Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

S04.E03: Fairytale

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It did seem that Diana owned the flat and rented to roommates, and flats in London are not cheap, so maybe she got enough from her dad for that.

One source I've seen said that her mother bought the flat for her.  In the Netflix movie, "Diana:  In Her Own Words," the narrator says that her father bought it for her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

38 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

  I think it was very clever to only show the back of the dress too.  To show the front would have taken many many hours of embroidery and beading.

 

There are pictures of the full dress online so I thought it was unusual we didn’t see that seem visual in the shower.There are pictures of the full dress online so I thought it was unusual we didn’t see that same  visual in the show.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, SoWindsor said:
 

There are pictures of the full dress online so I thought it was unusual we didn’t see that seem visual in the shower.There are pictures of the full dress online so I thought it was unusual we didn’t see that same  visual in the show.

Yeah, but the front was very disappointing, extremely plain.  I think they said doing those embellishments would have taken hundreds of hours.  At the time I thought, well then just don't show the dress if it's going to be that plain.  Seeing them only show the back?  Made complete sense to me.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I was in my early teens before I realized that my childhood interpretation of the title "Lady in Waiting" was wrong.

From childhood I thought that the "ladies in waiting" were there to sleep with the King whenever he wanted, and/or that they would be his new Queen if the old one died, or was, you know, beheaded.

I probably first heard the term when watching some Henry the 8th movie.  😉

ETA to clarify a bit.  They all waited around in case the King was horny, or needed a different wife.

 

That's some conclusion to come to as a child. LOL. Then again, I was trying to figure out sex with my Ken and Barbie dolls (near impossible feat).

  • Laugh 17

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

That's some conclusion to come to as a child. LOL. Then again, I was trying to figure out sex with my Ken and Barbie dolls (near impossible feat).

I of course had no idea what sex really involved, but in the "afternoon" movies (usually old ones) on TV, the man always seemed highly enthusiastic, and sometimes the woman did as well.  Also, it generally ended behind closed bedroom doors, so it was some juicy secret.  They often also both acted "naughty" or with those kinds of looks on their faces.

Either way, I thought it was so odd that the "Ladies in Waiting" seemed to have some status and respect in the court, since I knew, from movies and books, that the behavior I assumed was one was very like high priced prostitutes.  (thank you Gunsmoke and San Francisco gold rush movies for that.) In my child's mind, I just assumed the status was because they were waiting to be Queen.  One at a time, mowed down by the King when no longer interesting.

Ha!  

Edited by Umbelina · Reason: added stuff
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 13

Share this post


Link to post

Anachronism Watch (from memory):

  • "I'll bet her ringtone is "God Save The Queen!" Were there musical ringtones on phones in 1981?
  • "Oh, we'll just have to zhuzh it up!" I never heard "zhuzh" until Carson Kressley used it in the original Queer Eye (early 2000s), and I'm a 50-something urban gay dude.

ETA: Screenshot for confirmation:

 

Screen Shot 2020-11-19 at 9.40.56 AM.jpg

Edited by Penman61
  • Like 10
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Penman61 said:

Anachronism Watch (from memory):

  • "I'll bet her ringtone is "God Save The Queen!" Were there musical ringtones on phones in 1981?
  • "Oh, we'll just have to zhuzh it up!" I never heard "zhuzh" until Carson Kressley used it in the original Queer Eye (early 2000s), and I'm a 50-something urban gay dude.

 

 

Good catch. I caught zhuzh, but I missed the ringtone bit. I don't recall there being any ringtones - still pretty much regular phones in those days. Though the cell phones the size of bricks might have had that option, but I don't remember when they came out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

Good catch. I caught zhuzh, but I missed the ringtone bit. I don't recall there being any ringtones - still pretty much regular phones in those days. Though the cell phones the size of bricks might have had that option, but I don't remember when they came out.

I thought she meant does the Queen's phone ring "God save the Queen" but I don't think it would have been called a ringtone.

