Season 4: History Beyond the Episodes

[dubbel zout]

It took them a few years to reach the point they were at right before Diana died. The fact that they both wanted the best for their sons, and each realized that about the other, probably went a long way to smoothing things over. Not to mention distance from the worst events can often help to put them in persective. Both of them grew up a lot.

I doubt Charles would want to remarry Diana—his ties to Camilla were too strong and entrenched—but wanting a warm relationship with the mother of his children isn't unlikely to me.

[ruby24]

3 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

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.

I TOTALLY get this impression about William and Kate too. Wasn't he also having an affair with her friend or something that was uncovered recently? It appears she's the type who has agreed to accept anything without complaints.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I TOTALLY get this impression about William and Kate too. Wasn't he also having an affair with her friend or something that was uncovered recently? It appears she's the type who has agreed to accept anything without complaints.

He supposedly had an affair with the wife of one of his friends while Kate was pregnant with Louis.  The story was quashed last summer by Kensington Palace in return for leaks about Harry and Meghan.   

The ways the different branches of the royal family use the media to hide their shit while throwing their relatives under the bus fascinates me.  They all have their staff collecting dirt on their relatives and that staff all have direct lines to the papers.  And then the all get together for birthdays and holidays pretending like nothing is wrong.  

[Growsonwalls]

22 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

He supposedly had an affair with the wife of one of his friends while Kate was pregnant with Louis.  The story was quashed last summer by Kensington Palace in return for leaks about Harry and Meghan.   

The ways the different branches of the royal family use the media to hide their shit while throwing their relatives under the bus fascinates me.  They all have their staff collecting dirt on their relatives and that staff all have direct lines to the papers.  And then the all get together for birthdays and holidays pretending like nothing is wrong.  

I think they're like this because in a way their relationship with their family is a job. It's treated as a job from the day they are born. Their family is also their co-workers and supervisors. So yes, there are the normal family bonds. But aren't you sick of your co-workers after many years? Don;t you want to really gossip about them? 

I think in a way the "traditional" royal marriage is probably a healthier approach because everyone knows the expectations. And I think in the beginning Diana probably had a more realistic view of her marriage to Charles. I think she didn't expect that the world would fall in love with her. When she got all the attention, all the adoration, all the publicity, I think that's when her expectations for Charles started to change. Because he should be as crazy about her as billions of people. Right?

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.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Umbelina]

26 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

He supposedly had an affair with the wife of one of his friends while Kate was pregnant with Louis.  The story was quashed last summer by Kensington Palace in return for leaks about Harry and Meghan.   

The ways the different branches of the royal family use the media to hide their shit while throwing their relatives under the bus fascinates me.  They all have their staff collecting dirt on their relatives and that staff all have direct lines to the papers.  And then the all get together for birthdays and holidays pretending like nothing is wrong.  

 

37 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I TOTALLY get this impression about William and Kate too. Wasn't he also having an affair with her friend or something that was uncovered recently? It appears she's the type who has agreed to accept anything without complaints.

I agree that Kate and William seem to have a more "traditional" royal marriage.  She was with him long enough, and she was certainly old enough to know exactly what she was getting into.  I think she's ambitious (and there is nothing at all wrong with that, I'm not saying that as a dig) and she was pretty calculated and smart about landing the future King as her husband.

He cheated on her through most of their rather stormy relationship, and while I'm sure it hurt at times, she could have eventually realized "it's just sex, and honestly who cares?" as long as he isn't flaunting it in her face, as Charles did with Diana.

I also think they really like each other, and William seems to enjoy her family as well, affection open, like his mother.  Sex was a huge draw for him from the moment she modeled that see through dress, so she needn't worry about that.  

He'll probably be more like Philip, mostly discreet, trying not to embarrass his wife in public, and they will have a good marriage, at least by the standards of that circle.  I just think they are both clever enough to cope with their rather odd life.

[Trillian]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

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.

24 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think they're like this because in a way their relationship with their family is a job. It's treated as a job from the day they are born. Their family is also their co-workers and supervisors. So yes, there are the normal family bonds. But aren't you sick of your co-workers after many years? Don;t you want to really gossip about them? 

I think in a way the "traditional" royal marriage is probably a healthier approach because everyone knows the expectations. And I think in the beginning Diana probably had a more realistic view of her marriage to Charles. I think she didn't expect that the world would fall in love with her. When she got all the attention, all the adoration, all the publicity, I think that's when her expectations for Charles started to change. Because he should be as crazy about her as billions of people. Right?

