Season 3: History Beyond the Episodes

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

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?

Diana saw herself as a victim and maybe she really was in the beginning of her marriage. But she didn't want to give up the role of a helpless victim even after the marriage was only formal. With her better talent to manipulate the press she wanted revenge on Charles, never caring how it influnced on their sons and monarchy. 

[SuzieSioux]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:55 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

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. 

Personally, when a show does the legwork and threads start coming together like that, it's one of the most satisfying things about television, so I will be really sorry if the whole thing feels rushed. The Troubles are worthy of their own series as it is, so the lack of any groundwork here is a bit frustrating, to be honest.

[secnarf]

On 11/27/2019 at 11:55 AM, dubbel zout said:

Brought over from ep 4 ("Bubbikins"):

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.

Thank you for this - came up on Final Jeopardy tonight!

[Trillian]

On 11/27/2019 at 11:55 AM, dubbel zout said:

Brought over from ep 4 ("Bubbikins"):

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.

i had heard at the time that Prince Philip was the best person to test because he is a female-line descendant of Queen Victoria, just like the Tsarina and (obviously) her children. As a result, they would all have the same mitochondrial DNA, which is matrilineal and is easy to test. 

[Pallas]

In the topic for S03.E09, Milburn Stone wrote,

Quote

I understand that IRL I only see the public Prince Charles. Still, that public Prince Charles is a man who stands up straight, has a dry, self-deprecating wit that comes from a position of confidence (not self-pity), and interests himself in public works while enduring a "career situation" that would challenge the best of us.

Charles's most sympathethic biographers acknowledge that until the last two decades, his greatest character fault has been an obdurant self-pity, and his greatest occupational weakness has been a need for validation from others. Sometimes this insecurity has been blamed on his introspective nature or his willingness to deliberate: I disagree that either quality is at fault, or a fault. Even in a Prince of Wales.

But some are born with an innate ability to go it alone, as well as a drive to measure themselves against standards they select and re-shape with their bare hands. (See Anne the No-Nonsense, the peerless Princess Royal with nerves of steel.) It is a confidence that not only knows, "You'll do as I say" but conveys via viscera, "You'll do as I say, and all will be well."  You see it among children in pre-school and on the playground; you see it among dogs set free in the dog park. It's animal magnetism: what we in the West, anyway, call leadership, and in its presence fellow creatures great and small feel safe. 

Charles wasn't born with this, and worse luck, his nature's need to be valued and nurtured was met by...well, his parents, and their natures: never more alike than in how much they differ from their son. With either his mother the Queen or his father The Prince, Charles would be forever be barking up the wrong tree. What they failed to see was that Charles didn't need toughening up as much as he needed jollying up and bolstering up. Real reassurance from a benevolent alpha would, Charles rightly sensed, enable him to thrive. That's what drove him, as a young man, from mentor to mentor.

But the mentors he chose (or who chose him -- first Mountbatten, then Laurens van der Post) were no Socrates to Alexander, or even Falstaff to Prince Hal. They weren't men that the young Prince might go to school upon and then surpass, without a backward glance. Or they might have been, but only for another prince, at a much younger age. Charles needed his mentors to appreciate him as much as to educate him, and that gave them the means and the license to use him. It's as Morgan has his Anne say: "We (meaning you, Charles) need to be sure that we're using them, and not the other way around." 

I think Charles still found value in what Mountbatten and van der Post offered, simply because, despite all, they were fond of him, they saw him and they listened. To paraphrase Charles Ryder in Bridehead Revisited: "They were the forerunners." And he seems to have found the strength to be at ease in his own skin, now that he can look back on the first three-score-and-ten years of his life and see that the crown was never to be its culmination. What he was really waiting for, was for something within -- slowly cultivated through a fulfilling marriage and conscientious daily life -- to take root and grow. Not majesty, but maturity. Not rule, but peace.

[dubbel zout]

3 minutes ago, Pallas said:

What they failed to see was that Charles didn't need toughening up as much as he needed jollying up and bolstering up. Real reassurance

He gets that from Camilla, too. One thing those horrible leaked conversations showed is how much bolstering she has to do. I’d find that exhausting, but she’s clearly fine with that. I doubt Diana was able to do that, given her own emotional neediness, which had to contribute to the failure of their marriage.

[Pallas]

38 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

He gets that from Camilla, too. One thing those horrible leaked conversations showed is how much bolstering she has to do.

Absolutely. Alone and miles away in the countryside, a middle-aged mother listening attentively to an honorary's most recent draft of his latest diligent speech for the upcoming iteration of the same dreary occasion! As helpmeet to Charles, Camilla has been the ultimate Good Sport. She's his benevolent alpha who the forerunners (Mountbatten, van der Post) were for. 

[MaggieG]

On 1/2/2020 at 8:32 PM, SuzieSioux said:

Personally, when a show does the legwork and threads start coming together like that, it's one of the most satisfying things about television, so I will be really sorry if the whole thing feels rushed. The Troubles are worthy of their own series as it is, so the lack of any groundwork here is a bit frustrating, to be honest.

