Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S04.E10: War


Message added by formerlyfreedom

Stick to discussion of the episode, please. Discussion or mention of future events is NOT ALLOWED in episode topics, including mention of individuals who have not yet appeared or events that occur in future decades. Posts will be removed; repeated violations may incur further sanctions.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I feel like I saw Camilla's speech differently than others here.  I didn't see a hissy fit.  I saw Camilla finally telling Charles why his scheme will not work.  She knows it is not the right time for Charles to attempt to divorce Diana.  She's known for a while that it won't work, but this is the first time she spelled it out.  Her speech is also some major foreshadowing for the events we will see in season 5.  Charles took it completely the wrong way and lashed out at Diana.  

Actually Camilla spelled it out already when she met Charles in the car, saying that what one wants isn't the same what can get, but Charles would not listen to her. 

She accepted the rules when she had an affair with Charles when they were young ("those who are bedded are not wedded"), when she married a man who was a constant cheater, when she rekindled her affair with Charles, when he married Diana and when they again become lovers.

She is a realist and knows that one can never have "all" or, if one can, one must pay the price. While she can now meet Charles only in secret, the advantage is that she and her family can retain privacy. That she would lose for ever (and would be criticized for all things the press and public didn't like), if they could get a chance not to "live on lie" (a term which she hardly used nor understood, as affairs were normal and accepted in her circle).

Plus, the role of the mistress is different than the wife's. The latter demands different qualities and skills than the former. It is said that when a man marries his mistress, the latter's place is left empty. 

 

  • Love 19

Just finished the season!

God, Charles is such a DICK! There is nothing interesting or attractive about him whatsoever. He's self-pitying, entitled, egotistical, whiny, spoiled brat, just like his mother said. He deserved that dressing down from her.

He just sucks SO much. I don't even get why Diana was hung up on him, still saying she loved him all the way up to her death. Why? Especially if he really treated her like shit 24/7, the way the show portrays. Was he EVER nice to her?

  • Love 19

I just finished this season. I loved it. I know a lot of this was fiction but I hope IRL Diana and Charles had some happy moments together and it wasn’t misery 24/7. 
I thought the acting was great by everyone and most of the actors looked like the real people. 
I wish they would have shown more on Fergie and Andrew as there was quite a lot of attention and controversy with their relationship.

This last episode was my favorite because it showed the some compassion with Diana hugging the little boy in the hospital. And I felt sorry for Margaret Thatcher, she really was treated badly by the Royals and the men around her, my heart broke for her breaking down after they voted her out of office. I loved the scene where Elizabeth finally acknowledged that she did a good job by giving her that medal. 
The next season can’t come fast enough for me. I love this series. 

  • Love 12
1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

It was pretty telling that Camilla never says she doesn't love her husband, just that she loves Charles because he cares for her more then her husband does. 

I got the distinct impression from this season that we're basically supposed to believe Anne's version of this whole thing, that Camilla doesn't love Charles THAT much. And I did think it was interesting that even when Camilla speaks, she's not THAT impassioned about Charles, she's just like, yeah, sure, my feelings are real.

It just makes Charles look like an epic douchebag, a spoiled immature brat like his mother said. Who just wants what he can't have and takes it out on everyone around him with bitter resentment.

  • Like 1
  • Love 22
6 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

It was pretty telling that Camilla never says she doesn't love her husband, just that she loves Charles because he cares for her more then her husband does. 

Evidently Camilla  was not like Diana whose love turned to hate. Camilla continued to love the father of her children even if they led separate ways, meaning she wished him well. That doesn't mean that, even if she had not love Charles in their youth, she had not grown to love him later. Actually, that kind of love is "adult" - they know each other well and give each other what the other needs. 

Charles was right of sorts by saying "whatever 'love' means" (or was it "in love").    

  • Love 8
4 hours ago, swanpride said:

Dunno...Camilla is mostly portrayed as the realistic of those two. It's not really that she doesn't have any feelings for Charles, its more that she knows that part of her appeal is exactly the whole affair situation Charles might have gotten tired of her faster if she hadn't been the forbidden fruit.