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 think these are important observations. A date with the Heir Apparent isn’t a date:  it’s a job interview and that job is Queen Consort.    It’s a f*cked up notion, but those were the rules (and still are, although publicly modified for the modern audience which prefers to believe in the fairy tale). No one will ever know if Diana really did not know this, although I personally question whether the daughter of the Spencer family really didn’t get that.   She ticked the boxes, she got the job and then decided she didn’t like the job.  My sympathy is rather limited accordingly. 

[Umbelina]

9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

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!

Be sure to watch MY OCTOPUS TEACHER before your free trial expires.  

I'm so happy we got a good/great season of The Crown.  I needed that this year.

[RemoteControlFreak]

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

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

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-crown-the-official-podcast/id1485757121

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Especially Germany's reunification, since the Royals are all of German Ancestry.  Was Diana the first true English person to marry in?  I can't remember, I know I read something ages ago...

Yes, Diana was the first true English person to marry into the British Royal Family since Henry VIII.  The Stuarts were really Scottish, and then came the German Hanovers.

[Roseanna]

 

13 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Especially Germany's reunification, since the Royals are all of German Ancestry.  Was Diana the first true English person to marry in?  I can't remember, I know I read something ages ago...

Thatcher didn't like the German reunification which was natural because it made Germany strong again.

The Queen Mother was from Scotland. Elizabeth Woodiville was married to Edward IV and Anne Neville to Richard III. And of the Henry VII wives Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr were English.  

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, it obviously worked for them, one of the happiest marriages we've seen on this show.

Also, the eighties.  Women were trying very hard to juggle it all, loving wife, homemaker, cook, cleaner, good mother, AND a high powered career, proving they weren't sacrificing their "womanhood" for a career.  

It was exhausting.

Replying from the Balmoral thread.

The show does have Margaret constantly switching between her role as PM with her role as a wife and mother.  We see her more than once pop up to the apartment at Downing Street to make dinner for her cabinet?!?!  No one in their right mind would have expected the previous PMs to do this, but Margaret did.  Was it expected of the spouse of the PM to make dinner for the cabinet when they were pulling an all-nighter?  

I do wonder if this is historically accurate.  Is Margaret also cleaning 10 Downing St as well?  I would think there would be a budget for household staff.  

[swanpride]

Thatcher did more than just "not liking it", she tried to sabotage it. But that was an issue on which she was outsmarted. She went into the battle thinking that she might have to hold off the US (since Bush really liked the idea) but would have Russia and France on her side. But then Germany (which had a really great foreign minister back then - Genscher really deserves more credit for all the work he did) went and first got France on its side (most likely by agreeing to the Euro, nothing official though) and then to Russia and basically bought Germany back. After that Thatcher had no choice but to agree, and she didn't even get anything out of the agreement. The whole thing must have been one of the biggest losses in her political career, especially since she despised the Germans - and not just because of the war. Ideologically, it must have been difficult for her to deal with conservatives who insisted on sticking to manufacturing and social aspects for their economic model.

 

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Replying from the Balmoral thread.

The show does have Margaret constantly switching between her role as PM with her role as a wife and mother.  We see her more than once pop up to the apartment at Downing Street to make dinner for her cabinet?!?!  No one in their right mind would have expected the previous PMs to do this, but Margaret did.  Was it expected of the spouse of the PM to make dinner for the cabinet when they were pulling an all-nighter?  

I do wonder if this is historically accurate.  Is Margaret also cleaning 10 Downing St as well?  I would think there would be a budget for household staff.  

I've been reading various reviews and listening to interviews, and yes, apparently it was all perfectly true.  You'd think the PM had a lot of money, but in reality, they don't, unless they were born with it.  The rooms at 10 Downing are in no way lush and lavish with tons of servants around, but kind of cramped and dowdy, with offices as well.  I think they have a housekeeper for cleaning, and then all the government aides, but not all the rest, or even a cook.  

He answered some of those questions in commentary on The Queen as well, specifically a scene where the PM's wife is cooking fish sticks in a small kitchen for the PM and kids, and another where it's his turn to do the washing up.  He insisted that was accurate.