I usually don't bother with stuff like that because, heck, Law & Order STILL doesn't get the Grand Jury right.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/18/2020 at 10:51 AM, Wordsworth said:

we never see her father or brother or any other relatives.

I'm just now recollecting that the Earl Spencer was not very healthy at the time of the wedding.  I think he'd had a stroke or some other serious medical incident and commentators were speculating (prior to the ceremony) that he might not escort Diana up the aisle.  Ultimately he was able to do it but -- assuming I'm remembering this correctly -- it does offer another reason why he and Diana's siblings seem to play no role in Diana's life in the run-up to the ceremony.  They simply may have been focused on the health saga going on in their own family and been only too glad to leave all wedding-related matters (including the housing and care of the bride-elect) to her "new" family.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Zhuzh is generally believed to be Polari, and seems to have been around since the mid-60s. "Borrowed from Angloromani yuser (“clean”, verb) and yusher (“clear”, verb), from Angloromani yus-, yuz-, yuzh- (“clean”) and yush- (“clear”), from Romani žuž-, už- (“clean”, adjective). Cognate with Hindi उज्ज्वल (ujjval, “bright”)" says the Wiktionary.

Edited by Epeolatrix
  • Like 1
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post

21 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Charles COULD have made the marriage work. 

I don't think that their marriage had ever any chance to succeed, even without Camilla. They simply had nothing in common. It wasn't only the age gap, they belong to the different generation. Charles liked the country, hunting, fishing, gardening, making watercolors. Diana was bored by all these and liked the city with modern entertainment. Charles needed solitude, Diana wanted to be in his company all the time.  

Their only common bond was sex (for a short time) and their children.  

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hated the part when Diana picked out the blue ring and Charles made that crack about the reason she picked it was because it was the most expensive. Fuck off Charles. You’re the royals, don’t give her a bad time over how pricey it is!

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I hated the part when Diana picked out the blue ring and Charles made that crack about the reason she picked it was because it was the most expensive. Fuck off Charles. You’re the royals, don’t give her a bad time over how pricey it is!

And Diana likely had no idea what that ring cost comparitive to the other rings. I don't think a 19 year old girl is that versed in gemology.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

And another thing, what difference does it make how much the ring is? Is the Royal Family strapped for cash? Why would they present rings they couldn't afford? They certainly didn't say "Pick any ring but that one". Charles was just being a passive aggressive, chrome-plated dick. 

 

Yup.

I think she liked the ruby until the guy started talking about violence and snakes.  🙂

 

 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2020 at 12:38 PM, dubbel zout said:

And of course Philip swans in and mansplains relationships to everyone.

I think he was talking about his experience in his own marriage, so he was being genuine, even though it sounded dismissive like most other things he says.

On 11/19/2020 at 5:06 PM, merylinkid said:

this was 1980.   We don't tie people's arms down or force left handed people to use their right hand anymore.   Fuck off with Charles Lady Fermoy.

In some countries tying down a child's left arm was still done in the 80s. I was an elementary student in the former Soviet Union in the late 80s, and that was something the teachers would threaten quite frequently.

  • Laugh 1
  • Surprise 4
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

In Her Own Story, Diana claimed that she chose the ring because it was the largest. That may have been true, or, a coyly defiant dig at the family -- at the time or after-the-fact. "Yes, that's right: I chose the jeweler's catalogue offering, rather than any of the second-tier family jewels you chose to make available."   

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I know it took a lot of craft and time and money to replicate the wedding dress and that's it? Just the one shot. I always thought it was too much wedding dress for such a thin woman but I'd liked to have seen it fully. Or have a more elaborate wedding sequence. I figured the wedding would actually be the piece the resistance of this season. But then it wasn't.

What a poor little caged bird Diana was. She didn't even get a say in the wedding arrangements. Which I thought was the cruellest thing of all.