Or there is my guess.  Her husband Andrew was fantastic in bed, and Charles...wasn't.

Either way, she loved Andrew.  Charles was back up and ego.  IMO of course!!

7 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I got the distinct impression from this season that we're basically supposed to believe Anne's version of this whole thing, that Camilla doesn't love Charles THAT much. And I did think it was interesting that even when Camilla speaks, she's not THAT impassioned about Charles, she's just like, yeah, sure, my feelings are real.

It just makes Charles look like an epic douchebag, a spoiled immature brat like his mother said. Who just wants what he can't have and takes it out on everyone around him with bitter resentment.

I think Elizabeth's spawn are all epic douchebags and spoiled brats, except, most of the time, Anne.  I do think Anne was telling the truth there.

Edited by Umbelina
didn't want two brats in one sentence
  • Love 16

As far as Margaret Thatcher goes, she still served as the Member of Parliament for her constituency until 1992.  Going from party leader and Prime Minister to backbencher is quite a humiliating fall.  She could have stepped down from her seat but she chose to serve out her term, which was admirable in its own way.  

Awful as she was, the show did manage to make me feel sorry for her when she held it together until she got home after her ouster as PM.

As far as Charles and Diana go, what an absolute shit show.  And I was puzzled by Phillip's show of sympathy.  From everything I have read he was one of her worst critics and had no use for her whatsoever.  

But as far as her hugging the little boy with AIDS, I really do not think that was a stunt.  I think she genuinely had empathy for a suffering child.  As I recall, she also made a point of shaking hands with adult AIDS patients she met, and she was one of the first to do so.  At the time many people really thought  you could contract AIDS through casual contact and her actions spoke volumes.

 

Edited by 3 is enough
  • Love 21

You know you have to admire how Diana just stood there holding on her dignity for dear life while Charles screamed at her. And how she stopped herself from throwing up after it was all over, as if she realized (finally) that wasn’t going to help matters.

They really made Emma’s Diana look so skinny this season it hurts to look at, knowing she was bulimic.

  • Love 17
1 hour ago, 3 is enough said:

As far as Margaret Thatcher goes, she still served as the Member of Parliament for her constituency until 1992.  Going from party leader and Prime Minister to backbencher is quite a humiliating fall.  She could have stepped down from her seat but she chose to serve out her term, which was admirable in its own way.  

Awful as she was, the show did manage to make me feel sorry for her when she held it together until she got home after her ouster as PM.

As far as Charles and Diana go, what an absolute shit show.  And I was puzzled by Phillip's show of sympathy.  From everything I have read he was one of her worst critics and had no use for her whatsoever.  

But as far as her hugging the little boy with AIDS, I really do not think that was a stunt.  I think she genuinely had empathy for a suffering child.  As I recall, she also made a point of shaking hands with adult AIDS patients she met, and she was one of the first to do so.  At the time many people really thought  you could contract AIDS through casual contact and her actions spoke volumes.

 

From what I have read, Philip hated Diana acting out specifically acting out in front of others.  He has no use for any displays of emotion.   Better to be like Anne who goes through life like nothing affects her.  But, Phil could also see that his son was being a shit.  His speech in this episode was about Diana changing her expectations about her marriage, how the Firm is all about Elizabeth,  and if she did that she could be happier.  He is telling her to get over wanting a real marriage with Charles.   Better for them to quietly live separate lives and fake a happy marriage when necessary.   Of course, this means Charles will continue to fuck Camilla and Diana must live a chaste life.  That is what royal wives have traditionally done.  And maybe,  eventually,  Charles will tire of Camilla and settle down with Diana.   At this point, divorce is not on the table.  

  • Useful 5
  • Love 4
44 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

And how she stopped herself from throwing up after it was all over, as if she realized (finally) that wasn’t going to help matters

I don't know how accurate that was, but I really liked it, too. It takes a lot of strength to stop that kind of destructive behavior. 

