Season 4: History Beyond the Episodes

[formerlyfreedom]

Discussion of season 4 overall: what TPTB could have done, comparison to actual historical events, and what they missed out on. Future history and spoilers are allowed.  

[swanpride]

Okay, I already mentioned it elsewhere, but a huge disappointment for me was them basically skipping over the end of the cold war. It was such an important event, I really can't imagine that the royals didn't even discuss it or had no feeling about it. In addition, there was also Thatchers role in it...or lack of role. I mean, she basically acted as if she didn't like the notion of it ending at all. Exploring her role in it and her view on it might have been a better explanation for the various problems her policies caused other than "she always says Nononono to Europe".

 

A surprise to me was the inclusion of Andrew dismissing the morally questionable aspect of a movie about older men "educating" a 17 year old in sexual aspects. I wasn't sure if they would allude to the scandal at all, and I certainly didn't expect it happening that early.

Speaking of Andrew, it's also a little bit strange how they skipped over Fergie pretty much completely.

[Cara]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

Okay, I already mentioned it elsewhere, but a huge disappointment for me was them basically skipping over the end of the cold war. It was such an important event, I really can't imagine that the royals didn't even discuss it or had no feeling about it. In addition, there was also Thatchers role in it...or lack of role. I mean, she basically acted as if she didn't like the notion of it ending at all. Exploring her role in it and her view on it might have been a better explanation for the various problems her policies caused other than "she always says Nononono to Europe".

 

A surprise to me was the inclusion of Andrew dismissing the morally questionable aspect of a movie about older men "educating" a 17 year old in sexual aspects. I wasn't sure if they would allude to the scandal at all, and I certainly didn't expect it happening that early.

Speaking of Andrew, it's also a little bit strange how they skipped over Fergie pretty much completely.

I thought they skipped over quite a few major events of the time period.

[swanpride]

Oh, just the transition from the EG to the EU, the peace movement in reaction to more missiles being stationed on European soil, the invasion of Grenada by the US, the beginning of the single market (of which Thatcher was one of the architects for the better or the worse), the fall of the Berlin wall which lead to the end of the cold war and the four point agreement (which ended the British occupation of Germany) and which also lead to the Chequers Affair,  And those are just the main events I can come up with which were directly related to Britain.

[Brn2bwild]

In addition to what others have said, I'm shocked that this season managed to get through the 1980s and not make a single reference to Ronald Reagan.  I thought he and Thatcher were tight.

With regards to Charles and Diana, I think the actress really got Diana, but I feel like the depiction this season made her seem more docile and innocent than she was.  Without a doubt she was the victim, but I think by the late 1980s/1990, she was dealing out the viciousness as well.  

Edited November 16, 2020 by Brn2bwild

[swanpride]

Let's say that he used her to influence EC politics quite heavily, but that didn't stop him from touching Granada. Though I guess they had their misguided economic ideas in common.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Brn2bwild said:

In addition to what others have said, I'm shocked that this season managed to get through the 1980s and not make a single reference to Ronald Reagan.  I thought he and Thatcher were tight.

Yeah.  It's my understanding that it was Thatcher who told Reagan that Gorbachev was "somebody we can work with".  

Also, as I understand it, the issue that finally brought down Thatcher was her support of a poll tax, which I think was some sort of a universal tax on all citizens.  (Here in America, a poll tax is a fee charged to vote, which has been ruled illegal.  Sometimes Americans and Brits use different terms for the same thing.  We say "hood", you say "bonnet".  We say "lame duck president", you say "previous president".)

[swanpride]

Wait...you have (or had at some point) a tax for VOTING????? Man, every time I think I have understood how questionable the system is, something else crops up.

I think it was multiple things which brought Thatcher down. There were the scandals around her son, the way she treated other party members, the Chequers scandal and I guess that she just suffered a very public defeat on an international stage didn't help either, because it showed her to be vulnerable. Things just boiled up.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

A surprise to me was the inclusion of Andrew dismissing the morally questionable aspect of a movie about older men "educating" a 17 year old in sexual aspects. I wasn't sure if they would allude to the scandal at all, and I certainly didn't expect it happening that early.

It wasn't "morally questionable" at that time. On the contrary, explicit sex was allowed in novels and movie. Besides, fiction is fantasy, not the same as the reality. 

But having acted in soft porn movies "Koo" Stark could be accepted only as Andrew's girlfriend, not as his wife.

[swanpride]

Sex with underage girls conducted by older men was morally questionable, and that's what the queen is bothered about, him being so blithely talking about it, even if it was just in the context of a movie.

[Dejana]

‘Charlie’s Angels’: Who did Prince Charles date before Lady Diana Spencer? A short history and gallery of some of the prince's reported exes:

Quote

Another woman that Charles unsuccessfully proposed to (twice) was Anna Wallace, his last girlfriend before Diana, she was dubbed ‘Whiplash Wallace’ in the press for her reportedly fiery temper and skill at hunting. The daughter of wealthy Scottish landowner Hamish Wallace, she is said to have dumped the Prince after he brought her to the Queen Mother’s 80th birthday party and then largely ignored her - instead dancing with Camilla Parker Bowles, who he had recently rekindled his relationship with. According to reports at the time, she had said: ‘I have never been so badly treated in my life. You’ve left me alone all evening and now you will have to continue without me.’

This incident was mentioned in Diana, Her True Story: Charles ignoring the "official" woman in his life for Camilla was a well worn pattern. The Queen Mother's birthday was August 4, so Charles and Anna Wallace split in the summer of 1980.

 

 

Prince Charles Proposed to Another Woman Before His Engagement to Princess Diana—And She Turned Him Down:

 

Quote

When Prince Charles and Princess Diana got engaged, it wasn't totally a gesture of love. Charles was under pressure from the royal family to settle down and Diana seemed liked a perfect match. But before Diana was the perfect match that Charles was pressured to propose to, there was another "perfect match" Charles was pressured to propose to: His cousin (not a first cousin, but still, yeah...) Amanda Knatchbull.

