Season 4: History Beyond the Episodes

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

The main knock against that is that I don’t think Edward is a significant enough character on the show for his wedding to feel like a natural endpoint.

 

44 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

No one cares about Edward.

In the (I'm sure untrue) scene where Philip is toasting Edward on his 21st birthday and said "Happy birthday to . . . what was your name again?" . . . the actor playing Edward portrayed him as NOT just laughing it off.  I got the feeling he was portraying, "That would be funny if it weren't true that my own father can't remember my name."

I'm the fourth-born.  I related to that scene, and I didn't find it funny either.

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, retired watcher said:

On 11/16/2020 at 12:14 AM, swanpride said:

On 11/16/2020 at 12:10 AM, PeterPirate said:

Here in America, a poll tax is a fee charged to vote, which has been ruled illegal.  

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.

The tax was put in place so poor black voters wouldn't be able to vote. Just another part of Jim Crow.

Yes.  I didn't respond before because I thought the American poll tax was off-topic, being non-British and all.  Now that the discussion has turned towards Meghan and Harry, I would say the dynamics of racism and privilege are still at play on both sides of the Atlantic.  

Well, our statues of leaders of the Confederacy are being moved away from population centers, and your statues of slave traders are being dumped into rivers.  Hope springs eternal.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Maybe this belongs here instead of the episode thread.

That Time I Walked Princess Diana Through the Henry Street Settlement in 1989

[swanpride]

Maybe Meghan simply has an easier time to deal with the racism she is used to instead of the passive aggressive variant common in the UK. Plus, at least in the US she can call out racism if she wants to, in the UK the reaction would be along the line of "we? Racist? Don't you know that according the BS Study of whenever we are the least racist country?" And yes, in the US they are run of the mill famous, not catnip for every reporter in the country.

But we are far, far away from Meghan and I am not even sure if we will even reach that point in the show.

[Umbelina]

Well, I'm finally watching Diana in Her Own Words.  For some reason I thought it was the Bashir interview, but obviously not.  It's quite good, and I feel it's pretty honest.  

Anyway, among other things, she stayed in Clarence House before the wedding, not Buckingham Palace.  I think quite a bit of the show (the parts about her, Camilla, and partly Charles) is coming from this I think.

I was surprised that she knew so very early about Camilla.  Also, I do question why they didn't show the other times she spent with Philip?  Or mention them at least, because as presented she barely spent a moment with him, which is not true.  I'm also surprised that they left out the "bit chubby there" from Charles, which, according to her, began her bulimia.  Since her waist was 29 inches when first being fitted for the wedding dress, and 23 inches (!) on her wedding day, I tend to believe that as well.

Also, how didn't I know she had such a difficult delivery with William, which eventually culminated in a cesarean?  

[Roseanna]

9 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I was surprised that she knew so very early about Camilla. 

Charles told during their Diana engagement about *all* his former girlfriends. To him it was quite natural that he was still friendly with them and he had never been sexually jealous. He promised Diana that she would be the only woman in his life and as a man of honor he believed that his word was enough.  

However, Diana was only 19 and very insecure because of her insecure childhood. 

[cambridgeguy]

17 hours ago, SeanC said:

The main knock against that is that I don’t think Edward is a significant enough character on the show for his wedding to feel like a natural endpoint.

Granted, maybe that’ll change over the next two seasons, but the show has been fairly consistent in prioritizing Charles, with Anne a clear second.

Maybe they'll finish with the marriage of Charles and Camilla?  Lots of potential drama if they get to that point, especially if young adult William and Harry are introduced into the narrative.  The other possible endpoint is the birth of Prince George. 

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

Maybe they'll finish with the marriage of Charles and Camilla?  Lots of potential drama if they get to that point, especially if young adult William and Harry are introduced into the narrative.  The other possible endpoint is the birth of Prince George. 

How about 2002? The Queen's sister died in February and her mother died in March (two devasting loss for her) and then there was the Golden Jubilee which showed that she had gained the people's love and admiration.

[meatball77]

On 11/25/2020 at 1:34 AM, swanpride said:

Maybe Meghan simply has an easier time to deal with the racism she is used to instead of the passive aggressive variant common in the UK. Plus, at least in the US she can call out racism if she wants to, in the UK the reaction would be along the line of "we? Racist? Don't you know that according the BS Study of whenever we are the least racist country?" And yes, in the US they are run of the mill famous, not catnip for every reporter in the country.

But we are far, far away from Meghan and I am not even sure if we will even reach that point in the show.

I think the press is a lot easier to deal with in LA than in the UK.  Harry and Megan are solid B list in LA.  Gives them more freedom.

[Trillian]

I considered where to post this - in many ways it belongs in s4,ep10, but it contains the shocking spoiler of Diana’s death so I’m doing it here. 
 