We saw Diana with a therapist, right? She was wearing a black and white suit and talking to a man. It seemed like a throwaway scene, which is a shame.

26 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

I was led to believe Phillip hates EVERYBODY.  

LOL. I think he hates people who publicly let down the side, as @Ohiopirate02 noted. 

  • Love 6
3 hours ago, 3 is enough said:

Going from party leader and Prime Minister to backbencher is quite a humiliating fall.

Yes, but she had challenged, and won, the previous party boss, so she should have known that her turn to fall would become sooner or later. And if she humiliated her ministers as in Iron lady shows, it's a wonder that it didn't happen sooner.   

  • Love 7
5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

And then add to that she was shy, insecure and sleeping with a virtual stranger. I imagine it was crazy awkward. 

That's why I wish this had been IN the show. It would have been more illuminating, imo.

Is Morgan somewhat afraid of the royals? I mean if he's gonna write about this stuff, go all out, man. There was NO sex at all in a season all about affairs and failed relationships, etc.

  • Love 5
On 11/16/2020 at 11:08 PM, Umbelina said:

I loved that the Queen pinned that order on the defeated Thatcher, but I was distracted when she then left without the box.  It's not good that I was so taken out of the scene by that, the woman can't possibly always wear it, and wouldn't the box be almost as meaningful as the ribbon for her?  ha...yeah, I know, it's dumb.

Yes! No way I would have vacated the palace without the box! That scene drove me crazy! From the way this episode was written, it seemed the Queen issued this award to Maggie Thatcher as a sort of consolation prize, purely out of pity.

I have to wonder if Charles was quite as vile as portrayed in this series. Not defending his extramarital dalliance with Camilla, but I suspect Diana had to have been quite a handful at times. His was a family not equipped to deal with normal human emotions let alone serious mental illness. Probably one of the most ill-starred match-ups in history. I did enjoy the scene with an exasperated Queen laying the smack-down on Charles. Olivia was great in that scene.

I also enjoyed the scenes of Diana in America - I think she genuinely enjoyed interacting with the people, and contrary to the accusations lobbed at her, I don't believe she was grand-standing by engaging in close contact with those she visited with. I think she was just a naturally empathetic person with a gift for connecting with others, no matter how brief the encounter.

I wish the show would go 6 seasons as originally planned. Only one more season. Gonna miss this show!

  • Love 8
5 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

I suspect Diana had to have been quite a handful at times. His was a family not equipped to deal with normal human emotions let alone serious mental illness. 

I think that even in "normal" families it's easier to sympathize someone whom had known and liked for a long time before he/she becomes ill and that illness is known to all. It's much more difficult, even impossible, to sympathize an in-law who from the beginning behaves "strangely" and complains about the spouse, has illnesses that are not of common knowledge and are not even regarded as illnesses.      

  • Love 5
On 11/19/2020 at 6:44 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I feel like I saw Camilla's speech differently than others here.  I didn't see a hissy fit.  I saw Camilla finally telling Charles why his scheme will not work.  She knows it is not the right time for Charles to attempt to divorce Diana.  She's known for a while that it won't work, but this is the first time she spelled it out.  Her speech is also some major foreshadowing for the events we will see in season 5.  Charles took it completely the wrong way and lashed out at Diana.  

I took it as Camilla being relieved to have an excuse to give Charles instead of having to tell the truth, that she loved her husband and they were happy enough together that she didn't want to leave. She and Andrew had an open marriage with no hypocrisy. It wasn't like Charles and Diana's marriage in which Diana had affairs because she felt driven to have them. Camilla and Andrew were two peas in a pod, really - they liked being married while having sidepieces.

