with other women after they married.  It was his thing, she accepted that.  Also, she most definitely DID continue with her affair with Charles during her marriage, it began again around 1978, even though they were often together before that.

(Camilla divorced in 1995)

Charles wore the present from Camilla on his honeymoon, the entwined C's cufflinks.

Charles, in his "authorized biography" admitted to resuming his affair with Camilla in 1986.  (pretty sure they never stopped though, and those cuff-links on his honeymoon show that, emotionally AT LEAST he was still emotionally involved with Camilla.) 

In 1989 Diana confronted Camilla at a birthday party for Camilla's sister.  “I’m sorry I’m in the way. I’m obviously in the way. It must be hell for both of you. But I do know what’s going on, and don’t treat me like an idiot,” Diana recalls saying in the documentary Diana: Her True Story In Her Own Words.

Charles and Diana separate in 1992, they divorce in 1996, she dies in 1997.

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Camilla definitely used Charles to make Andrew jealous, and yes, she was sleeping with them both at the same time.  There are letters that do show Charles asked her not to marry Andrew and was distraught when it was announced.

How could Camilla sleep with Andrew when he was abroad on duty?

Charles was a fool asking her not to marry Andrew when he had nothing to offer her.

 

 

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She knew or should have known Andrew would continue to sleep with other women after they married.  It was his thing, she accepted that.  

If a woman is in love, she will hope that once married, the man she loves will change. 

As for "accepting", that's how women formerly often behaved when they wanted home and children, f.ex. Jackie Kennedy whose husband openly humilated her in parties.   

 

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Also, she most definitely DID continue with her affair with Charles during her marriage, it began again around 1978, even though they were often together before that.

(Camilla divorced in 1995)

Charles wore the present from Camilla on his honeymoon, the entwined C's cufflinks.

Charles, in his "authorized biography" admitted to resuming his affair with Camilla in 1986.  (pretty sure they never stopped though, and those cuff-links on his honeymoon show that, emotionally AT LEAST he was still emotionally involved with Camilla.) 

Yes, Charles and Camilla renewed their affair in 1978-81 - but that was after Andrew's many affairs and after her children were born.

I don't think that nobody can condem what one feels in his heart, although Charles no doubt was stupid not to tell about his ex to his bride and to use her farewell-gifts in public. However, real "emotional involvement" meana that Charles would all the time have told Camilla about his marriage and other intimate things.

The essential thing is if he renewed his affair once his marriage was failed, after trying to make his marriage work. 

 

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

In 1989 Diana confronted Camilla at a birthday party for Camilla's sister.  “I’m sorry I’m in the way. I’m obviously in the way. It must be hell for both of you. But I do know what’s going on, and don’t treat me like an idiot,” Diana recalls saying in the documentary Diana: Her True Story In Her Own Words.

In 1989 Diana had had lovers herself, so she was rather late.

[Razzberry]

In the show, the royals always speak of the abdication of Uncle Nazi as if it was just the worst kind of crime one could commit.  I think they overestimate how much the people give af, as long as there's a capable next-in-line.   Given his Nazi ties, warm relationship with Hitler and hatred of the royal family, do they really think he would've made a good King? 

None of this seems to bother them as much as Wallis Simpson, who imo should have a statue erected as unwittingly helping to save Britain and perhaps the world from Nazism.   She was a convenient excuse for David, who never wanted to be King and bitched about it constantly.  His postcard to an early girlfriend cracked me up.

[MadyGirl1987]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

In 1989 Diana had had lovers herself, so she was rather late.

Yet she famously talks about how there were 3 in a marriage so it was crowded when she was apparently willing to “crowd” someone else’s marriage. That hypocrisy will never not bug me. Wouldn’t be cheated on make you all the more hesitant to do that to someone else’s marriage?