I am not a monarchist, but, as a citizen of a certain age of a Commonwealth nation, I understand it. I never had any sympathy for the Queen or her parasitic family until Diana died and there was a shocking public outcry for HMQ to ignore so many long-standing conventions in honour of someone who had spent years trying to destroy the very institution to which the Queen had dedicated her life (to paraphrase Tony Blair in The Queen).  I think this season touched on that in a beautifully subtle way and may have set it up for future seasons‘ themes. Those who fight The Crown do so at their peril.  Thatcher takes on the Queen, and the Crown survives while she goes down to political defeat. Various family members struggle to find their own place but ultimately give in to the Crown as “the oxygen we breathe”.  And Diana took on the Crown and may have won the affection of the public but...

at her funeral, after all the grandstanding and Elton John’s bastardization of his beautiful ode to Marilyn Monroe, and Earl Spencer publicly slamming the BRF, the final hymn was ... “God Save the Queen”.  

The Crown always wins.  It’s a fascinating theme. 
 

[PeterPirate]

6 hours ago, meatball77 said:

I think the press is a lot easier to deal with in LA than in the UK.  Harry and Megan are solid B list in LA.  Gives them more freedom.

Plus, Americans just spent the last 12 months showing that they believe in making money, and in allowing everyone a seat at the table regardless of one's level of melanin.  

[Growsonwalls]

I kind of wonder if King George's early demise was calamitous in more ways than one. He seems to have been an exceptionally kind and gentle man. I wonder if the growing pains that Elizabeth children went through (and are still going through) would have been different had King George been there for longer. Elizabeth might have had more time to spend with her kids, Margaret certainly would have been happier, and Elizabeth's kids would have had another father figure other than Philip. 

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I kind of wonder if King George's early demise was calamitous in more ways than one. He seems to have been an exceptionally kind and gentle man. I wonder if the growing pains that Elizabeth children went through (and are still going through) would have been different had King George been there for longer. Elizabeth might have had more time to spend with her kids, Margaret certainly would have been happier, and Elizabeth's kids would have had another father figure other than Philip. 

That just made me wonder.  Was the Queen Mother always a drunk, or did that just start after her husband died?

[Growsonwalls]

38 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

That just made me wonder.  Was the Queen Mother always a drunk, or did that just start after her husband died?

Upper class women of her generation drank a lot. Partly out of boredom -- they were not expected to be anything other than charming hostesses. I think the Queen Mum probably took a liking to whiskey early in her life. Back in the day no one would have called it "alcoholic" -- just a woman who "needed her spirits." 

[swanpride]

We also need to remember that the attitude of Alcohol changed over time. For a long time, it was just part of the livestyle, and you weren't considered an alcoholic as long as you didn't act out in public and didn't start drinking before a specific time of the day. Back then, they didn't understand the notion of period drinker, people who are perfectly able to hold on a job, but spend every evening drinking. You basically wouldn't peg them as alcoholic until the moment you enter their kitchen and see bunches of empty bottles (and yes, I am speaking out of experience).

 

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Trillian said:

I considered where to post this - in many ways it belongs in s4,ep10, but it contains the shocking spoiler of Diana’s death so I’m doing it here. 
 

I am not a monarchist, but, as a citizen of a certain age of a Commonwealth nation, I understand it. I never had any sympathy for the Queen or her parasitic family until Diana died and there was a shocking public outcry for HMQ to ignore so many long-standing conventions in honour of someone who had spent years trying to destroy the very institution to which the Queen had dedicated her life (to paraphrase Tony Blair in The Queen).  I think this season touched on that in a beautifully subtle way and may have set it up for future seasons‘ themes. Those who fight The Crown do so at their peril.  Thatcher takes on the Queen, and the Crown survives while she goes down to political defeat. Various family members struggle to find their own place but ultimately give in to the Crown as “the oxygen we breathe”.  And Diana took on the Crown and may have won the affection of the public but...

at her funeral, after all the grandstanding and Elton John’s bastardization of his beautiful ode to Marilyn Monroe, and Earl Spencer publicly slamming the BRF, the final hymn was ... “God Save the Queen”.  

The Crown always wins.  It’s a fascinating theme. 
 

Thatcher's defeat had other reasons. Yet, remember what Elizabeth said to Blair in The Queen: even if he was popular now, his time to fall would come sooner or later, just as to other Prime Ministers. (Compared with them, however, Thatcher had a long tenure.)

"The Crown always wins" - but the monarch doesn't, as Edward VIII experienced to his cost. It's about the institution, not about a person, however popular.

[cambridgeguy]

7 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I kind of wonder if King George's early demise was calamitous in more ways than one. He seems to have been an exceptionally kind and gentle man. I wonder if the growing pains that Elizabeth children went through (and are still going through) would have been different had King George been there for longer. Elizabeth might have had more time to spend with her kids, Margaret certainly would have been happier, and Elizabeth's kids would have had another father figure other than Philip. 

I still wonder how Elizabeth could have been so close to her father and so distant to her own kids.  Compare the pilot episode where George tells her he called her in just to hang out - she lights up.  When Elizabeth tries to hang out with her kids they immediately call Philip and wonder what she's up to.

The Margaret/Townsend things is also a big what if.  Would George, the hero who helped lead the commonwealth through WWII, been able to get that approved?  The show certainly presents this as the major turning point in her life.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

I still wonder how Elizabeth could have been so close to her father and so distant to her own kids.  Compare the pilot episode where George tells her he called her in just to hang out - she lights up.  When Elizabeth tries to hang out with her kids they immediately call Philip and wonder what she's up to.