The showrunner said that the pandemic caused the show to lose two weeks' worth of filming. So some of the missed things that have been mentioned may have been part of the scenes that were written but never shot. They tried to edit as best as they could so that the omissions wouldn't be too glaring.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 11
1 hour ago, MamaMax said:

As to Diana, I’m of the unpopular opinion that she prob had a personality disorder. I think she had a lot of wonderful qualities, but was probably very difficult to live with.  I agree that Charles lack of discretion regarding Camilla was cruel, but I don’t really believe that Diana didn’t contribute to the unhappiness of the union.  I have personal experience with BPD and people with it can be enormously appealing to most people but almost impossible for people intimate with them who won’t cater to their every mood, whim, desire and endless neediness. 
 

I somewhere read speculation that Diana suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, although she never got a diagnosis nor went through any serious therapy. BPDs can be extremely charming, but they are an empty pit of neediness and manipulation and cannot sustain relationships. Diana also cut people out of her life with no warning--her stepmother, Elton John, for two--and then welcomed them back later when she saw them as useful or her mood changed. Diana's upending Charles by throwing herself on her sword during the meeting with Elizabeth and Phillip was classic BPD manipulation. I've always felt a bit sorry for Charles, although he had plenty of his own issues. I wonder how Diana's life would have gone had she lived. 

  • Love 24

Camilla's arguments in this episode remind of things I've read of Wallis, Duchess of Windsor.  She reportedly wasn't as besotted with Edward as he was with her and didn't want him to abdicate.  Apart from him no longer being a King, she knew that she would become the most hated woman in the Empire.    And she was right.

No, we can't blame the abdication for everything, but, as I pointed out in another thread, Edward casts a long shadow.

The Queen's lecture was so wonderful to see, especially in light of the previous episode in which she only addressed Diana's straying.  She made sure Charles knew that his future subjects know he's being unfaithful and that he's causing his wife untold distress.  Labeling them both immature whiny attention seekers who are driving everyone else up a wall combined with a warning shot across the bow about him being King worked well for me.

I did enjoy Prince Philip's attempt to give Diana another point of view.  They are all periphery characters in this real-life drama that surrounds one and only person.  

 

 

  • Love 15
On 11/18/2020 at 11:48 AM, benteen said:

It was frustrating to realize that this is going to be the last time we see these actors in their roles.  Tobias Menzies literally made the most out of every scene he was in and is always entertaining but they gave him little to do this season.  He got more to do than Helena Bonham Carter, who literally gets just two shots and no dialogue in this episode.  Olivia got more to do this season and in this episode (loved her smackdown of Charles) but Elizabeth was pushed back this season along with Philip and Margaret over the continuing Charles and Diana drama.

I think a lot of that is ultimately a reflection of the real history. In the early seasons, for instance, everything was about the Queen growing into the job, but she's a venerable institution now.  Philip has accepted his role in the family and in his marriage.  Margaret has run the gamut of her attempts to find love and a purpose.  They're all in late middle age now, and the Charles/Diana stuff was the story of the monarchy in the 1980s/1990s.

  • Love 12
On 11/15/2020 at 11:56 AM, swanpride said:

But I guess most people would want exactly that from a show like this, as much Charles of Diana as possible. I might be one of the few who is actually more interested in events which haven't been part of every single royals special in the last 20 years.

I agree. I wish they would've kept this show with young Queen Elizabeth. This is not interesting to me, it's too current. Charles and Diana have 2 boys IRL and I don't think it's fair to them that this story is being told (not that I think they watch) but still, not cool.

Does anyone know if Diana really called the queen mama?

Are they using the same actors next season?

  • Love 4
22 hours ago, MamaMax said:

My understanding is that Camilla was never marriage material because she was known to have been somewhat of a party girl. She had a well known sexual past. This made her not suitable as the mother of a future king. However , I also wouldn’t discount the idea that Camilla never wanted to marry Charles. She didn’t wait for him to settle down, she went ahead and got married. It’s possible she had no interest in the kind of life she knew she would have to live as the Princess of Wales. I believe she was perfectly content to be his mistress.
 