In Battle of Brothers: William and Harry – The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult, royal historian and biographer Robert Lacey explains that Charles' great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten (aka "Uncle Dickie"), had pushed for him to marry Amanda, who was his cousin and Lord Mountbatten's granddaughter. According to Lacey, Charles admitted to being "very fond of her" and a relationship did, eventually, blossom.

I wonder if the show ever considered introducing Amanda as a character? It's smoother narratively that they didn't, even without the second cousin aspect. 

[Minivanessa]

I agree that this season ignored plenty of significant history of the period it covered, but its focus is The Crown (and the person who wears it). The issue of sanctions against South Africa, that was so important to the Commonwealth, and thus to HM, was therefore appropriate for attention. Especially since it presented the tension between the Crown's supposedly apolitical role as head of state and what to do about the horrific system of apartheid which the rest of the Commonwealth wanted South Africa to end. I'm sure HM has paid attention to all the significant world events during her reign, but the series can't cover everything.

It did touch again on the Crown's role in government, when Maggie T was losing her intra-party fight to maintain power, and she wanted HM to dissolve Parliament. Maybe it was just me but I could hear Olivia Coleman thinking, look, your intra-party power struggles don't rise to the level of a crisis the Crown has to handle. Heh.

For instance, I think somebody upthread mentioned President Reagan. Although Thatcher and Reagan got along famously, I've never read that he and HM had any particular friendship or relationship other than the typical head of state diplomatic stuff.

There's a documentary on I think the Smithsonian Channel, about Windsor Castle, and the life of the BRF therein. It goes into a visit by the Reagans there during his Presidency; IIRC the PM (Thatcher) and her government really wanted HM to host the Reagans at Windsor as one of those "building goodwill for the UK" efforts. I got the impression that HM was fine with doing her duty, but that Reagan pushed boundaries a bit by things like holding an impromptu press conference (or something like that) on horseback when out riding with HM (Royals don't do press conferences in person). The documentary made clear that Windsor Castle is really HM's home, while Buckingham Palace is for work and official duties; HM would regularly head for Windsor Castle late on Friday afternoons for her weekend getaway.

My takeaway was that the Reagans were pushy, and HM graciously hosted them at Windsor Castle instead of at Buckingham Palace, because Thatcher wanted to please the Reagans, hosting them was a duty for HM, and she's all about doing her duty. I have also read that Diana was not thrilled about the idea of meeting the Reagans - she was still pretty young then and considered them to be boring old people - and said that Nancy Reagan would want a photo opp with Diana and her young children and Diana intended to not allow that. Heh. 

One thing that struck me last night after binge-watching S4 yesterday: we rarely saw HM smile. But I realized that IRL she wasn't enduring a grim existence and had plenty of moments of fun, and also behaved graciously at public events. I re-watched a short documentary called "Married to Maggie" just at bedtime, it's on Amazon Prime, about Denis Thatcher. Made by his daughter Carol, it has the only filmed interview he ever gave and was filmed just before his death (released just after his death). There was a quick shot of a still photo of a formal event where the Thatchers were standing in a group and the woman in the center front of the group had her head back a bit, caught in a laugh. I rewound to confirm it: yep,I do believe it was HM. I swear, after being immersed in S4 of this show all day, I may have forgotten the woman ever smiled or laughed. Sheesh.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Jeeves
more so-called thoughts

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

‘Charlie’s Angels’: Who did Prince Charles date before Lady Diana Spencer? A short history and gallery of some of the prince's reported exes:

This incident was mentioned in Diana, Her True Story: Charles ignoring the "official" woman in his life for Camilla was a well worn pattern. The Queen Mother's birthday was August 4, so Charles and Anna Wallace split in the summer of 1980.

 

 

Prince Charles Proposed to Another Woman Before His Engagement to Princess Diana—And She Turned Him Down:

 

I wonder if the show ever considered introducing Amanda as a character? It's smoother narratively that they didn't, even without the second cousin aspect. 

When the show decided to have Uncle Dickie and Grandma meddle with Charles's love life, I was also wondering if the show was going to have Uncle Dickie playing matchmaker with Charles and Amanda.  I do hate that the show did that last season instead of having Camilla choose Andrew Parker-Bowles over Charles, since that is actually what happened.  Why have Uncle Dickie meddling without having him try to gain something.  

[swanpride]

Quote

I agree that this season ignored plenty of significant history of the period it covered, but its focus is The Crown (and the person who wears it).

Naturally it does, but a lot of those historical events could have added to the characters. Granted, they can cover Ireland in more detail next season, that's after all when the situation heats up even more historically speaking, and granted, they can't feature every single president, but I really do think that skipping over the end of the cold war is an extremely odd choice. Especially, as I pointed out above, it could have served as a better book mark for the season than the one they had. 1990 was technically a year of hope for a lot of people….the cold war was over, the occupation of Germany ended, a lot of countries gained independence from the Soviet Union, Thatcher was forced out of office (which DID gave hope to a lot of people), Apartheid ended, the Hubbel space telescope was launched,  the first web server for the world wide net was created, it was very much a year of optimism, even though the golf crisis was already looming at this point.

And I really would have loved to see a take on what the Queen might have thought about all this. I mean, she experienced WWII and the whole Cold War, I can't imagine that this year meant less to her than to anyone else who did, too.

[poeticlicensed]

I know it's a bit of an aside, but there have been long standing rumors about Dickie Mountbatten being a pedophile or at least him liking being around uniformed young men. That's why his close relationship with Charles makes me squig a bit. 

As for Thatcher, of course she got along with the Reagans because her POV and theirs meshed nicely. People are too dependent on the state. She also didn't like or understand homosexuality and the Reagans are famous for their inaction on HIV/AIDS. 

[AZChristian]

16 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

I know it's a bit of an aside, but there have been long standing rumors about Dickie Mountbatten being a pedophile or at least him liking being around uniformed young men. That's why his close relationship with Charles makes me squig a bit. 

You're not the only one . . . 

