Season 4: History Beyond the Episodes

[ProudMary]

JMO of course, but it'd seem ridiculous if Charles were to use a different regnal name.  He's been Charles for 72 years already, and considering that the Queen Mother was close to 102 when she died, Queen Elizabeth may very well still be around when he's 80! I can't imagine that anyone would refer to him as anything but Charles regardless.

OTOH, were he to choose Alfred, he'd finally be Fred to Camilla's Gladys IRL. 😅

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

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.

Thatcher had a meeting with her ministers (or officials) which means that it was an official business, so why weren't they in her study but in her private quarters?

Well, every country has its odd habits.   

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Thatcher had a meeting with her ministers (or officials) which means that it was an official business, so why weren't they in her study but in her private quarters?

Well, every country has its odd habits.   

Who knows?  Maybe it was a small meeting and she wanted to cook for them.  She seemed to try really hard to show she had womanly skills, and hadn't lost them by becoming one of the most powerful women in Europe.  ???  

Or it was just a show choice.

[Roseanna]

Reviewing a biography of Margaret Thatcher by Hugo Young, One of Us, David Cannadine in his collection of essays and reviews History in Our time, while not denying her achievements in changing the country (whether one likes them or not), describes her mode of governing thus:

Quote

She dominates her so called ministerial colleagues to a degree that is both unprecedented and unhealthy. In cabinet meetings, she harangues and bullies, and often seems quite impervious to the traditional arguments. She has sacked more ministers than any previous premier, and that is not just to be explained in terms of her record tenure of the highest office. She created protégés, like John Biffen and Leon Brittan, and then easily cut them down and cast them aside. She used the most devious means to undermine ministers whose policies she disagrees, such as Jim Prior over the trade union reform, and Michael Heseltine over the Westland affair. Instead of taking responsibility of her actions and mistakes, she thrust forward civil servants – especially the previous Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong – to take the blame and the flack on her behalf. Despite her claim to be honest, truthful and straightforward, her record over the miners’ strike, the Belgrano sinking and the Westland debacle is far from spotless. In the conduct of foreign affairs she is often abrasive and offensive to the quite extraordinary degree, and repeatedly sacrifices long-term objectives for short-term gains. Above all, she is temperamentally incapable of taking any view but her own, and regards those who disagree with her as traitors, quislings and Marxists.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Roseanna
correcting spelling

[Jeeves]

Quote

Above all, she is temperamentally incapable of taking any view but her own, and regards those who disagree with her as traitors, quislings and Marxists.

^^That is my takeaway after reading a lengthy biography of her, The Iron Lady, by John Campbell.

I'm on the same page with those who hate how Gillian Anderson plays her like a geriatric when she's supposed to be in strong hearty middle age. OTOH I thought the script, and GA's delivery, were brilliant in that telephone call from Thatcher to HM the day Uncle Dickie was killed. She just roared along delivering what sounded like a stump speech - but it was a condolence call to a woman whose close relative (along with two children and an old woman) had just been murdered by terrorists. Thatcher barely drew breath, and HM couldn't get a word in edgewise. Maggie was quite the steamroller. 

[wendyg]

On 11/17/2020 at 10:05 AM, Jeeves said:

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

That, at least, is historically accurate!

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

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 highly recommend viewing YES, MINISTER and its sequel, YES, PRIME MINISTER for an inside view of how the British government actually works on this sort of thing. In an early episode of the latter, the newly installed prime minister discovers that he is not provided with household staff....and that as a result there is no one to cook him lunch on days when he doesn't have an official lunch to go to.

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, wendyg said:

I highly recommend viewing YES, MINISTER and its sequel, YES, PRIME MINISTER for an inside view of how the British government actually works on this sort of thing. In an early episode of the latter, the newly installed prime minister discovers that he is not provided with household staff....and that as a result there is no one to cook him lunch on days when he doesn't have an official lunch to go to.

I'm shocked, but ultimately not surprised to hear this.  I keep forgetting as an American that the class system is so baked into life in Britain that the meritocracy Thatcher espoused was only ever an ideal.  The position is designed to only be available to those who have the means to support themselves.  

[wendyg]

Note that the current PM is complaining that his salary of £150k is insufficient to support him and his children.

[swanpride]

For reference, is that meant to be per year or per month and what is the average income in the UK?

In Germany our Chancellor gets 18.820 EUR per month, meaning something around 225.000 a year and if you add diverse perks, it's something around 290.000 EUR per year. Naturally she has to pay taxes and social contribution, but doesn't have to pay into the unemployment insurance or the pension fond.

The average income in Germany is 3.379,25 EUR per month  (40.551 EUR for the year), so that salary is a lot of money, but way less than a top manager earns.