22 hours ago, Trillian said:

I think these are important observations. A date with the Heir Apparent isn’t a date:  it’s a job interview and that job is Queen Consort.    It’s a f*cked up notion, but those were the rules (and still are, although publicly modified for the modern audience which prefers to believe in the fairy tale). No one will ever know if Diana really did not know this, although I personally question whether the daughter of the Spencer family really didn’t get that.   She ticked the boxes, she got the job and then decided she didn’t like the job.  My sympathy is rather limited accordingly. 

They aren't in the 18th century anymore.

Bertie and Elizabeth were said to be completely in love, and remained so throughout their marriage.

Elizabeth was smitten with Phillip and moved heaven and earth and the crown to have him.  I don't know how much he actually loved her (I've heard he preferred "the pretty one" Margaret at first) but his Uncle Dickie was bound and determined to hook up Phillip with power and with royalty.

So, that's two generations of "love matches" right there, and immediately preceding Charles, the future King's choosing and marrying a wife.  

Things evolve, but the British people certainly knew of the previous two crown wearings marrying for love as well as duty.  Diana, the romantic teenager, who was in those circles, knew that as well.  So I think a naive virgin with dreams of a happy family life and a handsome prince certainly didn't realize this was a "job interview" until it was much too late.  

Charles knew what he was doing and what he felt.  He had the option of being honest with Diana.  He chose to lie, and to take false vows in the church he is destined to head one day.  It's as cowardly and deceptive and weasel like as it gets.

Then again, the Queen may outlive him, I can't see her abdicating for the likes of him.

[dubbel zout]

19 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Then again, the Queen may outlive him, I can't see her abdicating for the likes of him.

She won't abdicate for the likes of anyone. She will die on the job, as she's promised to do.

[Growsonwalls]

She's not going to abdicate but she's also not going to make him Not King. The Queen believes in tradition and hierarchy. He's the rightful heir, so he'll be king ... someday. 

[jschoolgirl]

On 11/16/2020 at 7:38 PM, Jeeves said:

I have read speculation that if she had lived longer, she and Charles might have eventually ended up as friends,

I've read that they did indeed become friends and that Diana urged Charles to make an honest woman of Camilla.

[AZChristian]

20 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

She's not going to abdicate but she's also not going to make him Not King. The Queen believes in tradition and hierarchy. He's the rightful heir, so he'll be king ... someday. 

Windsor women live a lot longer than the men in the family. Charles is already older than most of the male rulers were when they died. I think there's a real possibility that William may be the next ruler.

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Windsor women live a lot longer than the men in the family. Charles is already older than most of the male rulers were when they died. I think there's a real possibility that William may be the next ruler.

I would agree, but Philip also outlived those men.  I think Elizabeth will not have a long widowhood.   It's easier to make that particular adjustment in your 60s or 70s,  even 80s, than your 90s. 

[Growsonwalls]

22 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Windsor women live a lot longer than the men in the family. Charles is already older than most of the male rulers were when they died. I think there's a real possibility that William may be the next ruler.

Yeah but his parents are 99 and 94. So he might have inherited some longevity genes from them. 

Also, both him and William got covid but apparently he barely had symptoms while William got extremely sick and required urgent medical care. Charles is a healthy guy.

I think if the Queen could choose an heir she might choose Princess Royal Anne. Or Edward and Sophie. All of them know how to stay out of the limelight. But she's a traditionalist and she'll make Charles the King when she passes away. 

I read that the Queen eventually wants to bring Harry and Meghan back. 

p.s. by the time Diana died she was in a different stage of her life than the woman who was angered by Camila. She had both a serious bf (the Pakistani doctor) and more casual side pieces like Dodi. She was also traveling a lot and needed Charles for childcare. 

Diana dying so young kind of kept her in amber for her fans around the world. But had she lived, I think she would have remarried and been a lot happier.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[3 is enough]

18 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I read that the Queen eventually wants to bring Harry and Meghan back. 

But what if they don't want to come back?  I think Meghan thought she understood the realities of the royal life and as time passed she found that she really did not. It's a very difficult transition for anyone not born to the life and it was compounded by the fact that she is American and biracial.  Harry went along with her decision because he wants her to be happy but I do think he misses certain aspects of the life.  

[Growsonwalls]

1 minute ago, 3 is enough said:

But what if they don't want to come back?  I think Meghan thought she understood the realities of the royal life and as time passed she found that she really did not. It's a very difficult transition for anyone not born to the life and it was compounded by the fact that she is American and biracial.  Harry went along with her decision because he wants her to be happy but I do think he misses certain aspects of the life.  