 

Elizabeth's coldness and distance to her children is something the show has emphasized, but is most likely exaggerated.   That is the story Peter Morgan has chosen to tell.  It doesn't jibe with the established facts, and is also pretty inconsistent in the show.   When they are at Balmoral in episode 2, they all get along and Elizabeth is an active participant in the festivities.   I found the episode introducing Edward and Andrew to be extremely clunky.  Then in episode 10, the whole family is getting along except for Diana.  

[Growsonwalls]

In real life Elizabeth had drawn up papers greenlighting the Margaret and Townsend marriage with an annual pension and arrangements for Margaret to still keep her titles. But Margarets feelings for Townsend waned by then.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[bijoux]

On 11/25/2020 at 9:51 PM, Roseanna said:

How about 2002? The Queen's sister died in February and her mother died in March (two devasting loss for her) and then there was the Golden Jubilee which showed that she had gained the people's love and admiration.

I think that would be a logical conclusion since the show started with the beginning of her reign. 

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Elizabeth's coldness and distance to her children is something the show has emphasized, but is most likely exaggerated.   That is the story Peter Morgan has chosen to tell.  It doesn't jibe with the established facts, and is also pretty inconsistent in the show.   When they are at Balmoral in episode 2, they all get along and Elizabeth is an active participant in the festivities.   I found the episode introducing Edward and Andrew to be extremely clunky.  Then in episode 10, the whole family is getting along except for Diana.  

I think it mostly comes from things Charles has said, specifically in his authorized biographies or interviews.  That and photos over the years, for example after returning from very long trips and basically ignoring her children, no hugs, etc.

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

In real life Elizabeth had drawn up papers greenlighting yhe Margaret and Townsend marriage with an annual pension and arrangements for Margaret to still keep her titles. But Margarets feelings for Townsend waned by then.

Really?  Do you have any links to that information?  I'm fairly certain Elizabeth would have taken care of her financially out of her own pocket, but I do think it was true that she would have to give up her titles and privileges as an HRH.

[bluphoenix451]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I think it mostly comes from things Charles has said, specifically in his authorized biographies or interviews.  That and photos over the years, for example after returning from very long trips and basically ignoring her children, no hugs, etc.

Really?  Do you have any links to that information?  I'm fairly certain Elizabeth would have taken care of her financially out of her own pocket, but I do think it was true that she would have to give up her titles and privileges as an HRH.

I'm not the original poster, but here is one article https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38032464 which says:

"But in fact, papers available in the National Archives since 2004 show that the Queen and Eden drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her civil list allowance of £6,000 a year plus another £9,000 on marriage. She could live in this country and even continue with public duties if the public approved, as was highly likely.

However, she would have to renounce her rights of succession and those of her children."

and

"One mystery is why the princess herself, only three days after the final draft of the proposal was produced, announced on 31 October 1955 that she would not be marrying Townsend after all.

A clue may come in a letter in the files, from the princess herself to Eden in August 1955. She says she will see Townsend in October: "It is only by seeing him in this way that I feel I can properly decide whether I can marry him or not." This letter indicates perhaps that her determination to marry him was not quite as strong as has been believed."

I also think more details about this were posted back when the story line originally aired on the show.

[Growsonwalls]

Important to note that even though Diana was a more hands-on parent William and Harry were still very close to their governess Tiggy Legg-Bourke. Tiggy was invited to their weddings, the christenings of their children, and Tiggy is the godmother of Archie. 

I think the elite British class still very much believes that the day-to-day parenting work is best left to the help. Both Archie and George/Charlotte/Louis have full-time live-in nannies.

ETA: I also don't think the real life relationship between Elizabeth and Margaret was as chilly as depicted on the show. Both the Queen Mum and Elizabeth seemed genuinely heartbroken when Margaret passed. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[swanpride]

Honestly, the Press back then couldn't really decide what it wanted...they complained that Diana took her children with her everywhere she went (at least until they were in school), and then they went and complained that Fergie was a terrible mother for NOT having her children with her all the time.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I think it mostly comes from things Charles has said, specifically in his authorized biographies or interviews.  That and photos over the years, for example after returning from very long trips and basically ignoring her children, no hugs, etc.

She didn't ignore Charles when she returned home, but said that it was not his turn to greet her when he reached out his hand. 

As for hugging and kissing in public, every culture, country, class and time has its own habits. Maybe the British wouldn't have won their empire without their stiff upper lift?    

8 hours ago, bluphoenix451 said:

I'm not the original poster, but here is one article https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38032464 which says:

"But in fact, papers available in the National Archives since 2004 show that the Queen and Eden drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her civil list allowance of £6,000 a year plus another £9,000 on marriage. She could live in this country and even continue with public duties if the public approved, as was highly likely.

However, she would have to renounce her rights of succession and those of her children."

and

"One mystery is why the princess herself, only three days after the final draft of the proposal was produced, announced on 31 October 1955 that she would not be marrying Townsend after all.

A clue may come in a letter in the files, from the princess herself to Eden in August 1955. She says she will see Townsend in October: "It is only by seeing him in this way that I feel I can properly decide whether I can marry him or not." This letter indicates perhaps that her determination to marry him was not quite as strong as has been believed."

I also think more details about this were posted back when the story line originally aired on the show.

I have read this article also.