[Umbelina]

All in all I was thrilled with this season.  Since the episodes are currently running together for me after 1 1/2 binge watches, some while sleepy, so I thought I'd post here.

It was LOVELY to see Colman finally released from the shackles of "show no emotion at all" in season 3, and to see her smile and generally be allowed to emote like a full human being in season 4, restrained of course, but no longer a robot.

The boat explosion sequence was as well done as I can imagine it being.  For those of us who knew it was happening, it was tense and tight.  For those who many not have known what was coming, I imagine it was shocking.  

As far as the writers/directors skipping a bit through history?  Sure there are things I would have liked to see, including more Anne...I mean going straight to "nearly divorced" without even seeing the wedding or homelife was a bit jarring, and of course the wall coming down.  I don't mind that they skipped over Reagan though, although in a longer show that would have been an important inclusion.  (on and on here, a lot happened over the years they covered.)

As I said though, after last season especially, which is slightly less annoying than it was at first, I was very happy with this season.  

I adored, for example, that small little scene when Charles told his brother he was irrelevant.  So well done, and so believable to me.

While the constant "mommy or daddy didn't love me" stuff usually annoys me, that scene with Philip and Charles was outstanding to me.  It finally dawned on me that this entire group of Royals do not have the worries most have, so in a way, it makes sense that they are constantly navel gazing and upset about "not enough love as a child" and other stuff that honestly, they would have been over by now if they had to worry about paying the rent, buying food, cooking it, cleaning up afterwards, sucking up to a nasty boss, or being laid off.  Without real world worries, they obsess about those.

Speaking of that, I was thrilled with the intruder's story!  I hope that is how it really happened, in many ways, but I do wish his plight had some impact on those in the gilded cages.  Of course it did not, so how could they show that?  Well done.

I was confused with the insane asylum scenes at first, but loved that story for Margaret, not a stand alone.  It could have been done better though, it wasn't as tight as the Dickie dies plot, and I think it could have been.  That's one I haven't watch again yet though, and now that I know why we were seeing those scenes, I may appreciate it much more.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I PROMISED myself I'd watch this show in pieces and not watch the whole thing in one sitting! But I couldn't. So I'm just going to post my overall thoughts because they've all blurred.

I wasn't an avid watcher of all things Royal or Diana, specifically, but she seemed to be on my screen a lot after marrying Charles.

The show just didn't get her hair RIGHT. It looked like a poor woman's Dorothy Hamill "style" and that's being generous.

I don't feel like researching to Google "the varying hair styles of Princess Diana" to confirm, but I'm pretty sure she had that short do after she had Harry, and not the flopping/flapping hair.

And wearing lots of tiaras. Or am I thinking ahead to the period that surely next season will cover?

I DEFINITELY remember Diana meeting her favorite band in 1984--Duran Duran! And she didn't have that floppy/flappy hairstyle!

I was waiting and waiting to see the brouhaha over her visit to the hospital with AIDS babies and children. And it takes place in the finale. My memory clearly is fuzzy because I could have sworn that Queen Elizabeth wasn't pleased over her holding an AIDS baby--and not her hugging the child as the show depicted. Of course, this show also moves timelines around regarding events, so who knows?

And like others stated in the episode threads, a tag of what year it was would have helped immensely. The "3 months earlier" nonsense was no help at all.

I've never liked Charles, but his depiction in this series just validates that. He's nothing but a whiny, petulant, jealous (of his wife's success/popularity), manboy. He's absolutely awful.

Not saying that Diana was a saint, but it's like he didn't even try after "Avalanche" when Diana said she wanted to work on the marriage/start over. But Charles wasn't having any of it. Immature Twat.

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It was LOVELY to see Colman finally released from the shackles of "show no emotion at all" in season 3, and to see her smile and generally be allowed to emote like a full human being in season 4, restrained of course, but no longer a robot.

And there's this! Colman emoting!

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Speaking of that, I was thrilled with the intruder's story!  I hope that is how it really happened,

I read in the episode thread that the "meeting" and talking with the Queen was dramatic license and it didn't happen.

[swanpride]

To be fair...neither REALLY tried. I mean, I guess Diana kind of did, but is it really so hard to find gifts for each other which fit the interest of your partner instead of your own?

[Minivanessa]

14 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I also totally don't think that Diana just "accidently" met Charles in her cute fairy costume, she was totally looking to meet him and get her charming on. 

I brought some quotes over from episode topics. As for that scene in the fairy costume: aargh!! I give a lot of room for dramatic license but that was just OTT, IMO. Charles darn well knew who Diana was, and had met her. Until she was 13 her family lived in Park House on the Queen's Sandringham Estate, the Spencer parents and grandparents were well known to the Royals, and the Spencer children mingled socially with the Windsor kids. Diana was close in age to Andrew and there was some joke that she was "intended" for him. Diana did take an opportunity to see Charles when he was dating her older sister, and was invited to one of his big bash birthday parties although she was still pretty young. I will give the show the dramatic license over her expressing sympathy to him after Uncle Dickie died (and he was no longer dating her sister), although I believe she did it when they were both invited to somebody's country house for a weekend or party and the two of them were sitting talking. 

43 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Yes! That's the image that is burned into my brain because she [Diana] looked so happy. Now, watching this episode, to learn she wanted out, well, this is television after all, so now I don't know what to believe. 

 

34 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

I think she was happy. We are watching several years mashed into an hour. I think that before her wedding day she was as freaked out by the attention as she was about Charles being a douchelord. And I think that he and camilla did stay away from each other for a period of time. But eventually he took up with her again. 

These were comments about the Wales wedding day. I think there was a bit of "rewrite" going on when Diana was making those tapes for Andrew Morton to publish during the bitter end of her marriage when the War of the Walses was on. She cast it all as this awful tragedy, said she felt like a "lamb to the slaughter" on her wedding day, and that narrative has gone down in a lot of history, so to speak. But I have read accounts that the night before the wedding she was happy and goofing around. (BTW she spent that night at Clarence House, where the Queen Mother then lived, not at Buckingham Palace. The book I read said she'd grabbed an employee's cap, put it on, and hopped on his bicycle, pedaling around in circles ringing the bell and singing.) I don't doubt that she was plenty stressed out prior to the wedding - she was actively bulimic and kept shrinking so that fitting the wedding dress was a problem. Stressed? Anxious? Even freaked out about Camilla? Sure. But absolutely miserable and doomed? Nope. Not on her wedding day. I don't buy that. 