Well then they don't come back. Just that the Queen apparently wants to "re-evaluate" in 2021 whether them coming back is feasible. As a sign of keeping the doors open apparently the Queen has kept Frogmore cottage vacant and a place they can stay when and if they return to London. 

I think the Queen is a savvy woman. She sees certain things in Harry and Meghan's toolbox that she doesn't see in William and Kate's, As she's getting UP THERE in age she wants the working royals to have their different niches. 

[ruby24]

I'd bet good money that Meghan never really understood the whole thing with the royals as far as how it really works in England and all that. She probably saw it as a far off, ceremonial, all "in name only" kind of thing, and being American and politically active here, was probably taken aback by how different it was. And it is true she and Harry were together for what, just a year or so before getting married? And in a long distance relationship at that, so she wasn't even experiencing the situation of what it would be like to be in the "royal family" day to day.

I believe wholeheartedly she didn't take it that seriously and was put off by the whole experience after moving to the UK. 

[kaygeeret]

Plus, I do think both she and Harry were surprised at the amount of racial demeaning that was going on.

I remember watching the wedding and while a black minister was giving a homily, the camera panned the crowd and showed a very pregnant member of the younger royals grimacing and shaking her head. 

Boy did I get that the entire facade of how welcome she was was a hoax.  She was in for a tough ride and I could not be happier that the two of them said bye, bye.

[swanpride]

Here is the thing: As controversial as Meghan was in certain circles, a lot of people positively loved her. William and Kate are reliable, but they are not particularly flashy, and there is zero risk that Kate would ever outshine William. Harry and Meghan on the other hand, they are glamorous  and people love that. There are even people who love the fact that they left in the first place, in a "well, at least they had the spine to do that and isn't it romantic that Harry would do this to keep Meghan happy" way.

Problem is that the tabloids still haven't stopped reporting about her. They are basically waiting for this marriage to break apart, and if it doesn't, it would in a way the perfect middle finger. If Harry and Maghan are actually happy with each other out of passion, that could be the next big love story.

Plus, despite what the show claims, Harry is the grandson of the Queen. I would be really surprised if she doesn't care for him.

Quote

Also, both him and William got covid but apparently he barely had symptoms while William got extremely sick and required urgent medical care. Charles is a healthy guy.

How sick you get from Covid is only partly related to how healthy you are, most likely it is mostly related to how big the initial "load" of the virus is which infects you, and how fast it manages to reach your lungs. A lot of athletes actually got hit pretty badly, most likely because they got infected while training (hence they deeper breath made it easy for Covid).

In any case, Charles has little interest in the throne and he should know that the public likes William better than him. The Queen will never cut him out, but it is possible that he will say on his own that he steps aside in favour of William, even if he does outlive his mother (and it is strange that this is even a question). They might have even planned exactly that when they discussed the possibility of marrying Camilla.

 

[Espy]

I have always thought that it was Harry who wanted out, from the get go, but it was Meghan who gave him the support to actually try. The racism, constant bashing by the tabloids, was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was Harry who'd had it with his role and family and wanted something different. If he was so invested in his royal role and family, he never would have entertained dating someone from such a different background like Meghan, let alone marrying her. 

Kate and William are very traditional types who might be solid - they will never divorce - but neither is very charismatic nor are they engaging public speakers. I reckon both would be happy to do the bare minimum, which isn't too far below the amount of work they do now, if they could get away with it. Whereas Harry and Meghan seem ambitious, both are charismatic, and Meghan at least seems to have a strong work ethic and genuine interest in charity work. She's also a great public speaker and Harry has the ability to connect with people with ease. IMO as a couple they would have been of huge benefit to the royal family image if the palace had supported them.

[swanpride]

Back to history in general, I was a little bit confused how Thatcher's relationship to the EU was portrayed. I mean, yes, the Brits always said "no" and wanted opt outs, but Thatcher also spearheaded the campaign to be part of the EU in the first place, and she was one of the architect of the single market, for the better or the worse (most likely the worse - nothing against the single market, but I would have preferred a strong social economic underpinning for it). This might bite them in b... later when they actually reach Brexit (which, I guess, is something they have to address eventually, and that is NOT an event they can just skip, especially not the whole blue hat incident).