The first thing I thought of when I read this was Derry Girls 😛 

[Ohiopirate02]

35 minutes ago, MaggieG said:

The first thing I thought of when I read this was Derry Girls 😛 

I love Derry Girls, and one thing I love about the show is that while our Derry Girls are Irish Catholics the show isn't skewed into a pro-IRA stance.  The characters are regular people stuck living in a hellish situation, or at least in the mid-nineties somewhat less hellish situation than what their parents survived.  Sectarian violence is a part of their lives but our characters see the absurdity in both sides.  In Derry Girls, we get both sides suck and the majority of the population is stuck in the middle.  Hopefully, in season 4 we will get the same, but I doubt it.

[Umbelina]

Oh poor Charles.  blech

Charles was nearly twice Diana's age when he married her, OF COURSE she might need more "bolstering up" than the future King who, at lease, was used to all the royal nonsense, and could have helped her along.  Or, you know, at least not cheated on her, lied to her, been jealous of her popularity, and continued on fucking  Camilla.

ETA Who really wants to have an insecure wimp with a record of breaking vows as their King?

Edited January 21, 2020 by Umbelina
eta

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I love Derry Girls, and one thing I love about the show is that while our Derry Girls are Irish Catholics the show isn't skewed into a pro-IRA stance.  The characters are regular people stuck living in a hellish situation, or at least in the mid-nineties somewhat less hellish situation than what their parents survived.  Sectarian violence is a part of their lives but our characters see the absurdity in both sides.  In Derry Girls, we get both sides suck and the majority of the population is stuck in the middle.  Hopefully, in season 4 we will get the same, but I doubt it.

They do show both sides in that show? I've wondered if it skewed towards one or the other. 

 

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Oh poor Charles.  blech

Charles was nearly twice Diana's age when he married her, OF COURSE she might need more "bolstering up" than the future King who, at lease, was used to all the royal nonsense, and could have helped her along.  Or, you know, at least not cheated on her, lied to her, been jealous of her popularity, and continued on fucking  Camilla.

ETA Who really wants to have an insecure wimp with a record of breaking vows as their King?

I do mostly agree. I'm not sure breaking vows is worth him not being King, give the sheer amount of ones who did. George V and George VI were both very rare in not cheating. But he was expecting way too much from a 19 year old.  She had to bolster him up? She had to be totally okay with cheat. Sure, because 19 year old always take that well. What by not telling her that he only wanted her for wife and heirs and planned to keep a mistress she might end up thinking he was into her? Then didn't take it well when she found out she wasn't. Sure it was stupid on her part, but at 19 how many would realize that your really only being used as a "proper" wife and heirs. Even an earl's daughter is going to have unrealistic ideas of marriage at that age and not that experienced in relationships.  I know what Charles and everyone else who thought and wanted in for his wife. But then stupidity when to a nineteen year old expecting her to be all of those things, and were shocked when it didn't happen. Of course it wasn't going to happen no girl that age is going to be able to do that. Their shocked when she acts like her age. How much of it would have been different if she had been twenty-three or twenty-five or older? Probably a lot. She would have grown up, matured, and had experiences in life or at least relationships. Twelve dates clearly wasn't enough for either one to get to know each other. Which of course not. Charles wanted an arrange marriage basically and there were plenty of women who could have fit that bill older, mature, and educated and things would have been different. Of course they wouldn't have been a virgin which they so stupidity decided was so much more important then anything else. Like compatibility, similar interests and etc. The real stupid thing is wouldn't have taken that much longer to figure that out. They were way too different not to figure that out by dating a little longer or by actually talking to each other alone with no one else around. Diana need to not get married, time to grow up, mature and probably good therapist.

[Umbelina]

23 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I do mostly agree. I'm not sure breaking vows is worth him not being King, give the sheer amount of ones who did. George V and George VI were both very rare in not cheating. But he was expecting way too much from a 19 year old.  She had to bolster him up? She had to be totally okay with cheat. Sure, because 19 year old always take that well. What by not telling her that he only wanted her for wife and heirs and planned to keep a mistress she might end up thinking he was into her? Then didn't take it well when she found out she wasn't. Sure it was stupid on her part, but at 19 how many would realize that your really only being used as a "proper" wife and heirs. Even an earl's daughter is going to have unrealistic ideas of marriage at that age and not that experienced in relationships.  I know what Charles and everyone else who thought and wanted in for his wife. But then stupidity when to a nineteen year old expecting her to be all of those things, and were shocked when it didn't happen. Of course it wasn't going to happen no girl that age is going to be able to do that. Their shocked when she acts like her age. How much of it would have been different if she had been twenty-three or twenty-five or older? Probably a lot. She would have grown up, matured, and had experiences in life or at least relationships. Twelve dates clearly wasn't enough for either one to get to know each other. Which of course not. Charles wanted an arrange marriage basically and there were plenty of women who could have fit that bill older, mature, and educated and things would have been different. Of course they wouldn't have been a virgin which they so stupidity decided was so much more important then anything else. Like compatibility, similar interests and etc. The real stupid thing is wouldn't have taken that much longer to figure that out. They were way too different not to figure that out by dating a little longer or by actually talking to each other alone with no one else around. Diana need to not get married, time to grow up, mature and probably good therapist.

First of all, sorry for the typo, "lease" instead of "least."  How embarrassing.

Her virginity, if anything, made it more important for Charles to at least be honest with her, and THEN let her decide with all of the facts in front of her.  

The CROWN could have tried to be helpful and understanding as well, when she came to Elizabeth and Philip for help/advice over his endless cheating on her.