[Brn2bwild]

31 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 

I was confused with the insane asylum scenes at first, but loved that story for Margaret, not a stand alone.  It could have been done better though, it wasn't as tight as the Dickie dies plot, and I think it could have been.  That's one I haven't watch again yet though, and now that I know why we were seeing those scenes, I may appreciate it much more.

I loved Margaret's exchange with her mother: "Not everything that's happened in this family is due to the abdication!"  Their constantly referencing it as the Original Sin does get old on this show.

[wendyg]

swanpride: It was not a tax on voting. The idea was to raise funds for local council services more fairly by taxing based on the number of people in a house ("community charge") rather than the value of the house (property tax). People protested this tax in shoals on the basis that the *effect* would be to tax voting because they would derive the list of residents in each house from the elecctoral rolls. Opponents dubbed it the "poll tax", and there were riots. The plan was modified so that houses are taxed based on an estimate of their value, but there is also a component based on the number of residents. People living alone get to deduct 25%, for example.

The Guardian has a discussion of the factlessness of this season: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/the-crown-fake-history-news-tv-series-royal-family-artistic-licence. I would not base my ideas about any of the historical people or events on these portrayals.

 

 

[swanpride]

Neither would I. But it would still be interesting to see how the writers of the show thinks the characters would react to certain historical events.

And I am not surprised that Jerkins (and nope, that is not a typo) is more bothered about the notion that Diana might be portrayed too much as a victim than about anything else. Not that the point that movies and TV shows which portray real people as fictional characters is shaping our perception of them in a questionable manner is wrong, but if you go by this, you would have to remove the majority of movies. From Braveheart to The Life of Brian to Dunkirk, any take on history, no matter if it is meant to be patriotic, satirical or realistic, is shaping our perspective on it. And that, btw, independent from the question if the featured persons are real or not.

 

Specifically in the case of Diana we have the problem that we are looking at decades of myth building. First there was the myth around her big romance, and later on we had the myth of the suffering martyr and just when it seemed like Diana's perfect image was falling apart, she tragically died, leading to another turn of myth building.

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by swanpride

[Brn2bwild]

Having watched the entire season, and recalling Diana of the 1980s and 1990s, does anyone think she would have not had a particularly good relationship with Kate or Meghan?  If I recall, she was very possessive and easily jealous, and as we can see, emotionally exhausting.  I can imagine part of her would have never wanted to let go of her boys.  She might have gotten along with Kate and Meghan on a superficial level, but I can't see her embracing them, or them ever feeling comfortable around her.  Even Meghan, who people assume would have gotten along famously with Diana -- if anything, Diana might have been insanely jealous of Meghan for having her own star power.   

Edited November 16, 2020 by Brn2bwild

[Umbelina]

17 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

Having watched the entire season, and recalling Diana of the 1980s and 1990s, does anyone think she would have not had a particularly good relationship with Kate or Meghan?  If I recall, she was very possessive and easily jealous, and as we can see, emotionally exhausting.  I can imagine part of her would have never wanted to let go of her boys.  She might have gotten along with Kate and Meghan on a superficial level, but I can't see her embracing them, or them ever feeling comfortable around her.  Even Meghan, who people assume would have gotten along famously with Diana -- if anything, Diana might have been insanely jealous of Meghan for having her own star power.   

It's completely unknowable of course, and many mothers don't think anyone is good enough for their child, but I think, yes.

I think she would understand and support Harry and Meghan escaping, and I think she would be proud of both of her sons for protecting their wives (in their own ways) and Kate raising her children out of most of the hoopla.

I also think she would have been happy if her boys were happy, and absolutely thrilled to be a grandmother to those children.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

While the constant "mommy or daddy didn't love me" stuff usually annoys me, that scene with Philip and Charles was outstanding to me.  It finally dawned on me that this entire group of Royals do not have the worries most have, so in a way, it makes sense that they are constantly navel gazing and upset about "not enough love as a child" and other stuff that honestly, they would have been over by now if they had to worry about paying the rent, buying food, cooking it, cleaning up afterwards, sucking up to a nasty boss, or being laid off.  Without real world worries, they obsess about those.

Also some writers write about their awful childhood. 

[RemoteControlFreak]

The official Crown podcast is a great source for learning what content  the show’s creators based on real events and what is fictionalized. 

[Roseanna]

There is a great gap of top importance which is never explained. In S3 Camilla and Charles became lovers and he fell for her but she evidently didn't. Then Mountbatten and Queen Mother conspired to separate them by sending Charles to the sea and marrying Camilla off to Andrew (which didn't happen irl). As Charles learned that Camilla had also lain with Andrew, how it was that he still continued to love her? When did they become lovers again?

    

[ruby24]

Charles came across as the villain this season, but I do wonder if the show should have had at least some scenes that implied that there was some sort of attempt on his part at having SOME kind of relationship with her, in the early years.

I'm just thinking of times I remember Diana talking about him being all over her when she expressed sympathy to him about Mountbatten, or even saying that they were closest during her pregnancy with Harry. I've seen old pictures of them in the Bahamas in 1982 when she was pregnant with William and they're kissing and stuff...I'm just saying that I think there must have been SOME time in their relationship when she had reason to think that he did, you know, like her. I think it would have been helpful to see that sort of stuff. He was the first royal to be in the room when his child was born, wasn't he? I think they both did really want and love their kids- was having them not something that brought them together, even for a short time?

Because this season really makes it seem that he never expressed an ounce of feeling or affection (or attraction!) for her at any time. Was he at least attracted to her? The show pretty much implies he never even kissed her before their wedding day (I don't buy that). And I know that the pain and the doomed nature of it is the real meat of that story, but I think it would work even more if they showed some of the points where they acted as a real couple as well. Because from what I've read, I don't think it was a situation where they were strangers who got married, he sleeps with her only to get her pregnant and then ignores her the rest of the time. I think there was some attempt at first to see if they could be a couple.