[JudyObscure]

Everything I've been reading is saying The Crown really strayed too far from the truth this season.  Vanity Fair has an article quoting Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith who is outraged at how Charles is being portrayed.  She can't believe they didn't show any of the impressive things he did or the Prince's Trust charity he started and she claims that Diana was the one always mocking the Prince and shouting abuse while  he never responded in kind:

Quote

It should also be emphasized,” continued Bedell Smith, “that Diana strayed first from the marital bed, with her affair that began in 1985 with her protection officer, Barry Mannakee. He was transferred out of the Wales household in the summer of 1986, which upset Diana. She met James Hewitt shortly afterward, and they became lovers that November.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/the-crown-season-4-prince-charles

I haven't minded the liberties the show took in the past seasons, but, unlike say Edward VIII, Charles and Camilla are still trying to live their lives in public in spite of all the hatred they've received for the past 30 years, so it does seem harsh.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by JudyObscure

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

Here is the thing: As controversial as Meghan was in certain circles, a lot of people positively loved her. William and Kate are reliable, but they are not particularly flashy, and there is zero risk that Kate would ever outshine William. Harry and Meghan on the other hand, they are glamorous  and people love that. There are even people who love the fact that they left in the first place, in a "well, at least they had the spine to do that and isn't it romantic that Harry would do this to keep Meghan happy" way.

 

2 hours ago, Espy said:

Kate and William are very traditional types who might be solid - they will never divorce - but neither is very charismatic nor are they engaging public speakers. I reckon both would be happy to do the bare minimum, which isn't too far below the amount of work they do now, if they could get away with it. Whereas Harry and Meghan seem ambitious, both are charismatic, and Meghan at least seems to have a strong work ethic and genuine interest in charity work. She's also a great public speaker and Harry has the ability to connect with people with ease. IMO as a couple they would have been of huge benefit to the royal family image if the palace had supported them.

Your description about these two couples is right in itself. But remember what Elizabeth said to Philip in the show: Edward VIII was charismatic and George VI was dull but the latter was the better monarch.  Margaret was charismatic and Elizabeth dull, but it's obvious that Margaret had qualities to get limelight when young, pretty and witty but not those one needs to bear the burden of the crown day by day, year by year.

[Jeeves]

I don't buy the idea that Diana "first strayed from the marriage bed." I think it's revisionist history. And Diana's not around to contest it. In her 2007 book, "The Diana Chronicles," Tina Brown examined that idea and wasn't convinced. I agree and nothing I've read since has changed my mind. In Chapter 12, Brown relates that while Diana was pregnant with Harry, she was deeply in love with Charles, and her dress designer at that time said she was always wanting anything she wore to make her attractive to her husband. But after Harry's birth, the marriage went cold. Brown writes:

"Two Diana biographers, Anthony Holden and James Whitaker, both allege that it was the reemergence of Camilla that was to blame for the breakdown. They say that by 1983, the year before Harry’s birth, Charles had gone back to his mistress physically as well as emotionally, and that Diana knew it. I accept this view, and I accept it in spite of—no, because of—the insistent testimony of Charles’s friends and his official biographer Jonathan Dimbleby that the affair didn’t recommence until three years later, in November 1986. The repeated assertion feels like talking points provided by St. James’s Palace [the PoW's office]. How can they or anyone claim to know the secrets of the bedroom with such vehement certainty? It’s logical to conclude that they are repeating what they must have been told by the two people who shared a strong interest in looking as decorous as possible: Charles and Camilla. Gyles Brandreth, the Prince’s more recent apologist, goes so far as to introduce a new reason why The Date was 1986 or after: the sight of Diana dancing provocatively with her old boyfriend Philip Dunne at the wedding of Tracy Ward to the Marquess of Worcester in June 1987. According to Brandreth, Charles, seeing this, decided that Diana was probably pursuing extramarital affairs herself. But this version overlooks the provocative fact that Charles had already spent half the night dancing first with his former lover Anna Wallace and then with Camilla herself.