I think it's like the old saying goes: if you have to chose between the truth and legend, print the legend.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Roseanna

[Umbelina]

4 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

She didn't ignore Charles when she returned home, but said that it was not his turn to greet her when he reached out his hand. 

As for hugging and kissing in public, every culture, country, class and time has its own habits. Maybe the British wouldn't have won their empire without their stiff upper lift?    

I'm talking about how Charles felt, and said he felt.  Toddler don't generally know what is proper etiquette, but they do know how they feel.  Charles' feelings have been made clear, by Charles.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I'm talking about how Charles felt, and said he felt.  Toddler don't generally know what is proper etiquette, but they do know how they feel.  Charles' feelings have been made clear, by Charles.

Yes, he blamed his parents and pitied himself in public in his forties.

Almost all people have childhood traumas of some kind, but they tell them to peer group or, if they are grave enough, to the therapist. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Roseanna
adding a word

[Paloma]

On 11/17/2020 at 6:40 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I think a traditional royal marriage is probably something like Philip and Elizabeth (!!!) Jennings of The Americans. Like the royals Philip and Elizabeth Jennings were together because of duty, love of country, shared interests, their kids. They cared about each other and were sexually compatible (well most of the time). They had a fairly strong bond but romantic love was not the basis of their marriage.

I love this comparison! Maybe it wasn't coincidence that the writers of The Americans gave the couple those names, LOL.

On 11/19/2020 at 4:48 PM, Pallas said:

He proposed to Anna Wallace twice: nicknamed "Whiplash" and who Anne refers to in the show as a "heck of a horsewoman."  Here she is at the time.

Interesting--she looks like a cross between Diana and Camilla.

[mledawn]

On 11/25/2020 at 2:11 AM, Roseanna said:

Charles told during their Diana engagement about *all* his former girlfriends. To him it was quite natural that he was still friendly with them and he had never been sexually jealous. He promised Diana that she would be the only woman in his life and as a man of honor he believed that his word was enough.  

However, Diana was only 19 and very insecure because of her insecure childhood. 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but she very clearly had a right to be insecure - he was having an emotional and then physical affair with Camilla. Just because Diana was paranoid doesn't mean she wasn't right.

[Growsonwalls]

Think the reason the BRF is so ticked about this season of The Crown is because the adult mistakes of the Queen's children reflect poorly on HER as both a monarch and a parent. As a parent because spoiling Andrew and letting him run wild and neglecting Charles seems to have affected both Charles and Andrew's decision-making in negative ways. As a monarch because "the crown" became constant tabloid fodder.

The prickly/unflattering portraits of Margaret and Philip could be written off as creative license, and also they don't reflect poorly on the Queen herself. Margaret and Philip were grown adults. 

I also think that in the earlier seasons the show had this studied period drama feel. But the 4th season has events that people still remember vividly and people who are very much alive and active on social media.

[JennyMominFL]

On 11/21/2020 at 12:35 PM, 3 is enough said:

 

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

 

It wasnt a stunt.

I became HIV pos in 1990 at 20. The stigma was huge. That simple gesture and those photos really were like an earthquake for people like me. You cannot understand what it meant to see someone hug a person with AIDS especially a princess. I wondered if they would show that and even though it was brief, it got me choked up. Diana also held hands with a man with AIDS in 1987

Diana continued to support that organization. She kept in touch with some of the people involved . She She gave speeches about how it was safe to touch people with AIDS. One of the women from the NY hospital who she stayed in touch with Diana was at Diana’s funeral. Whatever her flaws were, this was real.

Edited November 29, 2020 by JennyMominFL

[swanpride]

It could have been both. It might not have been as spontan as it seemed to be, but there is no doubt that Diana cared about the cause, and IF she planned that picture, she did it to set a sign, not just for the publicity. In the end, it does matter if it was planned or not, the gesture meant a lot for a lot of people.

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Think the reason the BRF is so ticked about this season of The Crown is because the adult mistakes of the Queen's children reflect poorly on HER as both a monarch and a parent. As a parent because spoiling Andrew and letting him run wild and neglecting Charles seems to have affected both Charles and Andrew's decision-making in negative ways.

It's because of Charles views in Dimbleby's book Elizabeth and Philip are labelled as bad parents, but Anne (who had a different character) defended them.

Nowadays many ordinary couples dirvorce, and the only difference with royal couples are that they are allowed to divorce. Perhaps even more important thing is that they are allowed to live together before marriage.

Also Winston Churchill had parents who didn't care for him (her nanny was the only one who visited him at school), but he still adored them. Plus, he seems to be a rare Prime Ministers who was faithful to his wife.

[PeterPirate]

I have no doubt Diana "knew what she was doing" by staging those photo-ops.  But I think that is minor compared to the fact that hugging someone with AIDS was considered dangerous at the time.  In the eyes of the public, Diana was literally putting her own life at risk.  I think the previous occasion a member of the BRF faced genuine peril was when George VI and Mary stayed at Buckingham Palace during the Blitz.  And I think one has to go all the way back to Richard III for the next precedent.  George, Mary, and Richard also knew what they were doing.  

[meatball77]

On 11/27/2020 at 11:08 PM, Growsonwalls said:

 

I think the elite British class still very much believes that the day-to-day parenting work is best left to the help. Both Archie and George/Charlotte/Louis have full-time live-in nannies.