Or am I wrong?

Edited November 16, 2020 by ruby24

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

The official Crown podcast is a great source for learning what content  the show’s creators based on real events and what is fictionalized. 

Do you have a link to the one you enjoy?  There are several out there.

5 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Charles came across as the villain this season, but I do wonder if the show should have had at least some scenes that implied that there was some sort of attempt on his part at having SOME kind of relationship with her, in the early years.

I'm just thinking of times I remember Diana talking about him being all over her when she expressed sympathy to him about Mountbatten, or even saying that they were closest during her pregnancy with Harry. I've seen old pictures of them in the Bahamas in 1982 when she was pregnant with William and they're kissing and stuff...I'm just saying that I think there must have been SOME time in their relationship when she had reason to think that he did, you know, like her. I think it would have been helpful to see that sort of stuff. He was the first royal to be in the room when his child was born, wasn't he? I think they both did really want and love their kids- was having them not something that brought them together, even for a short time?

Because this season really makes it seem that he never expressed an ounce of feeling or affection (or attraction!) for her at any time. Was he at least attracted to her? The show pretty much implies he never even kissed her before their wedding day (I don't buy that). And I know that the pain and the doomed nature of it is the real meat of that story, but I think it would work even more if they showed some of the points where they acted as a real couple as well. Because from what I've read, I don't think it was a situation where they were strangers who got married, he sleeps with her only to get her pregnant and then ignores her the rest of the time. I think there was some attempt at first to see if they could be a couple.

Or am I wrong?

Charles was in love with someone else.

That takes it's toll.

What I noticed over the season, is that Diana and Charles got along best when he was AWAY from his mistress.  They had that lovely talk in Australia, for example, even though he had been talking to Camilla every single day before that, he refused to return her call that day.

If they had been separated from Camilla, they might have been able to make it work, at least, that seemed to be the tale the writers were telling this season.  

I also liked that they explained why Diana stayed at Kensington.  Staying at the place Charles arranged to be close to his mistress would be trying for any wife, unless she cared nothing at all about her husband, or the humiliation of facing "their" friends regularly.

Quote

Diana grew up in the country and knew what was expected of her at Balmoral,  but she was a city girl at heart.  She could enjoy herself (or fake enjoyment) for a couple of days when necessary. 

@Ohiopirate02

I think the show goes into revealing detail about why she avoided "the country" after marriage.  Charles' house being 15 minutes away from Camilla's for example.  At Kensington palace at least she didn't have to deal with Camilla and her friends' presence daily.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

@Ohiopirate02

I think the show goes into revealing detail about why she avoided "the country" after marriage.  Charles' house being 15 minutes away from Camilla's for example.  At Kensington palace at least she didn't have to deal with Camilla and her friends' presence daily.

Yeah, Camilla really did a number on Diana's enjoyment of the country.   But like she said during her lunch with Camilla, she wants to be in London.  Charles is all about the quiet country life gardening, horses, hunting, etc.while Diana wanted to be in London hanging out with various artists, musicians,  etc.  

[Minivanessa]

@ruby24, I think there was a spark between Charles and Diana at the start of their relationship and marriage. I also don't believe he was an utter evil cad, and that he did stop his sexual relationship with Camilla at the time when when he married Diana. I think there were times when Charles and Diana were able to nurture and fan that spark between them, that they both loved their sons, and I have read that during the Australia trip they had some good times together as a little family. Diana had an almost uncanny gift for genuine empathy and giving emotional support to people in need, so I think she was really sincere when she expressed her sympathy to Charles after Mountbatten's death, and he responded to that. There were probably many other times early in their marriage when she said or did things empathetic and genuine, to which he responded. I truly don't think that as between them at the beginning, it was a conscious sham on either side. 

But, they had spent so little time together before the wedding, which I put on Charles, that they were really strangers, which is a helluva way to start off a marriage. And, of course there was Camilla who had an established place in his heart and life, regardless of whether they were boinking at the time. (And IMO his refusal to entirely give her up doomed his marriage; she was all too available for comfort when the going got tough at home.) Also, the differences between Charles and Diana were so great: age, life experience, education, intellectual interests, emotional makeup, etc. As Anne said in one of the Season 4 episodes, Charles was old for his age and Diana was young for hers, and so the age gulf was an age chasm, and as people they were so different that they might have come from different planets. I agree, and they were both so frigging needy for encouragement, warmth, and validation.

So, IMO there was just too much of a chill wind blowing through the relationship, to allow that spark between them to do more than occasionally flicker. It never got the chance to really take hold and burn strong and long. And finally it went out.

It's always intrigued me that after the divorce, there was somewhat of a thaw in the relationship between Charles and Diana; it was too soon after the end of their very public divorce wars for things to have completely settled down, but I think the active hostilities were finished. I have read speculation that if she had lived longer, she and Charles might have eventually ended up as friends, bound by their love for their sons. I don't know if Camilla would or could have scuttled that, but it's an intriguing thought. Diana was moving in the direction of establishing some big charitable initiatives before she died, and she and Charles might have swapped ideas since he had long since set up the Prince's Trust and I think some other things. 

 

[Umbelina]

21 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Yeah, Camilla really did a number on Diana's enjoyment of the country.   But like she said during her lunch with Camilla, she wants to be in London.  Charles is all about the quiet country life gardening, horses, hunting, etc.while Diana wanted to be in London hanging out with various artists, musicians,  etc.  

I think Camilla "owned" Charles in the country, and we do know that even his grandmother let him use her "country house" for trysts with Camilla.  

I honestly think it was simply too humiliating to only be around Charles' "country friends" because most of them knew, or helped cover for, or even arrange him boinking his mistress there.  

It became completely hostile territory for Diana, and humiliating.  