There is other evidence, swept aside in the cleaned-up version, that the affair with Camilla resumed earlier than 1986. When Diana was in London, Charles would join Camilla at the Beaufort Hunt, with all its opportunities for dusk assignations. A member of Highgrove’s household told Anthony Holden that one weekend in November 1983 Diana pressed the recall button in Charles’s study and it connected to Camilla. They had a “monumental” row in front of the staff—Diana in tears; Charles striding off. Diana herself told Andrew Morton she saw many more concrete signs of marital subterfuge: “Nocturnal telephone calls, unexplained absences and small but significant changes in his usual routine.” Marie Helvin, who began dating Camilla’s brother Mark Shand in 1983 and often stayed with the Parker Bowleses at weekends, had the strong sense that Camilla was always in Prince Charles’s life. “There was a hint that [the ongoing relationship] was always there,” she told me. “My feeling was that they were always together.” The testimony of Stuart Higgins, the editor of The Sun (1994–1998), who had formed a friendly relationship with Camilla when he was The Sun’s royal reporter, suggests the same conclusion. Higgins told one of Diana’s biographers, Sally Bedell Smith, that from 1982 to 1992 Camilla briefed him about once a week on background about all that was going on in the Charles/Diana relationship. “I never sensed that she was out of contact,” Higgins said, “though I definitely believe there was a cessation in the relationship and that Charles put an effort into the marriage. Our relationship was two ways…she [Camilla] was really trying to gauge whether the press was on to her [and Charles] so it was a question of her keeping in touch too.” Since making those remarks, Higgins has gone silent. He says he now prefers not to discuss those habitual phone calls with Camilla, citing as his reason that he “continues to work on projects for the Duchess of Cornwall.”

-- Brown, Tina. The Diana Chronicles (pp. 287-288). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

It's interesting that the Palace PR machine has now seized on the Barry Manatee relationship as the basis for their "Charles and Camilla were chaste until Diana wasn't" story line. Which will probably go down in history. Charles will eventually sit on the throne, and history is the version of the past told by the victors.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Jeeves

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

Everything I've been reading is saying The Crown really strayed too far from the truth this season.  Vanity Fair has an article quoting Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith who is outraged at how Charles is being portrayed.  She can't believe they didn't show any of the impressive things he did or the Prince's Trust charity he started and she claims that Diana was the one always mocking the Prince and shouting abuse while  he never responded in kind:

 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/the-crown-season-4-prince-charles

I haven't minded the liberties the show took in the past seasons, but, unlike say Edward VII, Charles and Camilla are still trying to live their lives in public in spite of all the hatred they've received for the past 30 years, so it does seem harsh.

 

 

Ah, the old it's only cheating if you have sex argument.  I'm disappointed but not surprised.  

[JudyObscure]

Well, all the evidence against Charles, "they had an opportunity at a hunt so they must have done it," or "they keep denying they did it so they must have done it," sounds pretty darn weak to me.  It's always going to be a he said/she said thing, but it's Charles who is receiving so much hatred (and Diana the usual worshipful adoration)) on social media so I'm going to lean my benefit of the doubt his way.  Charles, in spite of zero witnesses, has been portrayed in this widely  seen show as a man who screams at his wife and was having a physical affair from the moment of marriage.  And, yes, Diana isn't here to defend herself, but Diana isn't here to receive all the boos, hate mail and death threats either.

Diana defended herself quite well before she died in her Andrew Morton book. Charles has never been able to defend himself at all without seeming like a cad and a bad father.

[dubbel zout]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

Charles has little interest in the throne

I'm curious why you think this, as I've never heard anything other than Charles wants to be king.

I don't think it matters who had the first physical affair, as Charles was in an emotional one with Camilla. Wondering who strayed first seems like splitting hairs, IMO. Camilla was pretty much always there, whether Charles was sleeping with her or not.

[Roseanna]

On 11/18/2020 at 3:40 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Replying from the Balmoral thread.

The show does have Margaret constantly switching between her role as PM with her role as a wife and mother.  We see her more than once pop up to the apartment at Downing Street to make dinner for her cabinet?!?!  No one in their right mind would have expected the previous PMs to do this, but Margaret did.  Was it expected of the spouse of the PM to make dinner for the cabinet when they were pulling an all-nighter?  

I believe there are servants in the PM's official residence.

PS. Sorry, @Umbelina explained above that there aren't

On 11/18/2020 at 8:55 PM, kaygeeret said:

I remember watching the wedding and while a black minister was giving a homily, the camera panned the crowd and showed a very pregnant member of the younger royals grimacing and shaking her head. 

I understand that they were confused and amused as I have never heard a more incoherent and tedious homily in my life. But of course they shouldn't have shown anything - to keep face whatever happens is supposed to be the basic art of the royals.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Roseanna
Adding last sentence

[AZChristian]

17 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I believe there are servants in the PM's official residence.