[Libby]

I watched "Diana in Her Own Words" last night.

I think that Diana was much more troubled than was projected in the show.

A few examples: Diana said that in addition to the bulimia problem she threw herself down the stairs while she was pregnant with William. She also said that she grabbed a knife and cut herself badly. She admitted to attempting suicide four times.

After their honeymoon on the yacht, Diana and Charles went to Scotland for a few months. Diana was so troubled that they had to cut the trip short, come back to London and get Diana psychological help immediately.

With a teenaged wife who was obviously very, very sick, Charles' coldness toward her was even more cruel than I originally thought. What kind of person could treat another person that mean?

Edited November 20, 2020 by Libby

[Normades]

39 minutes ago, Libby said:

With a teenaged wife who was obviously very, very sick, Charles' coldness toward her was even more cruel than I originally thought. What kind of person could treat another person that mean?

I'll have to watch the show about Diana that you referenced.  I did hear about her throwing herself down the stairs, tho.  Not to be a Charles apologist, but I think he was raised by such cold people that he really was at a loss as to how to handle Diana's issues and illness.  Also remember even now people still look down on those with mental illness.  It was much worse just a few years ago.  It's sad she never got the help she needed. 

[Dejana]

 

 

[Jeeves]

There are other perspectives on Diana's fall down the stairs during her first pregnancy. I believe that she claimed it was a suicide bid when she was making the tapes for the Andrew Morton book. I have read that she originally claimed that she threw herself down the stairs and landed at the Queen's feet, then during the book edit told Morton to change that to the Queen Mother. 

I have read that a member of the Sandringham staff who saw Diana's tumble said it was an accident, and that Charles was so worried he cancelled his day's plans to stay with Diana and had her checked by a doctor. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Diana - who I'm sure was terribly unhappy about many things - would have knowingly risked harming her unborn child. She may have been miserable but she was absolutely all about her motherhood. 

[JudyObscure]

Re the dance, "She had approached him herself," about doing it. I expected as much.  The few times she's been shown dancing she seemed rather awkward, but who could have said no to the Princess if she wanted the stage?  I imagine Charles is just embarrassed for her when she dances.

Re, the stairs.  Diana is dangerous to herself and others when she gets close to a staircase.  She once pushed her step-mother down the stairs in a fit of temper.  Funny how the show depicts Charles as the bad tempered monster when  Diana was the one famous for  screaming and acting out .  In Kitty Kelly's book about the royals she said Diana had dozens of  servants fired for things like pointing her shoes in the wrong directions.  She  and Princess Margaret were the original examples of entitled privilege.

Edited November 21, 2020 by JudyObscure

[swanpride]

I wouldn't completely trust what Diana said over her marriage. Memories change over time, and Diana always loved to be dramatic. That was part of her appeal.

I also have a hard time to believe that she did something to harm her baby during the pregnancy. She might have send signals that she needed help, but I don't see her throwing herself down the stairs.

But it is certainly true that Charles was jealous of the attention she got from the public.

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, Jeeves said:

There are other perspectives on Diana's fall down the stairs during her first pregnancy. I believe that she claimed it was a suicide bid when she was making the tapes for the Andrew Morton book. I have read that she originally claimed that she threw herself down the stairs and landed at the Queen's feet, then during the book edit told Morton to change that to the Queen Mother. 

I have read that a member of the Sandringham staff who saw Diana's tumble said it was an accident, and that Charles was so worried he cancelled his day's plans to stay with Diana and had her checked by a doctor. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Diana - who I'm sure was terribly unhappy about many things - would have knowingly risked harming her unborn child. She may have been miserable but she was absolutely all about her motherhood. 

 

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

I wouldn't completely trust what Diana said over her marriage. Memories change over time, and Diana always loved to be dramatic. That was part of her appeal.

I also have a hard time to believe that she did something to harm her baby during the pregnancy. She might have send signals that she needed help, but I don't see her throwing herself down the stairs.

Whatever the truth about falling might be, when she spoke to tapes for Morton, she seems that she wanted to revenge on Charles so much that she did not think at all how it would influence on William to learn that his expecting mom had not cared at all if she got a miscarriage or not. That is a sign that she wasn't exactly of sound mind when she agreed to cooperate with Morton.  

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Re, the stairs.  Diana is dangerous to herself and others when she gets close to a staircase.  She once pushed her step-mother down the stairs in a fit of temper.  Funny how the show depicts Charles as the bad tempered monster when  Diana was the one famous for  screaming and acting out .  In Kitty Kelly's book about the royals she said Diana had dozens of  servants fired for things like pointing her shoes in the wrong directions.  She  and Princess Margaret were the original examples of entitled privilege.