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Jeeves said:

@ruby24, I think there was a spark between Charles and Diana at the start of their relationship and marriage. I also don't believe he was an utter evil cad, and that he did stop his sexual relationship with Camilla at the time when when he married Diana. I think there were times when Charles and Diana were able to nurture and fan that spark between them, that they both loved their sons, and I have read that during the Australia trip they had some good times together as a little family. Diana had an almost uncanny gift for genuine empathy and giving emotional support to people in need, so I think she was really sincere when she expressed her sympathy to Charles after Mountbatten's death, and he responded to that. There were probably many other times early in their marriage when she said or did things empathetic and genuine, to which he responded. I truly don't think that as between them at the beginning, it was a conscious sham on either side. 

But, they had spent so little time together before the wedding, which I put on Charles, that they were really strangers, which is a helluva way to start off a marriage. And, of course there was Camilla who had an established place in his heart and life, regardless of whether they were boinking at the time. (And IMO his refusal to entirely give her up doomed his marriage; she was all too available for comfort when the going got tough at home.) Also, the differences between Charles and Diana were so great: age, life experience, education, intellectual interests, emotional makeup, etc. As Anne said in one of the Season 4 episodes, Charles was old for his age and Diana was young for hers, and so the age gulf was an age chasm, and as people they were so different that they might have come from different planets. I agree, and they were both so frigging needy for encouragement, warmth, and validation.

So, IMO there was just too much of a chill wind blowing through the relationship, to allow that spark between them to do more than occasionally flicker. It never got the chance to really take hold and burn strong and long. And finally it went out.

It's always intrigued me that after the divorce, there was somewhat of a thaw in the relationship between Charles and Diana; it was too soon after the end of their very public divorce wars for things to have completely settled down, but I think the active hostilities were finished. I have read speculation that if she had lived longer, she and Charles might have eventually ended up as friends, bound by their love for their sons. I don't know if Camilla would or could have scuttled that, but it's an intriguing thought. Diana was moving in the direction of establishing some big charitable initiatives before she died, and she and Charles might have swapped ideas since he had long since set up the Prince's Trust and I think some other things. 

 

I agree.  I do believe Charles did try in his way to make the marriage work, but he failed in other areas.   Fundamentally,  they both had different needs, and Charles was not capable of compromise.   He got his needs met at the expense of Diana with them moving to Highgrove.  Couple that with Diana's intense need for love, a need no person could fulfill, I'm not surprised that the marriage did not work out 

[nora1992]

4 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

Having watched the entire season, and recalling Diana of the 1980s and 1990s, does anyone think she would have not had a particularly good relationship with Kate or Meghan?  If I recall, she was very possessive and easily jealous, and as we can see, emotionally exhausting.  I can imagine part of her would have never wanted to let go of her boys.  She might have gotten along with Kate and Meghan on a superficial level, but I can't see her embracing them, or them ever feeling comfortable around her.  Even Meghan, who people assume would have gotten along famously with Diana -- if anything, Diana might have been insanely jealous of Meghan for having her own star power.   

I’ve wondered the same thing, especially after reading about her crying on pre-teen William’s shoulder about her love life and loss of HRH title.  Would really hope to be wrong, but we’ll never know.

[Umbelina]

I have to say, I really dislike Camilla and Charles more than ever, and my opinion of them both was already quite low.

Even if I leave Diana out of it, and have Charles married to someone else, someone I've never even heard of, bland as can be, but unhappy, some not charming, not pretty, faceless no one, without her husband's love or regard, basically just a broodmare? 

It's about Charles and Camilla being utter and completely selfish assholes, and if they were so "in love" then they are cowards as well as liars and cheaters and completely selfish.  Stand up and marry one another, don't drag some teenager into your bullshit.

 

[Dejana]

13 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

When the show decided to have Uncle Dickie and Grandma meddle with Charles's love life, I was also wondering if the show was going to have Uncle Dickie playing matchmaker with Charles and Amanda.  I do hate that the show did that last season instead of having Camilla choose Andrew Parker-Bowles over Charles, since that is actually what happened.  Why have Uncle Dickie meddling without having him try to gain something.  

I guess the writers just wanted to streamline it all: Charles loved Camilla but was pressured to marry Diana, so there was need to complicate the story beyond that.  Mountbatten here is primarily a de facto paternal figure, so pushing his granddaughter on Charles, though historically accurate, maybe makes him less sympathetic to unfamiliar audiences. Plus, the cousin aspect has the potential to needlessly weird viewers out, when their failed relationship is not really that important to the show's overall narrative. I think there could have been at least a montage about the "playboy prince" days, but that would undercut the show's version of Charles desperately pining for Camilla the whole time. They have ten episodes to cover 11 years, so there's no time for the other women he proposed to before Diana or his other married friend in this era, Lady Tryon aka Kanga. 

 

[swanpride]

Well, they have this talk where they list the various girlfriend Charles had. But I really don't think that any of them are really important.

[Umbelina]

Anne wasn't on much, but every scene she had was so well done, and had great value.  Particularly I loved the frankness with her mother in answering her questions about the state of the marriage.  Even more, I loved her telling Charles the truth, that Camilla loved her husband.

Speaking of that, Camilla was certainly clever in the way she sidestepped that question from Charles.

God he's a fool.

ETA

I definitely prefer season 4.  I had to almost force myself to watch season 3 again (which, I admit, was not as bad this time, except for the things I've mentioned, it didn't flow, the "star" episodes failed for me, and they had Colman in a straight jacket.)  Now season 4?  I'm on at least my 3rd watch, and still finding new things while enjoying the great stuff I noticed the first time around.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It's about Charles and Camilla being utter and completely selfish assholes, and if they were so "in love" then they are cowards as well as liars and cheaters and completely selfish.  Stand up and marry one another, don't drag some teenager into your bullshit.

Romantic love is egoistical by nature.

Originally great love stories (Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristan and Isolde, Anna and Vronsky) were adulterous. We wholly sympathize the lovers and don't care a bit for spouses who are cheated. There must be something wrong with them: husband are bores, wives are hysterical. Marriages have been made for position or money that isn't nothing compared with the "true love". 