 

Nannies in the beginning and then boarding school starting when they are still small children.  Your parents become people you just see on holidays when you are eight.  It was a big deal that Harry and William were visited by Diana on weekends (which is still absurd to me at that age).  Charles would have gone months without seeing his parents, becoming essentially a guest in the house before he was twelve.  It seems like that would really screw with your ability to form relationships. 

George is getting to the age when his dad was sent away to boarding school.  It'll be interesting to see if they do (or when), they currently have him in a school that's far from traditional.

 

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I have no doubt Diana "knew what she was doing" by staging those photo-ops.  But I think that is minor compared to the fact that hugging someone with AIDS was considered dangerous at the time.  In the eyes of the public, Diana was literally putting her own life at risk.  I think the previous occasion a member of the BRF faced genuine peril was when George VI and Mary stayed at Buckingham Palace during the Blitz.  And I think one has to go all the way back to Richard III for the next precedent.  George, Mary, and Richard also knew what they were doing.  

I suppose Diana knew that was *not* dangerous to touch an AIDS patient. (She would be stupid to act in the same way during the Covid epidemic.)

Regarding George VI and Queen Mary, they were fighting about their position. When they first visited East End, they were booed at, and it was only after Buckingham Palace was bombed, they became popular. (I suppose they had a good bomb shelter.)

As for Richard III, he put all in one attack. If he had fled (like he had earlier with his brother Edward), he could have fought in another day.

[dubbel zout]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

George VI and Mary

George VI and Elizabeth. Queen Mary was his mother.

Does it matter if Diana hugging the little boy with AIDS was calculated or planned? The whole point of her visit was to bring attention to the treatment of AIDS patients. Hugging him showed that not only was AIDS not transmittable by mere touch but that the people suffering from this terrible disease are worthy of affection.

[PeterPirate]

51 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

George VI and Elizabeth. Queen Mary was his mother.

Does it matter if Diana hugging the little boy with AIDS was calculated or planned? The whole point of her visit was to bring attention to the treatment of AIDS patients. Hugging him showed that not only was AIDS not transmittable by mere touch but that the people suffering from this terrible disease are worthy of affection.

I really have to stop making these stupid name errors.  And I hope I didn't come across as anything less than fully admiring of Diana for what she did.  Just to make sure, I dug up one of my old posts on the subject.  

 

On 5/3/2019 at 6:59 AM, PeterPirate said:

I think the pictures of Diana hugging people with AIDS were worth hundreds (ok, ok, dozens) of appearances where the royal member just sat or stood or gave a small speech.  I am reminded that during the Blitz, the royal family stayed in London, and after Buckingham Palace was bombed, the Queen said "Now we are able to look the East End in the eye".  

 

[Growsonwalls]

I don't think the point is whether Diana personally knew that you don't get AIDS from hugging. I think it was a breakthrough because the royals learned that a chilly remove wasn't the only acceptable public temperature. Today we think nothing of Kate going into a children's hospital and hugging the sick kids. If she were to go to a children's hospital, accept flowers, and do the royal wave then the press would be all over her for seeming cold and out of touch. 

And I think that while Diana could be manipulative in the way she handled her public relations her compassion and empathy for those less fortunate was genuine. I've worked in quite a few political campaigns and can tell you that it's actually hard to fake caring and empathy on a long-term basis.

[ruby24]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

I don't think the point is whether Diana personally knew that you don't get AIDS from hugging. I think it was a breakthrough because the royals learned that a chilly remove wasn't the only acceptable public temperature. Today we think nothing of Kate going into a children's hospital and hugging the sick kids. If she were to go to a children's hospital, accept flowers, and do the royal wave then the press would be all over her for seeming cold and out of touch. 

And I think that while Diana could be manipulative in the way she handled her public relations her compassion and empathy for those less fortunate was genuine. I've worked in quite a few political campaigns and can tell you that it's actually hard to fake caring and empathy on a long-term basis.

This. It is, and for a person her age? What was she, 26? I think it was genuine.

[JennyMominFL]

The thing is, the hug was in the USA in 1990. The handshake and earliest hospital visits were in 1987. I can tell you that in 1990 people were afraid to touch or hug me. Not many people, but some. People didnt want their children around me. 1987 to 1990 was  a huge amount of time when it comes to learning about AIDS. What she did then mattered, no matter the reason

I wont get in to the things some people believed about AIDS in the late 80s and w Early 90s. I STILL encounter the ignorance on occasion today. I remember the newspaper articles and fear in 87 when she started seeing AIDS patients.

I truly feel that my life as an HIV pos woman in the 90s would have been more difficult if not for Princess Diana

This is a great article about what she did in 87

“How Princess Diana changed attitudes to Aids

In the mid-80s, HIV/Aids terrified the world because of a lack of understanding as well as misinformation.

In April 1987, Princess Diana opened the UK's first purpose built HIV/Aids unit that exclusively cared for patients infected with the virus, at London Middlesex Hospital.

In front of the world's media, Princess Diana shook the hand of a man suffering with the illness. 

She did so without gloves, publicly challenging the notion that HIV/Aids was passed from person to person by touch. 