You know, the whole grin and bear it marriage format might have worked really up until the 1910's or so, but it didn't work in 1981. Also, if Mary tied up her ladies to teach them to stand still, she was of a far more formidable character then Diana was.

I thought the opening scene of Diana going out with her flatmates was actually well done. Shame she wasn't apparently allowed to invite them over or have any form of support system in those six weeks. 

I'm a ballet geek, but is that really a useful skill for royal brides? I imagined she'd have to perform in Swan Lake to impress people for a second.

That lunch scene had all the subtlety of a brick. I have no qualms with Camilla as a person but I felt she might have been grossly misrepresented here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Aliferously said:

I'm a ballet geek, but is that really a useful skill for royal brides? I imagined she'd have to perform in Swan Lake to impress people for a second.

Part of ballet includes something called "deportment". It teaches you how to walk and move your arms (and legs) gracefully. In the ballet classes I took (back in the last century) we were taught how to perform a graceful curtsy as one of our Deportment lessons. I don't think ballet has eliminated deportment from its curriculum and it still is a good posture tool.

It was clear that Margaret Thatcher had never taken deportment classes if we take her curtsies on the show as accurate. 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

It was clear that Margaret Thatcher had never taken deportment classes if we take her curtsies on the show as accurate. 

I thought they played her as so much older than real life.  Every time she did that deep curtsey, I was holding my breath to see if she could get herself back up without the help of a couple of footmen.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/16/2020 at 11:09 AM, WatchrTina said:

Now (contradicting myself a bit) I do agree with the after-the-fact-analysis of the impossible situation that Charles had been put in due to the expectation that he find a bride who was not only sufficiently high-born (a very small pool) but who also needed to be "fair, chaste, and fertile".  And this was in the 1970s/early80s when the birth control pill existed and Women's Liberation was well underway.  So even if Camilla HAD waited around for Charles to quit dithering, the mere fact that she'd had a sex-life prior to Charles might have ruled her out as a royal bride in the collective mind of 1980's Britain.   Diana got the job because she'd kept herself "tidy."  There were no unseemly ex-boyfriends lurking about, willing to share juicy tidbits about having "gotten there first."  What a terrible way to choose a wife, much less the next Queen of England.

Disgustingly, there was even an uncle of Diana's who announced TO THE PRESS "Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover." *vomit

 

On 11/16/2020 at 4:49 PM, WatchrTina said:

I agree that the Royal Family, as depicted, did not offer sufficient support to Diana during her engagement.  But what about her own family?  Lady Fermoy was her grandmother, right?  She was brought into help Diana with the protocol issues but she was portrayed as being unkind and very much #TeamRoyalty instead of #TeamDiana.  

Lady Fermoy absolutely was #TeamRoyalty and not #TeamDiana. She sided with the royals when the marriage ended. (And she sided with her son-in-law during her daughter's divorce proceedings and even testified against her.)

On 11/16/2020 at 6:45 PM, AryasMum said:

Her family was already aristocratic. The grandmother acted like they were five minutes from starvation, and Diana must save then all with a good marriage, circa 1822. 

"Diana, this is not a game! Our situation is precarious. You know the money's gone!"

"Oh Granny stop, you'll give yourself a nosebleed."

On 11/18/2020 at 8:30 PM, Neurochick said:

BTW, what I remember from the wedding was Diana got Charles' name wrong; I remember she didn't say Charles Philip Arthur George. 

Yes, she switched the first and second names.

My notes as I watched:

The opening montage with the news about the successful proposal was well done.

Oh. My. God, Charles. Telling Diana to ring CAMILLA??? What the hell is WRONG with you, man?!

Oh my stars, her high-ruffled collar with the bow around it!!! We ALL wore that look, the bow looped around the collar, in 1981. Hello, my 8th grade self.

The black sheep sweater!!!