Camilla's great-grandmother was a mistress to Edward VII, which Camilla supposedly mentioned to Charles IRL when they met in the 1970s. That's probably how she saw their relationship going in those days, and didn’t want anything more.

As much as Charles may have loved Camilla as a young man, by all real-life accounts, he also very much enjoyed being an eligible bachelor. People point out that Elizabeth got her way in marrying Philip even when he wasn't thought to be "suitable", and Charles could have done the same with Camilla. However, in a lot of ways, Elizabeth was tougher than Charles, and it helped that Philip wasn't averse to the proposition or its timing. Elizabeth also wasn't brought up thinking that she was entitled to have lovers if she wanted, so it was either marriage to Philip or nothing.  Charles and Camilla both knew they could still have a relationship of a sort, even if they both ended up marrying other people--family history told them so.

It makes for a more dramatic show if Charles is daydreaming of marrying Camilla in the late 1980s, regardless of whether he was actually known to have felt that way at the time.

 

  • Useful 2
  • Love 9
On 11/17/2020 at 10:17 AM, Silly Angel said:

I really loved this season, but it distracted me that the show decided Young Camilla looked like Young Julie Christie. She did not. A huge part of Diana's currency was her beauty, and she knew she could trade on it to move upwards, so her well-earned jealousy of Charles' fanatical attachment to Camilla must have particularly burned. I would like for the show to have even briefly explored her anger and confusion not just that Charles was cheating the whole time they were married, but cheating with THAT (rude, sorry--I'm just trying to get into her mindset). Nothing she had worked on her husband; he resented everything that made her fresh--her youth, enthusiasm, impetuosity, and way with people. The only other thing she had was her looks, and Charles wanted someone with ... considerably less of that currency to spend.

Very, very true.  I wonder, if Diana and Camilla were reversed in looks, would people have taken to Diana the way they did?  I wonder.

I also remember when she came to Harlem (I think it was Harlem Hospital?).  A lot of people believed she eventually would have moved to New York someday.

  • Love 5
12 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

I agree. I wish they would've kept this show with young Queen Elizabeth. This is not interesting to me, it's too current. Charles and Diana have 2 boys IRL and I don't think it's fair to them that this story is being told (not that I think they watch) but still, not cool.

The events in this series are 30-40 years old at this point.  Much, much more current events are regularly dramatized; heck, this isn't even the first dramatic depiction of these events, by any means.

  • Love 9

I think this is a show about very sad emotional infants, people who were never allowed to be; it was like they had to reach unattainable perfection, and no one is perfect; no wonder why they were all dysfunctional and acted like children, especially Charles.  If everybody’s done for you your whole life and if you’ve never really had to deal with adversity, you don’t learn how to deal with it; so you react to life like an infant.  An emotionally sober man would have been proud of his wife garnering so much attention, but Charles was only concerned about himself because he hadn’t been able to marry the woman he loved; so to him Diana was nothing more than competition.  And that was sad because SHE really loved Charles, despite him being an emotional infant. 

I think Diana was able to get over because she was pretty.  Had she not been pretty, people would not have taken to her the way they did.  Camilla was right, we’re all into the fairy tales; believing that beauty=goodness and ugliness=evil.  A look at comments sections of various websites shows that; if someone (especially a woman) is either unattractive, overweight or old it’s like: go away, go in the closet because no one wants to see you!

The scene last between the Queen and Thatcher was weird, because both women were from an era where you weren’t supposed to show ANY type of emotion or feeling.  They thought it made you weak (such bullshit!).  The scene was weird because it was like one mask talking to another mask.  There was no compassion, no emotion on either side.  I think Thatcher leaving the box was intentional.  She was upset, she couldn’t show it, she just had to get out of there. 

  • Love 13
On 11/17/2020 at 6:17 PM, Helena Dax said:

It amazes me that the Queen is able to have a moment of kindness for Margaret Thatcher, of all people, yet she seems usually unable to do the same for the members of her family. The bit about feeding the dogs was brutal.