She showed in a single gesture that this was a condition needing compassion and understanding, not fear and ignorance.

John O'Reilly was a nurse on the ward at the time of the Princess of Wales' visit.

He spoke to Witness about a landmark moment in the fight against HIV/Aids.}

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-39490507

Edited November 29, 2020 by JennyMominFL

[Anothermi]

On 11/29/2020 at 9:07 AM, dubbel zout said:

Does it matter if Diana hugging the little boy with AIDS was calculated or planned? The whole point of her visit was to bring attention to the treatment of AIDS patients. Hugging him showed that not only was AIDS not transmittable by mere touch but that the people suffering from this terrible disease are worthy of affection.

Agree with this 100%.

On 11/29/2020 at 1:23 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I don't think the point is whether Diana personally knew that you don't get AIDS from hugging. I think it was a breakthrough because the royals learned that a chilly remove wasn't the only acceptable public temperature. Today we think nothing of Kate going into a children's hospital and hugging the sick kids. If she were to go to a children's hospital, accept flowers, and do the royal wave then the press would be all over her for seeming cold and out of touch. 

And I think that while Diana could be manipulative in the way she handled her public relations her compassion and empathy for those less fortunate was genuine. I've worked in quite a few political campaigns and can tell you that it's actually hard to fake caring and empathy on a long-term basis.

Re: bolded part

I don't think it was as much a breakthrough for the contemporaneous Royals of the time as for the Public, who learned that a "Royal" can actually show feelings as well as that AIDS wasn't a "Gay" disease and that you couldn't catch it by hugging. It seems to be the following generation of Royals who learned from her example. 

I believe that the NYC visit was just an event that Peter Morgan chose to hang a plot point on. Diana, as with all the Royals, chose charities to support and AIDS/HIV was one of hers. She'd gotten a lot of press in Britain for shaking hands (bare handed) with AIDS patients in a new ward just opened in London back in 1987. The NYC visit was 2 years later.  

I thought the show portrayed her as kind of clueless during the NYC visit, but this would have been planned in advance - with her input and awareness. Promoting their personal charities is a regular part of Royal duties. It was disingenuous to set up Charles as getting all pissy about Diana continuing to shock the public by physically interacting with AIDS patients as if they were normal people.

Found another good article about the 1987 visit to the new AIDS ward in London and Diana's overall work for this issue.

It was ground breaking!

ETA: I spent so much time fact checking my post that @JennyMominFL covered them all! Thanks.

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Anothermi
spelling

[Umbelina]

I agree, and as I've mentioned before, a close friend of mine was very active in the AIDS movement, specifically to get "cocktail drugs" approved for use with AIDS/HIV patients.

He told me he met Diana on two occasions alone in hospitals at night, no cameras, no press, just holding the hand and talking with dying patients, who rarely had any other visitors due the the massive fear of "catching it."  Others he worked with shared similar stories of their own.

It had a massive impact when she hugged that child, or held AIDS patients hands.  It opened the eyes of so many people around the world, which, at least for some patients, improved the odds of friends or family daring to visit them.

[suomi]

I clearly recall Fagan's trespass at BP. My good friend and I were great fans of Her Maj and, because she was not harmed, we entertained ourselves the morning it was reported by insinuating ourselves into the encounter and imagining the banter. The encounter was reported as lasting 10 minutes and consisting of a calm conversation which took place between the Queen's two attempts to ring for assistance. Even after Fagan was finally escorted from the room by a maid and a footman, police did not arrive for another 8 minutes. 

Suicidal ideation on Mr Fagan's part was reported, which was related to the visible blood smears. I'm not clear on why he has joined in with the media's false memory which is currently being touted, that there was no conversation. 1982 links from BBC and Scotland Yard (among others) are available but you have to travel several pages into search results to see them. 

A man, who was subsequently found to be Michael Fagan (born in London on 8 August 1948) was seen on the railings near the gates to the ambassadors' entrance at about 6:45 A.M. Fagan climbed over the railings, jumped down and went behind a temporary canvas awning which had been put up next to the ambassadors' entrance.

He entered a room on the ground floor through an unlocked window. This room housed the Royal Stamp Collection, and as all the doors were locked, he was denied access to the rest of the building. Fagan came out again through the same window.

He then went to a drainpipe in a corner of the building where the ambassadors' entrance portico joins the main building line. He used the drainpipe to climb to the flat roof above.

Once on this roof, he went to a place which is only about two feet from the main palace building. After removing his sandals and socks, he got across onto a narrow ledge which gave him access, through an unlocked window in an office of the Master of the Household, Vice Adm. Sir Peter Ashmore, which had been opened for the day by a housemaid.

For the next 15 minutes or so, he moved through the corridors of the palace unchallenged. One member of the palace domestic staff remembers seeing him, but his behavior was not sufficiently suspicious to cause her to raise the alarm.

He claims to have found his way to the private apartments by ''following the pictures.'' Fagan entered the private apartments and went first to an anteroom, where he broke into several pieces an ordinary glass ashtray.

Fagan entered Her Majesty's bedroom at about 7:15 A.M. carrying one piece of the broken ashtray, with which he has said that he intended to slash his wrists in the presence of Her Majesty. He claimed that he had not entered the palace with this intention but that it formed in his mind for the first time when he saw the ashtray.