That lunch was off-the-hook insane. To be fair, I do think at the beginning of the conversation Camilla was genuinely trying to help here (in the show, that is--I am far less charitable toward IRL Camilla), not lord it over Diana. But that look--that look of mute fury Diana shot toward Camilla when she casually revealed "we talk most days...." Emma Corrin is absolutely nailing it as Diana. That poor kid. That poor, poor kid. She had absolutely no idea what was going on when she accepted the proposal.

Camilla's territoriality when they started talking about Highgrove is so, so, so inappropriate. Not only is Diana the fiancee--YOU ARE MARRIED. Back the fuck off, let them breathe, cut Charles off if you have to and focus on your own damn husband.

Watching poor Diana heave into the loo is awful.

"I Vow to Thee My Country"--oh God, all the feels. That hymn, Diana's favorite "since school days" accompanied not just her wedding but her funeral.

Dayum, Margaret offering up truthbombs. Loved her "not just for the sake of the monarchy, but for the sake of them as human beings."

Her train was muuuuuuch longer than that.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, CeeBeeGee said:

"Diana, this is not a game! Our situation is precarious. You know the money's gone!"

"Oh Granny stop, you'll give yourself a nosebleed."

While not really said it MIGHT have been.    The Spencers were land rich and cash poor.   Like a lot of the aristocracy of the time, the death duties had really done a number on the family finances.    Also most of them had land, not businesses.   Because trade was vulgar.    Which meant FARMING.   By the time Diana's father became Earl that was NOT a way to have money.   Its why a lot of the Peers of the Realm have opened their homes for tours or even sold off any bits not protected.   They just don't have the money to maintain the places any more.  

Plus, there is being a Peer of the Realm and then there is ROYALTY.   In their circle, marrying into the Royal family is the height of social aspirations.   

  • Like 7
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, merylinkid said:

While not really said it MIGHT have been.    The Spencers were land rich and cash poor.   Like a lot of the aristocracy of the time, the death duties had really done a number on the family finances.    Also most of them had land, not businesses.   Because trade was vulgar.    Which meant FARMING.   By the time Diana's father became Earl that was NOT a way to have money.   Its why a lot of the Peers of the Realm have opened their homes for tours or even sold off any bits not protected.   They just don't have the money to maintain the places any more.  

Plus, there is being a Peer of the Realm and then there is ROYALTY.   In their circle, marrying into the Royal family is the height of social aspirations.   

Champagne Charlie is kind of a shit person in general but he has certainly revamped the family finances.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

 

"I Vow to Thee My Country"--oh God, all the feels. That hymn, Diana's favorite "since school days" accompanied not just her wedding but her funeral.

She didn't exactly fulfill her promise to sacrifice all and demand nothing in return:

Quote

The love that asks no questions, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

Put it simply, the time and values had changed.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/18/2020 at 9:24 AM, Clanstarling said:

When I was a couple of years older than Diana, I married my first husband despite really wanting to call it off - because the idea of what I (and others) would have to go through was just too much for me to handle emotionally and logistically. And I didn't have the Queen, royal family, and the whole of a country to disappoint. So I don't find her going ahead with it strange at all.

Same here, but I was the same age as Diana. And referring to your other point about Philip approving of Diana, in my case my father clearly liked my first husband (although his feelings changed after the marriage when my father saw how I was treated), and that was important to me. As you suggest, it is difficult calling off any wedding close to the event, and the pressure on Diana to go along with the program was so much greater.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

"Fair, chaste, and fertile,"  was such an odd way to state the requirements, because if a woman is  chaste there's no way to know if she's fertile. Still, as creepy as the virgin requirement was, I understand the need to make sure the first born, at least, carries the DNA of the Prince and not some recent boyfriend.  Because carrying that bloodline is absolutely the one and only thing  that sets them apart from the scullery maid in the basement  and qualifies them for all that prestige and perks.  It's so weird to think that all the living in palaces and being curtsied to and prime ministers having to suck up to, is based on one of their very distant ancestors doing well in war a thousand years ago. 