It was a match made in hell, but to me, the blame lies squarely on the OLDER of the two, the blatant liar who knew what being a royal would mean, and who had NO intention of being faithful to her, or of honoring his vows to her, or to God.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

They do show both sides in that show? I've wondered if it skewed towards one or the other. 

Not to get too off topic, but Derry Girls is about the regular Northern Irish Catholics trying to go about their lives.  The show is set around 1995 give or take a year so the violence is not as bad as what it was in 1975.  At that point, the children of the dissidents are over the politics and care more about popularity, boys, Take That, etc..  I actually have friends who live in Derry who are a few years younger than the main characters of Derry Girls.  They love the show.

[Roseanna]

On 1/21/2020 at 6:24 PM, Umbelina said:

It was a match made in hell, but to me, the blame lies squarely on the OLDER of the two, the blatant liar who knew what being a royal would mean, and who had NO intention of being faithful to her, or of honoring his vows to her, or to God.

No outsider can know what intentions Charles had. One can't simply believe Diana's version because she couldn't know it either. 

There are two basic questions. First, did Charles and Camilla have a relationship in the first years of his marriage? As far as I know, there is no evidence that they had.

Second, is there any reason not to believe Charles when he said in the interview with Dimbleby that he was unfaithful only after his marriage was irremediably broken? Has he ever lied in public in any other matter? Diana, on ther other hand, isn't known for her truthfulness.    

On 1/21/2020 at 5:23 PM, andromeda331 said:

But he was expecting way too much from a 19 year old.  She had to bolster him up? She had to be totally okay with cheat. Sure, because 19 year old always take that well. What by not telling her that he only wanted her for wife and heirs and planned to keep a mistress she might end up thinking he was into her? Then didn't take it well when she found out she wasn't. Sure it was stupid on her part, but at 19 how many would realize that your really only being used as a "proper" wife and heirs. Even an earl's daughter is going to have unrealistic ideas of marriage at that age and not that experienced in relationships.  I know what Charles and everyone else who thought and wanted in for his wife. But then stupidity when to a nineteen year old expecting her to be all of those things, and were shocked when it didn't happen. Of course it wasn't going to happen no girl that age is going to be able to do that. Their shocked when she acts like her age. How much of it would have been different if she had been twenty-three or twenty-five or older? Probably a lot. She would have grown up, matured, and had experiences in life or at least relationships. Twelve dates clearly wasn't enough for either one to get to know each other. Which of course not. Charles wanted an arrange marriage basically and there were plenty of women who could have fit that bill older, mature, and educated and things would have been different. Of course they wouldn't have been a virgin which they so stupidity decided was so much more important then anything else. Like compatibility, similar interests and etc. The real stupid thing is wouldn't have taken that much longer to figure that out. They were way too different not to figure that out by dating a little longer or by actually talking to each other alone with no one else around. Diana need to not get married, time to grow up, mature and probably good therapist.

Of course Charles was wrong to propose, but he believed in the image Diana presented him in order to catch him. She intentionally pursued him and showed just those characteristics which she know would impress him. When she in their first meeting said how sorry she was about his lonely grief over Mountbatten's murder, with nobody to comfort him, she intentionally gave a hint that she was that kind of girl who would do so.

And Diana wasn't just like any girl of 19 years but exceptionally naive, uneducated, full of romantic fantasies, scarred by her parents' divorce, with no plans for study or work, yet ambitious to marry well.

Of course Charles did wrong, first not to present Camilla as his ex, and then when Diana found out, to think that she would be satisfied with his assurance that it was past, yet still showing his feelings by using Camilla's present. But he did try to help Diana adapt herself to her public role (when she f.ex. refused to go put from the car) and get the marriage work.   

Would a normal girl, however disappointed in her marriage, really have reacted like Diana (mood swings, bulimia, incising, suicide attempts)? Probably she couldn't help herself, when even medicine experts hardly understood these kind of physical and mental illnesses. But how many husbands in the world would have endured the situation in the long run?

That one does see also Diana's weaknesses doesn't mean that one denies her positive qualities, on the contrary her exceptional ability to connect with people who had experienced hardships was probably born in her own experiences.             

 

On 1/21/2020 at 6:24 PM, Umbelina said:

The CROWN could have tried to be helpful and understanding as well, when she came to Elizabeth and Philip for help/advice over his endless cheating on her.

When that happened irl, she had had lovers herself, so it was a question only how to live a separate life in private but do their common duties with dignity in public.         

As for the show, a good writer must understand all characters and that means understanding also the time and its values.

Jackie Kennedy would probably have have died rather than to reveal to other people, still less to the public, how much her husband's constant cheating hurt her - and he did it even when she was present.

Instead, Diana loved pity and did all she could to get it.      

 

[dubbel zout]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

First, did Charles and Camilla have a relationship in the first years of his marriage? As far as I know, there is no evidence that they had.

It might not have been a sexual relationship, but it was certainly an emotional one.

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Second, is there any reason not to believe Charles when he said in the interview with Dimbleby that he was unfaithful only after his marriage was irremediably broken?

See above. I think it's splitting hairs somewhat to say there was no physical relationship until the marriage broke down when the emotional one had been going on since before Charles and Diana married. In some ways, the emotional affair might have been more damaging, as Charles was likely confiding things to Camilla that by rights should have been to Diana. 