Of course there is also an alternative story: the wronged wife who is usually older, f.ex. Katherine of Aragon.

It's all about the perspective we are shown: whether the story is about Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour. 

We never met Peter Townsend's first wife, although Margaret's utter selfishness was made clear: she prevented him to spend even Christmas with her and their children, which made the claim that he was "an innocent party" in the divorce (as he legally was because she had left him for another man) seem rather odd.     

[lasu]

17 hours ago, wendyg said:

The Guardian has a discussion of the factlessness of this season: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/the-crown-fake-history-news-tv-series-royal-family-artistic-licence. I would not base my ideas about any of the historical people or events on these portrayals.

What an odd article.  Obviously a lot of this show is made up whole cloth, and yet I'm sure there ARE still people sitting at home, "How do they know this??" like these are all word for word transcripts, but I kinda think that's on them. And I get why making up things about recent events and real people can be problematic, but this article steps on itself several times.

First, it lists several historical inaccuracies, all of which this article purport to show the Royal Family in the worst light but includes these:

• millions of viewers are told that both Diana and Thatcher were humiliated by the royal family at Balmoral 
  • Diana was shown to be a complete triumph at Balmoral, and while I do think they were assholes to the Thatchers, I think based on what the show showed, these were the same asshole tests for everyone, not just the Thatchers.
• The Queen was responsible for leaking her view of Thatcher as “uncaring”.
  • The show clearly said the Queen never stopped denying it.  And even if she did leak it and it was a disaster, I still don't think it shows her in the "worst possible light."  Thatcher WAS uncaring, even the the Queen should have kept her mouth shut.
• Yet it was curiously unnecessary, since there were plenty of occasions, as in Mirren’s interpretation, when royalty can be shown behaving badly. Morgan could have made his point truthfully.
  • Er...does the article of this author know Morgan wrote "Mirren's interpretation" as well?

I don't know - I completely understand why some people want this to stick as close to the facts as possible.  But this isn't a documentary, and this article makes it seem like it should be.  Or, that this show shouldn't have been made at all.  He says the "words and actions of living individuals were made up to suit that could have been scripted by Diana’s biggest supporters."  Again, this isn't a documentary so of course the dialogue between two people is going to made up.  And as far as Diana's biggest supporters?  Did he catch the scene where Ann reported Di was a revolving door whore?

I just enjoy the show, and I don't need it to present to me a neutral facts only story.  Again, I'm not saying that others are wrong for being turned off by the show for the inaccuracies, but they just don't bother me.

HOWEVER, some of those wigs, FML.  HBC's towards the end was distractingly bad.  Forget bad history, I'm more upset about bad hair.

[Minivanessa]

1 hour ago, lasu said:

  Forget bad history, I'm more upset about bad hair.

I may rewatch S4 and take notes on the size of Maggie T's hair in each episode. It seemed to grow with time. 

If it did, it's a great metaphor for how Maggie's power seemed to go to her head the longer she stayed in office. I've read that she actually used the royal "we," as in "We are happy that we are now a grandmother." Wow. 

In the final episode when Maggie was losing her grip as leader of the party, she wanted the Queen to dissolve Parliament over it. Maybe it was projection, but I could see Olivia Coleman as HM thinking, "Your intra-party power struggles aren't a national crisis that I need to step into." But Maggie was so hellbent on maintaining power and so convinced that only she could lead Britain, that she saw it as a national crisis.

I loathed her, thought she was a nutjob with a ridiculous political ideology, and would have lifted a toast on her death if I still drank. I even read a bio of her because she's interesting to me in the same horrific way that Hitler is. 

ETA: One thing I've always savored about Downton Abbey: the title in question is "Grantham." So we have the Earl and Countess of Grantham and the Dowager Countess of Grantham, etc. After Maggie left office, she was given a peerage, which meant also a seat in the House of Lords. She chose the title Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire. She was born and grew up in Lincolnshire, in the town of Grantham, but left it behind when she left for university and really didn't look back as she climbed up in the world, socially, economically, and politically. "Grantham" certainly wasn't grand enough to be used in her title; she went for the larger area of Kesteven instead. So here comes Julian Fellowes, and used "Grantham" as the title of a fictional family when he wrote that huge hit series. I've always wondered if Fellowes, himself a peer in the House of Lords, was getting in a little dig there. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jeeves

[JudyObscure]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Of course there is also an alternative story: the wronged wife who is usually older, f.ex. Katherine of Aragon.

It's all about the perspective we are shown: whether the story is about Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour. 

That's true and while Diana is the wronged wife in the Charles Camilla Diana triangle, the show conveniently left out the wives of the men with whom Diana had affairs.  Diana is said to have stalked one married man with continual phone calls to the point that the wife reported the calls to the police and they were put in a very uncomfortable position when the calls were traced to Diana's phone. Maybe we'll see that next season when the marriage starts to completely blow up.

[Ellaria]

2 hours ago, lasu said:

I don't know - I completely understand why some people want this to stick as close to the facts as possible.  But this isn't a documentary, and this article makes it seem like it should be.  Or, that this show shouldn't have been made at all.  He says the "words and actions of living individuals were made up to suit that could have been scripted by Diana’s biggest supporters."  Again, this isn't a documentary so of course the dialogue between two people is going to made up.  And as far as Diana's biggest supporters?  Did he catch the scene where Ann reported Di was a revolving door whore?

I just enjoy the show, and I don't need it to present to me a neutral facts only story.  Again, I'm not saying that others are wrong for being turned off by the show for the inaccuracies, but they just don't bother me.

HOWEVER, some of those wigs, FML.  HBC's towards the end was distractingly bad.  Forget bad history, I'm more upset about bad hair.

Agree 100%. I see this complaint so often about movies and TV shows. Morgan didn't claim to be creating a documentary. The Crown is a dramatization - and an interpretation - of these events. He created entertainment and, with the in mind, I accept the show for what it is and enjoy it. And, if I am looking for the "truth" about what actually occurred, there are plenty of books, articles and documentaries available.