I get a kick out of the monarchy in a celebrity watching way, but it goes against everything I believe regarding visiting the sins (or virtues) of the fathers on the sons. Imagine if we Americans met someone at a party who could prove he was a direct descendant of George Washington and we all started bowing and scarping and set him up in the White House with a huge allowance for life.    No.  We would say, "Really? Cool," and go  back to our conversation.  Someone like Princess Margaret, who thinks she deserves all that deference based on being someone's sister, would never understand that.  

  • Like 16
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

"Fair, chaste, and fertile,"  was such an odd way to state the requirements, because if a woman is  chaste there's no way to know if she's fertile. 

Joan of Kent and Elizabeth Woodiville were widows and had sons when they married Black Prince and Edward IV. That certainly helped Elizabeth when she had several daughter before a son and heir.

Formerly, they looked at the possible bride's family's fertility - that is, how many children her sisters, mother, grandmothers had born and how many many of them survived infancy and how many were sons (which of course was misleading because it depended on men but that wasn't known).

9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I get a kick out of the monarchy in a celebrity watching way, but it goes against everything I believe regarding visiting the sins (or virtues) of the fathers on the sons. Imagine if we Americans met someone at a party who could prove he was a direct descendant of George Washington and we all started bowing and scarping and set him up in the White House with a huge allowance for life.    No.  We would say, "Really? Cool," and go  back to our conversation.  Someone like Princess Margaret, who thinks she deserves all that deference based on being someone's sister, would never understand that.  

I see your point, but it partly misses the target. When you met a member of some American political or other dynasty, he/she wouldn't have to tell you his/her family, you would know it.    

Edited by Roseanna · Reason: abanded two ","
  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

"Fair, chaste, and fertile,"  was such an odd way to state the requirements, because if a woman is  chaste there's no way to know if she's fertile. Still, as creepy as the virgin requirement was, I understand the need to make sure the first born, at least, carries the DNA of the Prince and not some recent boyfriend.  Because carrying that bloodline is absolutely the one and only thing  that sets them apart from the scullery maid in the basement  and qualifies them for all that prestige and perks.  It's so weird to think that all the living in palaces and being curtsied to and prime ministers having to suck up to, is based on one of their very distant ancestors doing well in war a thousand years ago. 

I get a kick out of the monarchy in a celebrity watching way, but it goes against everything I believe regarding visiting the sins (or virtues) of the fathers on the sons. Imagine if we Americans met someone at a party who could prove he was a direct descendant of George Washington and we all started bowing and scarping and set him up in the White House with a huge allowance for life.    No.  We would say, "Really? Cool," and go  back to our conversation.  Someone like Princess Margaret, who thinks she deserves all that deference based on being someone's sister, would never understand that.  

Agree. My interest in the monarchy is a form of celebrity-watching and the good/bad that comes with it. I have no use for the deference that they expect in some circles or for some of the archaic traditions that they uphold.

17 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I see your point, but it partly misses the target. When you met a member of some American political or other dynasty, he/she wouldn't have to tell you his/her family, you would know it.    

I would not know every member of the Kennedy or Bush families or any other American political dynasty.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

My sister is fairly obsessed with the royals...like, she watched the whole damn wedding much to my annoyance (since we were sharing a TV). And she also watched some sort of made for TV crap called "The love story of Charles and Diana" (yes, really), which was basically the fairy tale the public believed in back then. There are basically two things I remember from it: The whole story with Diana's skirt, and a scene in which some old lady assured Diana that she never believed the "story with the train" (apparently the press wrote something about a tryst Diana and Charles supposedly had on a train???). Back then I didn't understand what the fuss was even about, but in hindsight the whole point of the stupid movie was to point out how "pure" Diana supposedly was.  

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I didn't really got this...I mean, I grew up during the HIV epidemic, I basically learned that it is totally okay to use a condom before I even know exactly what happens when you put it on. The idea that virginity before marriage was important was completely alien to me early on. I only knew that maybe you should be careful who you do the deed with.