Both moments were rather telling . With Thatcher, though the Queen's intentions seem to be honest and admirable, her follow-through rang as hollow and perfunctory. Thatcher is supposed be comforted after being tossed aside after a lifetime's work by the fact that only 24 such metals are awarded? How obtuse can the Queen be?

With respect to "feeding the dogs," clearly the Queen prioritizes the satiation of her dogs over the happiness of her family. Why certain people have no trouble freely expressing love for animals (dogs, horses, deer) but find it difficult to do so for people - even their own relatives - is a topic beyond this show and hardly confined to the royals. The scene where they panned across nearly the entire cast looking despondent was hard to view.

Edited by ahpny
  • Love 7
53 minutes ago, ahpny said:

Both moments were rather telling . With Thatcher, though the Queen's intentions seem to be honest and admirable, her follow-through rang as hollow and perfunctory. Thatcher is supposed be comforted after being tossed aside after a lifetime's work by the fact that only 24 such metals are awarded? How obtuse can the Queen be?

With respect to "feeding the dogs," clearly the Queen prioritizes the satiation of her dogs over the happiness of her family. Why certain people have no trouble freely expressing love for animals (dogs, horses, deer) but find it difficult to do so for people - even their own relatives - is a topic beyond this show and hardly confined to the royals. The scene where they panned across nearly the entire cast looking despondent was hard to view.

Dogs' needs are simple and easily met. Food, exercise.

Peoples emotional needs are messy, complex, difficult, exhausting.  QEII  likely never had hers met, and doubtlessly had not a clue how to help others with theirs. I would go so far as to say she probably didn't realize that she HAD emotional needs. 

  • Love 13
Just now, MamaMax said:

Dogs' needs are simple and easily met. Food, exercise.

Peoples emotional needs are messy, complex, difficult, exhausting.  QEII  likely never had hers met, and doubtlessly had not a clue how to help others with theirs. I would go so far as to say she probably didn't realize that she HAD emotional needs. 

I think those dogs (and horses) help Elizabeth to meet her emotional needs.  They give her the strength to face her life as a monarch and her life as a wife and mother to some very needy people.  I saw her quick escape to feed the dogs as her charging up her batteries before speaking to Diana.  Like you said, the dogs are easy to take care of.  It's easy to pop on in, feed them, and get in a few snuggles.  The dogs are quick to show their love.  

  • Love 13
13 minutes ago, MamaMax said:

Dogs' needs are simple and easily met. Food, exercise.

Peoples emotional needs are messy, complex, difficult, exhausting.  QEII  likely never had hers met, and doubtlessly had not a clue how to help others with theirs. I would go so far as to say she probably didn't realize that she HAD emotional needs. 

Correct.  With animals, you know what they want; easy to keep it simple with animals.

People are complicated.  You don't always know what they want because sometimes THEY don't know what they want.  That's why so many people would rather deal with animals than people

  • Love 8
1 hour ago, ahpny said:

Thatcher is supposed be comforted after being tossed aside after a lifetime's work by the fact that only 24 such metals are awarded? How obtuse can the Queen be?

I think people are conflating two different issues here. The queen had nothing to do with Thatcher losing the premiership. That's the Conservative party's doing. The reason the medal she awarded Thatcher means something is that it's the personal gift of the sovereign, meaning Elizabeth has complete say over who gets it. It's not like the Honours list, which is put together by the government (via an honours committee) and the Palace has little to no say over who's getting what. And given that there can be only 24 holders at a time, it is a big deal. In some ways I'd say it's a bigger deal than getting a peerage. Just about every former PM gets some sort of peerage, but few of them get a personal gift from the sovereign.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 16
Message added by formerlyfreedom

Stick to discussion of the episode, please. Discussion or mention of future events is NOT ALLOWED in episode topics, including mention of individuals who have not yet appeared or events that occur in future decades. Posts will be removed; repeated violations may incur further sanctions.

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...