Charles and Diana were disastrously mismatched as a couple. I think trying to determine who was "worse" is pointless. Neither behaved well, but at least by the time Diana died they were able to be cordial if not warm toward each other, and they were good co-parents.

[LeGrandElephant]

I had always thought Charles couldn’t marry Camilla because she was a divorcee. It was news to me that she wasn’t even married yet when they first got together. Is it true that the crown pushed for her to get married to get her away from him? Making it basically their fault that she was a divorcee?

[Ohiopirate02]

11 hours ago, LeGrandElephant said:

I had always thought Charles couldn’t marry Camilla because she was a divorcee. It was news to me that she wasn’t even married yet when they first got together. Is it true that the crown pushed for her to get married to get her away from him? Making it basically their fault that she was a divorcee?

I don't know why the show had the Queen Mum and Lord Montbatten scheming to keep Charles and Camilla apart.   The show chose to take away Camillas agency for the sake of drama.  In reality Camilla wanted Andrew Parker-Bowles.  She made the choice to marry Andrew.  Whatever she felt for Charles back then she had kept to herself.   Did she consider what her life would have been like as Princess of Wales?  Did.she decide that it wasn't worth it?  Only Camilla knows.  I would have loved for the show to have gone down this path instead of what we got.

[Roseanna]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:49 PM, dubbel zout said:

It might not have been a sexual relationship, but it was certainly an emotional one.

See above. I think it's splitting hairs somewhat to say there was no physical relationship until the marriage broke down when the emotional one had been going on since before Charles and Diana married. In some ways, the emotional affair might have been more damaging, as Charles was likely confiding things to Camilla that by rights should have been to Diana. 

Has there any evidence that Charles even met Camilla in te first years of his marriage? And how could any outsider be aware that Charles confided things to Camilla? 

[Roseanna]

On 1/22/2020 at 1:23 AM, andromeda331 said:

there were plenty of women who could have fit that bill older, mature, and educated and things would have been different. Of course they wouldn't have been a virgin which they so stupidity decided was so much more important then anything else. Like compatibility, similar interests and etc. 

Actually, Charles hadn't plenty of women to choose for the role of his wife and the future Queen.

Besides virginity, she had to be a member of Church of England, have a suitable background, know beforehand what it meant to be a member of the royal family, willing to give up her work (if she had one) and share Charles's official duties, give up her privacy for good (not only because of the media, but the royal staff and detectives who were always nearby) etc.  

If Charles had found such a miracle, why would she have accepted him? Charles proposed at least two times before Diana, but those sensible girls rejected him, because they didn't love him and/or because they realized that the prize was too heavy.      

[formerlyfreedom]

A reminder that this topic is to discuss Season Three-adjacent history - As Diana has not yet appeared in the series, discussion of history between the end of Season Three needs to take place over in the History Talk topic. Thank you.

[Roseanna]

On 12/6/2019 at 10:57 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.  

I believe that the writers thought mostly that there must be a common theme for a season and two seasons that have same actors. And that succeeded in S1-2. The theme of S1 was how becoming the Queen changed Elizabeth the theme of S2 was Philip's background and acceptance with his role, and the common theme was their marriage that began happy, had problems when she became the Queen and finally they found each other again.

So Charles's investiture doesn't make sense as an end of Foy's cycle, because it and his relationship as a grown-up heir with his mother as well as his love life was rather a beginning to a new theme. 

   

[merylinkid]

They could have reworked then the seasons to have season 3 END with Charles' investiture, then move on to a focus more on him.   But they had his investiture then more episodes on his messy love life.   Olivia Coleman while a fine actress is just a bit too old for the part at the time they were covering.   They could have cut a couple Margaret centric episodes to adjust the schedule.   At least Charles is the heir so it makes sense to focus on him.   But Margaret was just the flighty sister.   The title of the show IS the Crown, not As Buckingham Palace Turns.

[Umbelina]

As much as I (and several others) disliked the episode "MOONDUST?"  In several of the tributes to Prince Philip, or memories, a couple of people have mentioned that was the episode of The Crown that most accurately portrayed Philip.  !  Some of the comments were that when the answers couldn't be found from outer space/science he became quite spiritual, and from there, went on to help shape that space for troubled or searching men to have a place to speak openly and find solace or companionship, and he was quite proud of that.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Umbelina
typo

[Roseanna]

In the series Charles believes after meeting the Duke of Windsor that his family allied against him because he was more intelligent and sensitive and whatever and wanted to modernize monarchy. Both claims are untrue irl.

As the Prince of Wales Edward succeeded poorly both in the Navy and in Oxford. His only, albeit important, ability was to charm people by behaving more informally than the rest of the royal family. But the older he became, the more he tended to neglect his duties – he chose when he wanted to use his charm and when not. One can partly understand that, as his extensive foreign travels were very exhausting, he left in the evening the official guests he found boring for a more relaxing company, often in order to chase married ladies, but by doing so he hurt many people, although the public didn’t know these incidents as they weren’t published from British papers. His Private Secretary Tommy Lascelles to whom duty always became first had enough and resigned.

Edward had also many disagreements with his very old-fashioned father, George V, mostly about such things than proper clothing and behavior. But all wasn’t about petty things. The king was very concerned about his eldest son’s unwillingness to do his most important duty: to marry and produce heirs. Even before Mrs Simpson Edward was only interested in married women.