It's sometimes hard to remember that this kind of thinking was still very much a thing just a few years ago...and still is in some circles.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

She didn't exactly fulfill her promise to sacrifice all and demand nothing in return:

Put it simply, the time and values had changed.    

 

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The love that asks no questions, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

I don't think loving a song is a vow in and of itself, even if it is a patriotic song.  I am by no means religious, and yet there are religious songs I love, which move me deeply.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

 

I don't think loving a song is a vow in and of itself, even if it is a patriotic song.  I am by no means religious, and yet there are religious songs I love, which move me deeply.

It is not a question of just liking.  If you chose your favorite poems on songs for a wedding or funeral, instead of just chosing those most ordinary ones, people think that they tell about your values.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

It is not a question of just liking.  If you chose your favorite poems on songs for a wedding or funeral, instead of just chosing those most ordinary ones, people think that they tell about your values.

That is true. Songs chosen for those events are meaningful and an indication of your values - the values you believe you have, those you wish you have/had, or those you want other to believe you embrace.  Regardless, those values can be aspirational, something you truly want to model, but may not ultimately fall short of the mark. We are flawed human beings.

Edited by Clanstarling
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Please note, this episode ends with the wedding of Charles and Diana; posts have been removed that included history beyond that time. Additionally a reminder that unless mentioned in the episode, politicians are off limits, as per the site rules. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I was googling around and found a writer who said that Charles had ordered customized gifts for several of his close friends around the time of the wedding.  Included was a bracelet for Camilla that was inscribed "GF" because she was his like his "Girl Friday."  (Pretty sure she was his Girl several other days of the week as well.)

Sure, Jan.  Or more likely . . . Sure, Gladys and Fred.  The fact that Gladys and Fred were characters on a favorite TV show of Charles and Camilla is a pure coincidence.

I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.

  • Like 11
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I see your point, but it partly misses the target. When you met a member of some American political or other dynasty, he/she wouldn't have to tell you his/her family, you would know it.  

Not really.  I've met several rather famous people, politician or others on holiday and through a former job of mine.  I had no clue who they were unless they told me.  

I would however be quite more likely to recognize famous movie stars or music stars.

8 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

 

I don't think loving a song is a vow in and of itself, even if it is a patriotic song.  I am by no means religious, and yet there are religious songs I love, which move me deeply.

Ditto.  Also, being so young and idealistic?  She probably meant every word, or planned to try to live up to those at the time.  Many people love their country.

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It is not a question of just liking.  If you chose your favorite poems on songs for a wedding or funeral, instead of just chosing those most ordinary ones, people think that they tell about your values.

They probably did.  Values change with experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/16/2020 at 12:07 PM, swanpride said:

I can't imagine though that Diana had no idea who to curtsy to first with her upbringing, though. Plus, she couldn't know that she was interrupting anything.

I’m so glad you said this.  It really stretched credulity fo me that a woman who grew up in the peerage, even one as young as Diana, had No knowledge of precedence.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I’m so glad you said this.  It really stretched credulity fo me that a woman who grew up in the peerage, even one as young as Diana, had No knowledge of precedence.   

The whole scene was nonsense especially since they got the whole curtseying thing wrong.  Bowing and curtseying is about protocol, not precedence.   Once Diana became Princess of Wales, she would only have to curtsey to the Queen and the Queen Mother and any other monarch and/or their consort. And no, despite the fact that she would outrank them, none of the other HRHs would be obligated to bow or curtsey to her regardless of whether or not she was with Charles.  That's because people of the same rank do not bow or curtsey to each other.  All the British HRHs have the same rank: Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom. What precedence governs is who gets to go into a room first, who gets to start eating first, who gets to leave first, etc.  