He went across the room and opened curtains close to Her Majesty's bed. Her Majesty pressed the night alarm bell. In accordance with his instructions, the police sergeant who is in the corridor outside at night had gone off duty at about 6 A.M., when members of the domestic staff had come on duty.

The footman, in accordance with the normal day routine, was outside exercising the dogs, and the maid was cleaning in another room with the door closed so that the noise of her work would not disturb Her Majesty. So the night alarm bell, which is connected to the corridor outside the Queen's room and to the pantry, did not attract anyone's attention.

Her Majesty used her bedside telephone to instruct the palace telephonist to send police to her bedroom. The telephonist then telephoned the police lodge, and this call was received there at about 7:18 A.M.

Her Majesty made another telephone call about six minutes later since a police officer had still not arrived. Before police officers arrived, Her Majesty attracted the attention of the maid, and together they ushered Fagan into a nearby pantry on the pretext of supplying him with a cigarette.

They were joined there by the footman, who had returned from exercising the dogs. While Her Majesty kept the dogs away as the man was getting agitated, the footman helped to keep Fagan in the pantry by supplying him with cigarettes until first one and then another police officer arrived and removed him.

The piece of glass was subsequently found on Her Majesty's bed. There was a bloodstain on the bedclothes which came from a superficial cut on Fagan's right thumb caused by the broken glass.

Mr. Dellow's conclusion is that the basic cause of the breakdown in security was a series of failures by police officers to act properly. It appears that Fagan was seen on the railings by a police officer, who passed a message via another police officer to the control room inside the palace, and that there were failures of communication between officers within the control room at the time.

While he was in the stamp room, Fagan set off an alarm which was not acted upon. Finally, Mr. Dellow thinks that the response to Her Majesty's call for a police officer to go to her bedroom was completely inadequate. 

Mr. Dellow has emphasized that if police officers had been alert and competent, Fagan would have been apprehended well before he got close to the private apartments.

But his examination of the incident has also revealed a series of other failures which contributed to the outcome. These include an alarm beam in the wrong place, an alarm beam that was out of alignment and therefore not working properly, and a place where an additional alarm beam would have been useful.

In addition, devices could have been employed to make it more difficult to climb up drainpipes. Windows should have been properly secured. The arrangements henceforward should include a police officer on protection duty in the private apartments at all times. The wiring of an alarm button connected to the police control room from Her Majesty's bedroom was only partially completed. 

Mr. Dellow's report raises questions about the motivation and professionalism of the uniformed police officers at Buckingham Palace. For much of each 24-hour period the rank of the senior officer immediately available is a sergeant. The plainclothes officers who protect members of the royal family are in A-1 branch, whose head was Commander Trestrail, Her Majesty the Queen's police officer. The uniformed officers are part of A District. The most senior officer based at the palace is a chief inspector; more senior officers up to and including commander, A District, are based at Cannon Row police station. This divided organization has not encouraged the professionalism and dedication that would have prevented the incident on 9 July. 

A detective superintendent is carrying out a discipline inquiry under the direction of Mr. Dellow. Four officers are the subject of this inquiry at present, and it will be extended to include any other officers as appropriate who appear to have neglected their duty or otherwise acted improperly. One officer has been suspended from duty, and two officers have been removed from duty at Buckingham Palace.

The level of police patrolling outside the palace has been considerably enhanced, and a new fixed post has been established at the ambassadors' entrance. There is now a 24-hour police presence in the corridor by the private apartments. Five uniformed inspectors have been posted to the palace so that an inspector duty officer can be present at all times. The plans for response by each police post in the event of an emergency are being reviewed and those for response to Her Majesty improved immediately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/07/14/queen-fagan-reportedly-had-10-minute-chat/665cd040-6fdd-4892-99bd-b3dd59c1fe86/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/9/newsid_2498000/2498731.stm

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/22/world/text-of-scotland-yard-s-report-on-july-9-intrusion-into-buckingham-palace.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/14/world/intruder-and-queen-reportedly-chatted-about-royal-family.html

 

[suomi]

Diana's maternal grandparents were Maurice Burke Roche, 4th Baron Fermoy and (Scotswoman) Ruth Gill. 

Born in 1885, he was a naturalized American citizen with a $3 million inheritance from his multi-millionaire maternal grandfather (American stockbroker Franklin Work) which stipulated that he would assume his mother's birth name (Work) and would not travel to Europe or marry a European. He was raised in America and graduated from Harvard in 1909; the stipulations to his inheritance were overturned in court in 1911 after his maternal grandfather died. He succeeded to his father's Irish peerage in 1920.

Lord and Lady Fermoy began leasing Park House at Sandringham from King George V during the late 1920s or early 1930s, due to Lord Fermoy's close friendship with the Duke of York (Bertie). Diana's mother Frances was born in Park House in 1936 on the same day George V died at Sandringham. 

In 1954 at age 18 Frances Roche married Lord Althorp (Johnnie) in Westminster Abbey; some sources cite her as the youngest WA bride in 50 years. Elizabeth, Philip, Margaret and the Queen Mother attended the wedding and Johnnie began leasing Park House from QE II. Johnnie (born 1924), Elizabeth (born 1926), and Margaret (born 1930) were childhood friends because their families were so very close.