Wallis was introduced at the Court, but after that she didn’t got invitations. One can’t wonder that: what parents in the 30ies would have wanted to meet his sons’s mistress who wasn’t only once divorced but at the time married with another man? Although he vowed to his father (and also later denied it) that Wallis wasn’t his mistress, they certainly behaved like lovers both in public and in private and his father believed that his son son had lied to him.

When Edward became the king, he invited Wallis to Balmoral where she behaved as a mistress of house just as in his private weekend home. So when the Duchess of York came, Wallis greeted her but she ignored her and said that she had been invited by the king and came to meet him. Both parties can be understood: Wallis evidently tried to be friendly, but the Duchess who had married to royalty didn’t regard ”the mistress” her equal.

There were other incident: Edward refused to open a Scottish hospital, declaring that he was still mourning his father, so the Duke of York went instead of his brother although he of course was equally in mourning. But on the same day, Edward was seen in the railway station nearby welcoming Wallis as a guest in Balmoral, which hurt local people's feelings.

As for ”modernizing monarchy”, there was some criticism about petty things, such as Edward once walked to Buckingham Palace instead of driving in the car. But the main reason for criticism was that Edward was so charmed by Wallis that he just couldn’t feel interest in nothing else. He gave her expensive jewelry and wast sums of money deposited in foreign banks in the same time he tried to make in the servant expensives savings that were regarded as small-minded and humbling. Reading the state papers of the red box was too much for him and he used to leave secret papers scattered for anybody to read.   

The Abdication crisis was the constitutional conflict between Edward VIII and the government represented by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who told the king that if he married without the consent of government, his government would resign. The royal family family had nothing to say or do in the matter, in fact Edward's mother, Dowager Queen Mary and his brother the duke of York were told by Edward only after he had made his decision to abdicate.

Afterwards the new king George VI made two fateful decisions. Wallis, although becoming Duchess of Windsor on marriage, was denied the title HRH. He also forbid his younger brothers and other members of the royal family to attend the wedding. Later the Duke of Windsor met his family a few times, but they refused to meet his wife until the 70ies when the Queen visited the couple in France shortly before the the duke died, and then in the funeral of the duke.

The Duke of Windsor never gave his family these slights against his wife and it's even said that all he did afterwards (including the couple's journey to Nazi Germany) can be explained by it that he tried to give Wallis the position that according to him unjustly robbed of her.  

On the other hand, to the royal family it was clear that if Wallis wasn't fit to be the Queen, she wasn't fit to be a member of the royal family, either. Also, they didn't believe that, as Wallis had already divorced two times, her third marriage would last. What would then happen to her? Would Edward remarry?

Furthermore, George VI was shocked to learn that in negotiations about the financial settlement (Edward had inherited from his father the vast private property, f.ex. Sandringham and Balmoral, that were considered to belong to the king and therefore George VI paid his brother a huge compensation from his own pocket), the duke of Windsor had lied about his financial situation. He had saved vast sums from the income of the duchy of Cornwall which he had held decades. After this, it was hard for George VI to trust his brother again.

Queen Elizabeth (the future Queen Mother) who was very protective towards her husband, was anxious that the duke didn't return to Britain where he with his charm could have become a rival in popularity with the shy and dull George VI. And she never forgave her brother-in-law for Abdication that had forced her husband to the stress of public life which he because of his stammering was so ill-suited, believing even that the stress had shortened his life. 

All in all, Edward never understood any other viewpoint than his own, nor that others didn't see Wallis as wonderful as he did. His love was rather dependence.

Instead, it's doubtful if she did love him. On the basis of her letters to Ernest Simpson even when she was divorcing him, to her the affair with Edward was meant to be only passing and she would rather have remained as Mrs Simpson.  

I must add some things:

The royal family blamed Wallis more because Edward was family. But although she charmed him so totally that he became dependent on her, she didn't want him to abdicate - but then she was powerless to prevent him.

Edward could marry Wallis only because of Ernest Simpson's gallantry: he used the usual practice of sharing the hotel room with the unknown woman instead of blaming his wife and the King for adultery. Even when Wallis got "decree nisi" in the divorce court, which meant that the divorce would became absolute six months later, there was a danger that somebody would have gone to the King's Proctor and presented evidence of collusion (which it indeed was the truth).

Whatever his faults, Edward can be praised that he didn't want to be crowned by making a false vow to uphold the Anglican Church while secretly planing to act against its teachings.

 

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I must add some things:

The royal family blamed Wallis more because Edward was family. But although she charmed him so totally that he became dependent on her, she didn't want him to abdicate - but then she was powerless to prevent him.

Edward could marry Wallis only because of Ernest Simpson's gallantry: he used the usual practice of sharing the hotel room with the unknown woman instead of blaming his wife and the King for adultery. Even when Wallis got "decree nisi" in the divorce court, which meant that the divorce would became absolute six months later, there was a danger that somebody would have gone to the King's Proctor and presented evidence of collusion (which it indeed was the truth).

Whatever his faults, Edward can be praised that he didn't want to be crowned by making a false vow to uphold the Anglican Church while secretly planing to act against its teachings.

 

They did. But its also completely common then and now to blame the person your family member is seeing for all the problems instead of their own family member. Even when its clear what a crappy person he or she is. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by andromeda331

[Roseanna]

18 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

They did. But its also completely common then and now to blame the person your family member is seeing for all the problems instead of their own family member. Even when its clear what a crappy person he or she is. 