I did a quick Google.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  There are housekeepers, cooks, etc., for the official rooms that the PM uses - formal dining room, etc., but no help (unless the PM pays for it) like maids, nannies, etc.  The annual salary is 150,000 pounds.  Boris Johnson is worried about whether he can hire a nanny for the baby he and his girlfriend had recently.  He's still paying child support for 4 of his 6 other children.

[swanpride]

I don't think that this season strayed further from history than previous ones. I get the feeling that people are more upset about the fact that the show has stopped to be a never-ending praise for those who wear the crown and excuse for questionable behaviour by the royals and started to show them as the monsters they often are.

Remember, last season they were all trying to make us feel for poor abused and misunderstood Charles. Too bad though that this isn't an excuse for his behaviour as an adult. It's an explanation, but not an excuse.

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

14 hours ago, kaygeeret said:

I remember watching the wedding and while a black minister was giving a homily, the camera panned the crowd and showed a very pregnant member of the younger royals grimacing and shaking her head. 

 

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I understand that they were confused and amused as I have never heard a more incoherent and tedious homily in my life. But of course they shouldn't have shown anything - to keep face whatever happens is supposed to be the basic art of the royals.

According to my wife who watched Harry and Meghan's wedding, Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie were giggling and smirking to each other during the entire homily. Mrs. RaiderDuck found their behavior extremely childish and inappropriate, and was thrilled when Eugenie's wedding was sparsely attended* and Meghan then upstaged Eugenie at the reception by announcing her own pregnancy.

*Supposedly, one of the things causing Andrew to be on the outs with the rest of the BRF even before his disastrous Epstein interview was his insistence that Eugenie be given a full-on royal wedding: its cost made the Royals look bad, and the poor attendance made them look bad a second time. So they paid through the nose for a PR fiasco. Heckuva job there, Andy.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Sir RaiderDuck OMS

[swanpride]

I have to add, that I actually had completely forgotten about Beatrice and Eugenie and the only reason they turned up on my radar again were the ridiculous hats they wore at the wedding. Maybe not the best way to get attention. But considering their parents its maybe no surprise that their taste level isn't the best. They really lack class. I don't feel any ill will towards them and hope that they are happy, but I really don't care about them at all. They are simply irrelevant since they are too far removed from the throne - even more so than Charles Siblings. I mean they are what, number 9 and number 10 or something like that? Unless there is tomorrow an accident which kills off half of the family, they are just two nobles with too much money and no merits of their own. Which, frankly, kind of offends me, since they had every opportunity to become more than that.

 

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, swanpride said:

They are simply irrelevant since they are too far removed from the throne - even more so than Charles Siblings. I mean they are what, number 9 and number 10 or something like that?

What really sucks is they are closer to the throne (numerically) than Princess Anne.  She's #14!!!  

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

3 minutes ago, swanpride said:

They are simply irrelevant since they are too far removed from the throne - even more so than Charles Siblings. I mean they are what, number 9 and number 10 or something like that? Unless there is tomorrow an accident which kills off half of the family, they are just two nobles with too much money and no merits of their own.

It's long been rumored that when Elizabeth dies, Charles will radically slim down the BRF to a "lean and mean" version consisting of just him, Camilla, and his children and grandchildren. Anne, Andrew, Edward, and their descendants (and Margaret's descendants and all those distant cousins) will be out: they'll still have their personal properties and probably be allowed to keep their current Prince and Princess titles, but won't be able to pass them on and will get no more royal $$$. In other words, they'll de facto become run-of-the-mill nobles. This may also be an additional reason for Harry and Meghan's separation from the rest of the BRF: they see the writing on the wall and realize that William will probably cut them out one day as well, and so are making their transition now.

[swanpride]

I think Anne has already cut out her children herself or something like this. Smart move on her part.

And a slimming down is desperately needed. It's not as if those who are "out" would be poor.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I did a quick Google.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  There are housekeepers, cooks, etc., for the official rooms that the PM uses - formal dining room, etc., but no help (unless the PM pays for it) like maids, nannies, etc.  The annual salary is 150,000 pounds.  Boris Johnson is worried about whether he can hire a nanny for the baby he and his girlfriend had recently.  He's still paying child support for 4 of his 6 other children.

If the PM is giving a lunch or a dinner, of course they would have help, since it's a government thing, entertaining dignitaries, or a working lunch with the party etc.