The other thing I believe they got wrong is who "mentored" Diana.  I'm pretty sure it was Lady Susan Hussey who was a Lady in Waiting to the Queen and later became one of William's godparents.  Diana's grandmother was opposed to the marriage.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

I get why the didn't show the actual wedding - we've all seen the wedding and that is the fairytale version.  They're showing us the behind the curtain view of their wedding and marriage and its downright depressing. 

I was 16 when they got married and I seem to think Diana had to go to a gynecologist to prove she was a virgin.  I remember hearing it on the news and was appalled by that.  

I was in the hospital for the wedding, ALL the nurse converged in my room to watch it.  For those couple hours I had the best healthcare around  :)))

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, TV Diva Queen said:

I seem to think Diana had to go to a gynecologist to prove she was a virgin.

Not exactly; she went to the gyno to make sure she could have children. 

Share this post


Link to post

In her own words in a documentary, she said she had "kept herself tidy" . . . in other words, whatever she did with whomever she did it, it apparently did not include full penetration.

Share this post


Link to post

Slowly making my way through the season. 

All I can say is during the lunch scene, I was steaming mad. I so wanted one of those foam "bad call bricks" to throw at the tv everytime Camilla opened up to talk about Charles. BTW, Fuck off Charles. You know what you did.

Also, if this portrayal of Camilla is anything like the real one, it explains a lot. I can see her babying Charles like this. Ugh, they can both fuck off.

Side Note: I am here for them using my favorite band this season, Duran Duran. Bonus knowing that was Diana's favorite, or one of her favorites. Seeing her skate through BP to "Girls on Film" gave me much needed seritonin 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2020 at 8:45 PM, WatchrTina said:

There you go my friend.

"What" you ask?  Where did I get that photo?  I TOOK THAT PHOTO!!!  Yeah, that's right.  

I.  Was.  There.

And Charles is sitting up straight! (Of course he is.)

And they both look happy. Genuinely happy. Not fake happy.

So while this episode was compelling, I take it with a boulder of salt.

Edited to add: Which brings me back to my point, in different words. Would anyone of us, or anyone else, be watching this show if it was about Queen Clara, Prince Murray, and Lady Griselda in the Kingdom of Melpivania? Of course we wouldn't. We're watching because we think we're getting a glimpse into something  that happened. The show is not keeping faith with the reason it's on the air.

Edited by Milburn Stone

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

And Charles is sitting up straight! (Of course he is.)

And they both look happy. Genuinely happy. Not fake happy.

So while this episode was compelling, I take it with a boulder of salt.

Edited to add: Which brings me back to my point, in different words. Would anyone of us, or anyone else, be watching this show if it was about Queen Clara, Prince Murray, and Lady Griselda in the Kingdom of Melpivania? Of course we wouldn't. We're watching because we think we're getting a glimpse into something  that happened. The show is not keeping faith with the reason it's on the air.

I take every show of this type with a more than a grain of salt. But I think if we'd known or heard as much about the historic events and players in the lives of Queen Clara, et. al, we would watch it as well. (which is probably your point). To me it's clear that we can't know what went on in private conversations - that those are fictionalized - but we do also have biographies to work with. My tendency is to research the events, and regardless of the show's depiction - it's pretty clear the Royal Family isn't exactly functional, and there are some incredible jerks within it. I guess since I don't expect it to be accurate, that they trade truth for drama, I'm not particularly bothered. Pretty much every show depicting real people stray far from reality.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

And Charles is sitting up straight! (Of course he is.)

If he ever ascends to the throne, how will he keep that crown from falling into his lap?  LOL.  

This show DEFINITELY is overdoing the forward tilt of Charles' head.  

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

Charles has spent much of his life on horses.  People who ride horses regularly generally have great posture.

The actor definitely overdid the slouch look, and he should have saved it for one or two scenes when particularly unhappy.

I wonder if he did it because he was so much taller than the actress playing Diana?  IRL there wasn't that much difference in their heights, especially when Diana was wearing heels.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
saoirse

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...

Customize font-size