Yes, but women are usually blamed more than men. That is, it's woman's fault if a man becomes so infatuated that he behaves foolishly, or even morally wrongly.

But Wallis was unsuitable for the Queen's position not only because her two divorces but because, as a commoner and a foreigner, she just couldn't understand the constitutional monarchy. Dating the Prince of Wales and later the King she had seen only the luxury he gave to her and she was dazzled by it. She didn't understand that he had no real power but the government had.

The duke of Windsor tells in his memoirs that Wallis was the only woman who was interested in his work. I doubt it's true (as the duchess Windsor she was interested only in fashion, jewelry, parties etc), but certainly she wasn't the first woman. In the time before the welfare state, charity was all the more important and the royalty was active in this matter. F.ex. the Prince of Wales had established clubs for unemployed and his long-time mistress, Mrs Freda Dudley Ward, was actively engaged in one club's activities.

Freda was a charming woman who treated all people equally. Although he had many affairs during their relationship, emotionally he was hers. He f.ex. called her every day when he was in Britain. She was very kind to him and showed him unconditional love which his mother, Queen Mary who was shy and retired by nature, had been unable to do. In her house he could have a taste of real home. He also adored her two daughters. It's told that he even asked her to marry her but she refused, understanding that it wasn't possible.  

[Umbelina]

On 5/17/2021 at 10:46 AM, Roseanna said:

The duke of Windsor tells in his memoirs that Wallis was the only woman who was interested in his work.

Well, of course she was.  She was having an affair with the German ambassador and both were passing along information from doofus's KING box to Hitler.

[Roseanna]

19 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Well, of course she was.  She was having an affair with the German ambassador and both were passing along information from doofus's KING box to Hitler.

It wasn't about foreign policy (Edward was still the Prince of Wales hadn't allowed to reas secret matter) but ordinary matters. The duke tells that his other friends used to say some polite things but Wallis asked for details. Well, it was all new to her whereas his friends knew that  f.ex. openings are pretty much similar.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It wasn't about foreign policy (Edward was still the Prince of Wales hadn't allowed to reas secret matter) but ordinary matters. The duke tells that his other friends used to say some polite things but Wallis asked for details. Well, it was all new to her whereas his friends knew that  f.ex. openings are pretty much similar.

They didn't tell him secret matters AFTER they found Wallis passing those to Hitler.

I don't think Wallis ever loved him.  Her letters show that she was still in love with her last husband.  She was stuck.  Being Queen might have been fun, but after that blew up, she was just stuck with the guy.

Both were very pro Hitler, they did have that in common, and war was happening or building during their entire relationship, lots of interest there, for anyone with a brain.  Wallis' relationship with him gave her lots of goodies to share with her Nazi friends.

She wasn't stupid, but she was getting on in years, and there really was no way out of that marriage.  She settled for relative luxury and security, because her "looks" days were rapidly fading.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Both were very pro Hitler, they did have that in common, and war was happening or building during their entire relationship, lots of interest there, for anyone with a brain. 

I don't know about Wallis, but *before* he abdicated, Edward's motive was peace. He hadn't allowed to fight in the WW1 because of his position, but he had served near the front in France and witnessed the calamities of the soldiers. Millions of men had died and those who had survived had more common with the enemy soldiers than their own leaders who had mercilessly sacrificed them. 

Wanting to preserve peace, Edward was no worse than most people around the world. Most Brits had qualms about the injustice of Versailles peace treaty and saw no reason to fight for small countries, especially so long their people were German. 

Also, like most aristocratic and bourgeois people, Edward was an anti-Communist which one can't really wonder after Stalin had killed or put in camps millions "people like us" or at least robbed them of property and position. Therefore he preferred Hitler who had so far killed relatively few and put in camps mostly "others", Communists, Social Democrats, Homosexuals, "antisocial elements", and Jews (of which half had left Germany but hadn't find other countries to welcome them), believing that Nazi Germany would the barrier against Communism's spread.

Now, there were two errors in this reasoning. First, could Hitler be trusted? He always spoke how he loved peace and wanted only to unify all Germans in one realm, but he wanted war as he revealed to his generals. Even without knowing that, the analysis of his conquests showed that the more areas he got, the more secure the Germans frontiers became and the more resources it got. The crucial point was of course the treaty of Munich which he broke already next March.

Second, Communism was essentially an internal danger and therefore it could be fought by making one's country a better place to live. On the other hand, Nazism was essentially about military conquests and therefore it could be won only by war (well, before Munich by a military coup). Although Stalin conquered new areas in 1940-5, it happened because of the secret protocol of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and then because Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.     

             

[Ohiopirate02]

10 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't know about Wallis, but *before* he abdicated, Edward's motive was peace. He hadn't allowed to fight in the WW1 because of his position, but he had served near the front in France and witnessed the calamities of the soldiers. Millions of men had died and those who had survived had more common with the enemy soldiers than their own leaders who had mercilessly sacrificed them. 

Wanting to preserve peace, Edward was no worse than most people around the world. Most Brits had qualms about the injustice of Versailles peace treaty and saw no reason to fight for small countries, especially so long their people were German. 