About HBC's wig/wigs, the one that she wore in "Heredity Principle" was awful. 

[JudyObscure]

I just wanted to interrupt for a second to say how FUN this has been!  All of us binge watching the season together and talking about it here.  I picked exactly the right moment in time to sign up for the Netflix 30 days free offer!

[Minivanessa]

31 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

That's true and while Diana is the wronged wife in the Charles Camilla Diana triangle, the show conveniently left out the wives of the men with whom Diana had affairs.  Diana is said to have stalked one married man with continual phone calls to the point that the wife reported the calls to the police and they were put in a very uncomfortable position when the calls were traced to Diana's phone. Maybe we'll see that next season when the marriage starts to completely blow up.

It will be interesting to see how they portray Diana during the implosion (explosion?) of her marriage. Even as a child, she could react fiercely when she felt wronged or betrayed, and that didn't stop when she was an adult. I was at first reluctant to believe she would carry out that anonymous phone call harassment campaign, but after reading some reliable accounts, came to believe she really did it. The man was art dealer Oliver Hoare, and Diana wanted him to leave his wife for her. However, his wife was wealthy and no fool; once she found out about the affair she put her foot down and her erring husband quit Diana. It's nuts, but Diana did indeed make a series of hang-up phone calls to Hoare's home, from pay phones and I think also from phones that could be trace to her or to Kensington Palace. Hoare's wife wasn't having it and the police got involved. I still SMH over Diana's thinking she could get away with it. She even spun a big tale to a friendly reporter about how some unstable kid at Hoare's son's school did it, or something. Yikes.

Another time Diana picked the wrong married guy to f*ck with, literally: rugby star Will Carling. She had a fling with Carling who was married (this may have been after Diana's divorce), but when Carling's wife found out she "noisily" sued Carling for divorce over it. IIRC Carling's wife said something like "She [Diana] picked the wrong people to mess with this time." Julia Carling wasn't going to shut up and go quietly away. Heh.

I think that all the years of living inside the royal bubble (even unhappily) fostered a sense of entitlement and immunity from the rules in Diana, as it probably would with most people. Throw in her huge celebrity and popularity factor, and she might as well be living in a different world from regular people. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jeeves

[lasu]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

That's true and while Diana is the wronged wife in the Charles Camilla Diana triangle, the show conveniently left out the wives of the men with whom Diana had affairs.  Diana is said to have stalked one married man with continual phone calls to the point that the wife reported the calls to the police and they were put in a very uncomfortable position when the calls were traced to Diana's phone. Maybe we'll see that next season when the marriage starts to completely blow up.

I don't think they fully left it out, even so far.  The brought up the horse instructor and the bodyguard, and Ann said she had a revolving door of men.  I'm pretty sure the art dealer comes slightly after we have left off; I think it was after the official separation.  They can still easily bring that in if they want to next season.

 

1 hour ago, Ellaria Sand said:

About HBC's wig/wigs, the one that she wore in "Heredity Principle" was awful. 

It's made so much worse because HBC seems to have laid off the botox (in general, I mean.  I'm not implying she normally does it and stopped for this - I have no idea) so her forehead would move but her hairline wouldn't.  It was like you could almost literally see her forehead going under her wig line.  So upsetting/distracting.

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

19 hours ago, Jeeves said:

It's always intrigued me that after the divorce, there was somewhat of a thaw in the relationship between Charles and Diana; it was too soon after the end of their very public divorce wars for things to have completely settled down, but I think the active hostilities were finished. I have read speculation that if she had lived longer, she and Charles might have eventually ended up as friends, bound by their love for their sons.

According to the book The Day Diana Died, Charles really took her death hard, and not just because of its effect on his sons: he had always genuinely liked (if not loved) Diana and had come to realize how badly she'd been treated by himself and the BRF (a full-on reconciliation was out of the question, of course, as he had only ever really loved Camilla). The Queen, by contrast, felt sorry for her grandsons but was primarily concerned with getting Diana's royal jewelry back. She initially refused to either address the nation about Diana's passing or allow Charles to speak publicly about it. The Queen finally relented and delivered her brief televised eulogy of Diana only after an enraged Charles threatened to abdicate and then address the nation as a private citizen.

[Growsonwalls]

In fairness to Charles romantic love WAS NOT SUPPOSED to play a big role in royal marriages. Duty, responsibility, work ethic, and comfort in a certain society and social circle were supposed to be more important. Diana checked all those boxes. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think William and Kate's marriage is more of a traditional royal marriage -- two people who are comfortable with each other, understand the duties and responsibilities and fishbowl life, and give each other space. This is why Kate sometimes takes trips with her family and William takes skiing trips with his friends. This isn't to say there isn't love or fondness or compatibility. Just that romantic love isn't in the top 5 most important considerations.

[ruby24]

2 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

According to the book The Day Diana Died, Charles really took her death hard, and not just because of its effect on his sons: he had always genuinely liked (if not loved) Diana and had come to realize how badly she'd been treated by himself and the BRF (a full-on reconciliation was out of the question, of course, as he had only ever really loved Camilla). The Queen, by contrast, felt sorry for her grandsons but was primarily concerned with getting Diana's royal jewelry back. She initially refused to either address the nation about Diana's passing or allow Charles to speak publicly about it. The Queen finally relented and delivered her brief televised eulogy of Diana only after an enraged Charles threatened to abdicate and then address the nation as a private citizen.

This is interesting. See, I even think that the show has failed to show us even that much on Charles's part- DID he like Diana, but not love her? According to the show, he's completely and utterly indifferent toward her from the very beginning. That doesn't quite ring true to me. And I think it would be more interesting to show us that much on his part, even if he can't love her truly. 

And frankly it would make more sense as to why Diana herself was still saying years later that she loved him and would reunite with him (a month before she died, she said this!) if he really wanted her. Even a teenager can't fall in love with someone who was never for one moment nice to her or showed one ounce of interest whatsoever, just negligent or mean even, from the start.

I think they must be leaving that part out.