Lord Fermoy died in 1955; in 1956 the Queen Mother appointed his widow as Extra Woman of the Bedchamber, and then four years later promoted her to Woman of the Bedchamber (a position she held for 33 years until her death in 1993). She was not in favor of and did not promote the marriage of Charles and Diana. 

Diana was born in Park House in 1961; her childhood playmates at Sandringham were Prince Andrew (born 1960) and Prince Edward (born 1964). Johnnie and Frances separated in 1967 and divorced in 1969. He lived at Park House until 1975 when he succeeded as Earl Spencer and moved to Althorp when Diana was nearly 14. 

On the other side of the family tree Diana's paternal grandmother Countess Spencer (Cynthia, Johnnie's mother) was appointed Lady of the Bedchamber by Queen Elizabeth in 1937. This continued after Elizabeth became Queen Mother in 1952 and Cynthia remained in this post until her death in 1972. 

In rank, First Lady of the Bedchamber has precedence over a Lady of the Bedchamber; the Women of the Bedchamber defer to the Ladies of the Bedchamber. All are in regular attendance.

None of this is to say that Diana understood or was prepared for the ins and outs of royal life. 

When William assumes the throne he will be the first English king who is 1/16 American. 

June 14, 2013

Once upon a time, a woman from India named Eliza Kewark was shunned by her family because of her race.

The father of her child referred to her as the "housekeeper" and the "purported mother" of their daughter, Katharine.

Katharine was sent off without her mother to England, and that's where this story might have ended. But Katherine gave birth to Jane, who gave birth to Ruth, who had another Ruth, who had Frances, who had Diana.

As in Princess Diana.

Which means that Great Britain will, one day, have a monarch with Indian blood, and the Commonwealth will be led by a king with a clear genetic link to its most populous nation.

Eliza Kewark is Prince William's great-great-great-great-great-grandmother. She has long been described as Armenian, but Kewark was at least half-Indian, the genetic ancestry testing company BritainsDNA announced today.

BritainsDNA says it is confident of Kewark's lineage because it traced Williams' mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, which is passed down from mother to child. BritainsDNA took saliva samples from two unnamed members of the royal family and traced it back seven generations to Kewark, who was born around 1790.

Kewark's mtDNA is so rare, BritainsDNA said, that it has only been found in 14 other people, all but one of whom was Indian (the other one was Nepali).

"It is therefore likely that Prince William has not only inherited a small proportion of Indian DNA from Eliza Kewark but her [his?] heirs will also carry it," BritainsDNA said today.

According to the biography "The Real Diana," by Lady Colin Campbell, Kewark's background was known but kept quiet by a family that was full of Europeans descended from royalty.

"Eliza Kewark was a dark-skinned native of Bombay who had lived, without benefit of matrimony, with her great-great-grandfather Theodore Forbes while he worked for the East India Company," The Real Diana reads.

"Unsavory as the taint of illegitimacy was, even at that distance in time, it was nothing compared with the stigma of what was then known as 'colored blood.' Had it been generally known that Ruth [Diana's great-grandmother] and her children were part-Indian, they might never have made good marriages.

"Eliza's true race was therefore expunged from the family tree and she reemerged as an Armenian. This fiction was maintained even when Diana married the Prince of Wales."

https://abcnews.go.com/News/princess-dianas-hidden-ancestral-secret-revealed/story?id=19401903

Edited November 30, 2020 by suomi
typo

[WatchrTina]

On 11/27/2020 at 10:08 PM, Growsonwalls said:

ETA: I also don't think the real life relationship between Elizabeth and Margaret was as chilly as depicted on the show.

That's interesting that you think they are portrayed as chilly.  I never thought that.  I'm always gratified when I see one being helpful to the other in a show of sisterly solidarity, which I feel like we've seen depicted many times.

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

That's interesting that you think they are portrayed as chilly.  I never thought that.  I'm always gratified when I see one being helpful to the other in a show of sisterly solidarity, which I feel like we've seen depicted many times.

I always thought the show made it seem like Elizabeth felt Margaret was a "problem" she had to either solve or tolerate. Didn't they ever have fun moments together as sisters?

[Umbelina]

6 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

That's interesting that you think they are portrayed as chilly.  I never thought that.  I'm always gratified when I see one being helpful to the other in a show of sisterly solidarity, which I feel like we've seen depicted many times.

I think they were "normal" sisters in many ways.  I could fight like crazy with my sister, but still love her like crazy.  Disagreements and different styles don't mean you don't care for each other.

[dubbel zout]

Margaret can be both a problem to solve as well as someone Elizabeth has lunch with regularly.

Showing the sisters having fun would contradict Peter Morgan's insistence that Elizabeth is a humorless shrew.

 

[Umbelina]

6 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Margaret can be both a problem to solve as well as someone Elizabeth has lunch with regularly.

Showing the sisters having fun would contradict Peter Morgan's insistence that Elizabeth is a humorless shrew.

 

I think he kind of dropped the humourless shrew of season 3.  She wasn't that in 1,2, or 4 really.  

I like that they showed the mutual jealousy, due to their strange royal crap, and vastly different opinions on some of that, but at the same time, show the "Hello you!" stuff.