Also, like most aristocratic and bourgeois people, Edward was an anti-Communist which one can't really wonder after Stalin had killed or put in camps millions "people like us" or at least robbed them of property and position. Therefore he preferred Hitler who had so far killed relatively few and put in camps mostly "others", Communists, Social Democrats, Homosexuals, "antisocial elements", and Jews (of which half had left Germany but hadn't find other countries to welcome them), believing that Nazi Germany would the barrier against Communism's spread.

Now, there were two errors in this reasoning. First, could Hitler be trusted? He always spoke how he loved peace and wanted only to unify all Germans in one realm, but he wanted war as he revealed to his generals. Even without knowing that, the analysis of his conquests showed that the more areas he got, the more secure the Germans frontiers became and the more resources it got. The crucial point was of course the treaty of Munich which he broke already next March.

Second, Communism was essentially an internal danger and therefore it could be fought by making one's country a better place to live. On the other hand, Nazism was essentially about military conquests and therefore it could be won only by war (well, before Munich by a military coup). Although Stalin conquered new areas in 1940-5, it happened because of the secret protocol of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and then because Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.     

             

The anti-communist stuff got swept under the rug once the horrors of the Nazis were known, and many of Stalin's atrocities are not widely known.  In the 30s, Stalin was the one killing off his citizens by the millions not Hitler.  Hitler was seen as someone on the European continent who could stop Stalin from expanding past the Ukraine and the Baltic.  

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The anti-communist stuff got swept under the rug once the horrors of the Nazis were known, and many of Stalin's atrocities are not widely known.  In the 30s, Stalin was the one killing off his citizens by the millions not Hitler.  Hitler was seen as someone on the European continent who could stop Stalin from expanding past the Ukraine and the Baltic.  

Yes, and would keep the money in the fat cat's pockets, not let it go to the workers.

 

13 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Wanting to preserve peace, Edward was no worse than most people around the world.

I don't believe that for a second.  He was an anti-Semite and a very proud German, as well as a fool.

He wanted his married mistress to be Queen above all else, and Hitler promised help with that, including deposing his brother and having Britain occupied by Germans.

[Roseanna]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:46 AM, Umbelina said:

He was an anti-Semite and a very proud German, as well as a fool.

He wanted his married mistress to be Queen above all else, and Hitler promised help with that, including deposing his brother and having Britain occupied by Germans.

Even anti-Semitism was very common, and accepted, at the time, especially among the Right. That doesn't mean that these people wanted to kill Jews. 

As for calling Edward "a German" because his ancestors had been Germans, that's the same as saying German Jews weren't Germans.

(Of course, royalty and aristocracy had originally been international. That changed because of Nationalist hysterics during the WW1 which caused Mountbatten's father loose his position as First Sea Lord and made George V to change the family name to Windsor.) 

No doubt the reason why duke of Windsor accepted the German invitation before the WW2 was to give Wallis the possibility to be treated as a royal after George VI had denied her the HRH title and refused his brothers to attend the wedding. Thus he broke the agreement made when he abdicated not to meddle in politics.

It's another thing with German documents during the WW2. Everyone who has studied history knows that one must never ever believe the documents without source criticism, such as: for what purpose the documents are made? what is the credibility of the writer? has he been present in that situation or is it hearsay? has he been alone with the person or has it been at least a circle where the other person could have spoken in confidence? has he an ability to differ between real opinions, frustrated or angry sayings, flattering others by identifying their opinions or even jokes?

Let's remember that even in normal situations, people rarely remember exactly what others say, and still less understand what they mean and aim.      

Even if one accepts the documents as face value, one must remember that the duke never *acted* according to them. Instead, he and Wallis fled the Germans army proceeding in France so swiftly that he left his faithful friend Fruity Metcalfe who had been his best man behind. 

[PeterPirate]

Personally, I can accept the most favorable interpretation of Edward's actions before and during the war.  But I cannot countenance his statements after the war (ie, after the Holocaust became known) that it was the fault of the Jews.  Maybe I am biased because I have some not-too-distant relatives who are Holocaust deniers, but I think that was a completely monstrous thing to say.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But I cannot countenance his statements after the war (ie, after the Holocaust became known) that it was the fault of the Jews. 

I agree wholly.

That Hitler *wanted* war is proven by evidence. Even more, the Nazi economy was built on debt and instead of international commerce, they wanted to be self-sufficient, but as Germany lacked raw materials and food, robbing them from Eastern Europe was according to this logic necessary.    

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Personally, I can accept the most favorable interpretation of Edward's actions before and during the war.  But I cannot countenance his statements after the war (ie, after the Holocaust became known) that it was the fault of the Jews.  Maybe I am biased because I have some not-too-distant relatives who are Holocaust deniers, but I think that was a completely monstrous thing to say.

So many people didn't know what was happening to the Jews and others. Those in the US army didn't know until they came across the camps. Some who did find out didn't believe it because they couldn't believe such a thing going on. Times Magazine had Hilter as Man of the year in 1938. I'm hesitate on Edward not knowing is that he visited Dachau concentration camp. What did he think that was for? Something that big? And as you pointed out statements he made after the war.

On 5/21/2021 at 1:07 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

The anti-communist stuff got swept under the rug once the horrors of the Nazis were known, and many of Stalin's atrocities are not widely known.  In the 30s, Stalin was the one killing off his citizens by the millions not Hitler.  Hitler was seen as someone on the European continent who could stop Stalin from expanding past the Ukraine and the Baltic.  