In the private quarters though, I don't believe they are provided help by the government.  If they have servants there, they are privately hired by the PM.  (According to the commentary on The Queen, and other sources.)  I personally don't know anything about #10 except it's relatively small, and mostly offices.

4 hours ago, swanpride said:

I don't think that this season strayed further from history than previous ones. I get the feeling that people are more upset about the fact that the show has stopped to be a never-ending praise for those who wear the crown and excuse for questionable behaviour by the royals and started to show them as the monsters they often are.

Remember, last season they were all trying to make us feel for poor abused and misunderstood Charles. Too bad though that this isn't an excuse for his behaviour as an adult. It's an explanation, but not an excuse.

Yes, and both can be true (about Charles here.)  It's very rare when someone is all good or all bad, although recent events have made me doubt that a bit.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Umbelina

[Trillian]

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

I think Anne has already cut out her children herself or something like this. Smart move on her part.

And a slimming down is desperately needed. It's not as if those who are "out" would be poor.

Title geek here.
Grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line are granted the title of HRH Prince(ss). Anne’s children, obviously, aren’t male line descendants, so her kids didn’t get that automatically.  Exceptions can be made, of course:  HM extended the HRH Prince(ss) to George, Charlotte and Louis, even though they wouldn’t normally qualify until she died and they became either the grandchildren of King Charles III or the children of King William III (depending on whether Charles manages to outlive his mom).  Harry & Meghan reportedly declined a similar accommodation for Archie, although he will automatically (barring any change in the rules) become HRH Prince Archie if Charles makes it to the throne.

Anne did decline an offer to make Mark Philips a peer (Earl is common - that’s what Margaret’s first husband got)  something that would have given her children courtesy titles but not HRH.  Edward and Sophie’s kids are technically HRC Prince(ss) but, by their parents wish, don’t use that and go by their lesser titles as (merely) children of an Earl. 

[Pallas]

On 11/17/2020 at 2:03 AM, swanpride said:

But I really don't think that any of them are really important.

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.

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

...the grandchildren of King Charles III...

Given the unsavory history of the name "Charles" as a British monarch, and given Charles' likely desire to link his tenure to someone more popular than himself, there have been persistent rumors that Charles will take his grandfather's name upon assuming the throne and reign as King George VII.

[Brn2bwild]

41 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Given the unsavory history of the name "Charles" as a British monarch, and given Charles' likely desire to link his tenure to someone more popular than himself, there have been persistent rumors that Charles will take his grandfather's name upon assuming the throne and reign as King George VII.

I hope that's not true.  There are enough Georges in that family.  What's next, William becomes George VIII?

(If he does become King William, he'll be King William V.)

Edited November 20, 2020 by Brn2bwild

[Umbelina]

44 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Given the unsavory history of the name "Charles" as a British monarch, and given Charles' likely desire to link his tenure to someone more popular than himself, there have been persistent rumors that Charles will take his grandfather's name upon assuming the throne and reign as King George VII.

Watch him choose King Edward IX or King David in honor of his great uncle, with whom he so identifies.  Or Arthur, for his massive ego, and it is one of his names.

[Growsonwalls]

12 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Watch him choose King Edward IX or King David in honor of his great uncle, with whom he so identifies.  Or Arthur, for his massive ego, and it is one of his names.

Ok that's just fake news. There's zero evidence Charles is going to change his name. Neither is William. Neither is Prince George. 

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok that's just fake news. There's zero evidence Charles is going to change his name. Neither is William. Neither is Prince George. 

Just being funny.

Also, most monarchs do change their names, or at least that's what I thought.  Charles is "unlucky" as a name for a UK King from what I've heard.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Just being funny.

Also, most monarchs do change their names, or at least that's what I thought.  Charles is "unlucky" as a name for a UK King from what I've heard.

Actually,  only a handful of English monarchs have used a regnal name different than their baptismal name--Queen Victoria, her son Edward VII, and George VI.  Both Edward and George were baptized and known as Albert or Bertie.  I know Victoria pushed to have many of her male descendants named Albert, and wanted to leave a long line of Alberts after she passed.  

[Trillian]

1 hour ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Given the unsavory history of the name "Charles" as a British monarch, and given Charles' likely desire to link his tenure to someone more popular than himself, there have been persistent rumors that Charles will take his grandfather's name upon assuming the throne and reign as King George VII.

I hadn’t heard that, but it makes sense. 
 

Signed ,  a fellow history wonk