There was a pause on that during the war. It didn't take long for it to come back after the war ended though. The Red scare of the 50s, MacCarthy, and Blacklisting. 

[Roseanna]

On 5/24/2021 at 3:53 PM, andromeda331 said:

I'm hesitate on Edward not knowing is that he visited Dachau concentration camp. What did he think that was for?

The duke of Windsor was of course shown "a  model camp", just as Gorky was shown in Solovetsk island where Gulag began.

I think that people overvalue that when they "see with their own eyes", they get the truth. Often, it's more useful to read, of course with criticism. There was enough information in books and newspapers about Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia before the WW2. 

But there were people who didn't believe that information. Or people believed but said "yes, but" ("yes, Nazis are bad, but Communists are worse" or "yes, there is terror in Russia but it's a bulwark against Fascism"). Or they just think that "enemies" are so dangerous that they must be destroyed. Or "one can make an omelette without breaking eggs", that is, the good aim justifies bad means.   

[merylinkid]

On 5/16/2021 at 7:59 AM, Roseanna said:

When Edward became the king, he invited Wallis to Balmoral where she behaved as a mistress of house just as in his private weekend home. So when the Duchess of York came, Wallis greeted her but she ignored her and said that she had been invited by the king and came to meet him. Both parties can be understood: Wallis evidently tried to be friendly, but the Duchess who had married to royalty didn’t regard ”the mistress” her equal.

Wallis wsn't trying to be friendly.   She was acting like the King's Consort which would outrank the Duchess of York.   She was trying to pull a rank she didn't have.   The Duchess of York rightly treated her as the King's mistress not the King's consort.   

As for what the Duke knew about Hitler and the Camps, the Holocaust Museum in DC has a WHOLE project showing what newspapers were reporting at the time.   The information was there -- long before the Armies found the camps.   It was known.   If you wanted to pay attention to something other than "the war making it dammed difficult to get good food for our party this week."

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Wallis wsn't trying to be friendly.   She was acting like the King's Consort which would outrank the Duchess of York.   She was trying to pull a rank she didn't have.   The Duchess of York rightly treated her as the King's mistress not the King's consort.  

Best writers and historians and writers show happening from different perspectives and understand all participants.

Philip Ziegler does that in his official biography about Edward VIII and writes about this scene that he "could not forget how rudely his sister-law had treated the woman he loved".

I think it's wrong to blame Wallis. As an American she couldn't know the rules but acted in the same way she had acted in Edward's weekend home Fort when she *asked* by him to act as a hostess also in Balmoral.

It was Edward who, born and raised as a royal, was reponsible not to understand that bringing the woman who he loved but who was still married to Balmoral and treating her as his wife (she even slept in the former bedroom of Queen Mary!) must deeply offend his family. But he simply couldn't understand neither their traditional morality nor that few others could see Wallis as he did as the most wonderful woman in the world.

On the other hand, the duchess of York put the rules *and* her pride above the common sense that would have told that by offending Wallis she offended the king and thus worsened the relations his brother-in-law and her husband who thus lost any possibility, if there ever was one, to influence on Edward.

[Roseanna]

In the documentary series Royals declassified the fourth episode dealt Anthony Blunt. It was told that after WW2 ended George VI sent Blunt to Germany to search for documents distressing to the royal family in the castle of their German relatives and bring them to Britain. These documents concerned not only the duke of the Windsor who has been been presented as the lonely scapegoat because there are photos and films about his journey to Nazi Germany, and the opinions of his younger brother, the late duke of Kent have been completely forgotten. Also George VI himself was for appeasement even in 1940 (actually not so strange, so were many others after France had fallen). 

The documentary series also made a suggestion that Blunt took photos about these documents and gave them to Soviets for whom he was spying. That would explain why the Queen allowed Blunt to keep his job in the Palace after his treachery was uncovered. The Queen Mother is said to have defended Blunt in order to protect the secrets of the royal family and her husband.

Whether this is true or not, this would be a far better explanation that was used in The Crown, namely that Blunt had found something in Stephen Ward's home that would have been embarrassing to Philip. 

[Lesley Parker]

On 11/20/2019 at 8:05 AM, Umbelina said:

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."

Am I not the only one who thinks that Olivia Colman doesn't act properly in this role? I mean she is a great actress and I like her a lot but she has that specific accent / articulation / voice that only Colman has and it kind of that doesn't suit the Queen of England. She could change smth in her accent, right? I don't know but her acting and accent and voice trigger cognitive dissonance in me))

IMHO

[andromeda331]

On 1/13/2022 at 12:46 AM, Lesley Parker said:

Am I not the only one who thinks that Olivia Colman doesn't act properly in this role? I mean she is a great actress and I like her a lot but she has that specific accent / articulation / voice that only Colman has and it kind of that doesn't suit the Queen of England. She could change smth in her accent, right? I don't know but her acting and accent and voice trigger cognitive dissonance in me))

IMHO

I can't decide if it's her or how she was directed to act. She has no expression or emotion throughout it.  In season three and four Elizabeth was basically a statue or someone so completely unconnected from everyone especially her own family. Claire Foy had so many different expressions and emotions. Even when she said nothing. But there was none of that with Olivia Coleman. It's that what they wanted for season three and four? Or was that how she decided to play Elizabeth?