I wouldn't trust Kitty Kelly's book as a source. She was only interested in dirty gossip. I can guess what she would written about Alexandra and Rasputin. 

Instead, Donalson and Ziegler's biographies about Edward VIII describe his family and background, upbringing, adulthood, former relationship, so that we *understand* why he become a man who could charm the public but did not care for duty, could not differ himself and his position and fell in love only with married women until he found Mrs Simpson and became so dependent on her that he imagined that others would find her suitable as Queen and finally gave his throne for her. 

Re: the stairs: I think we must understand also Charles. In those people had no information about such things as bulimia, slicing, depression erc. There was a common thought that you could "put yourself together" if you just wanted. Yet, Charles tried irl (doctors and medicines).

But in the end, sad it is, while Diana was such a state that she probably could not act otherwise she did, making scenes and acting hysterically were the surest way to drive Charles eventually away from her.              

  

[PeterPirate]

16 hours ago, Dejana said:

 

 

What a treasure Diana was.  And given that no video of the actual event exists, the re-creation is a real gift to us.  

More Diana history, this one about her trip to New York:

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by PeterPirate

[bijoux]

On 11/17/2020 at 2:28 AM, nora1992 said:

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

The thing that made me take notice was the statement that Diana used baby William as a safety blanket in a way. A baby isn't aware of it, but an older child would be. And putting the reaponsibility of your well-being on a kid's shoulder is A LOT.

On 11/19/2020 at 7:35 AM, swanpride said:

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.

When did the show imply otherwise? I know there were rumors about one of Diana's lovers, but as far as I know, that theory's been disproven. 

On 11/19/2020 at 2:09 PM, Jeeves said:

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. 

What old boyfriend? Wasn't the fact that she didn't have any one of Diana's best features as Chatles' future bride? 

On 11/19/2020 at 6:45 PM, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

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.

This was also referenced on the show. Andrew was bitching about it tp Elizabeth. 

Now, something completely unrelated to anything really. Was Diana really in the habit of saying, Gosh? She was using it at least up until the fated anniversary. 

[meatball77]

I'm fine with everyone keeping their titles, they can pass them on forever but they don't need anything that costs the UK government money.

I figured that the pairing down was coming and Harry just ended things early and decided they didn't want to wait another fifteen years until the Queen dies (or 25, she may be immortal). 

[Jeeves]

3 hours ago, bijoux said:

What old boyfriend? Wasn't the fact that she didn't have any one of Diana's best features as Chatles' future bride? 

I think the reference was to a man Diana dated before Charles. She did date, although IIRC she never had a serious relationship, she wasn't engaged to anyone before Charles, and the tabs never dug up any guy who claimed to have had sex with her.  So it was "boyfriend" in the chaste sense, no doubt unusual in those circles, lol. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Jeeves

[Growsonwalls]

I think Diana was both genuine and calculating. Her compassion for people with AIDS, people maimed by landmines, that was genuine. Her skill at getting photo-ops and creating a narrative for herself that would generate sympathy was also a huge part of who she was. It helped that she was gorgeous and what's more, photogenic. She knew exactly how to tilt her head so her face caught the light at the best angles. 

I think it helped that she was born into an aristocratic family. People couldn't accuse her of being parvenu. She was around that set her entire life. She knew how to outplay them at their own game. I think that she's set an impossible example for future royal brides. Every criticism about Kate in the early years ended up with "she;s not Diana." A lot of the Meghan talk was "but what would Diana think?" 

[Jeeves]

In the topic discussing "The Hereditary Principle" episode, someone asked who were the couple who Margaret was visiting and whose pool she was in. I'm going well beyond the episode, so I decided to put this material here as more on topic.

They were Colin Tennant, 3rd Baron Glenconner, and his wife Anne. He was a colorful character (IMO he was pretty much nuts but he accomplished a lot, including buying the island of Mustique and turning it into an exclusive hideaway for the rich and famous), who died in 2010. She's recently published her memoirs - Lady in Waiting - and a brand new whodunit - Murder on Mustique.  She's 88 and has appeared as a talking head in some documentaries about Princess Margaret. She was a lifetime friend of Margaret, and her Lady in Waiting for 30 years. She was also a "lady in waiting" "maid of honor" in the Queen's coronation; those were the six young titled women who carried HM's train during the ceremony. 

I confess: I really enjoy Lady Anne. I first encountered her in a two-part 2018 documentary aired on PBS, Margaret: the Rebel Princess. In that show there's footage filmed back in the 70's, of a country house party the Glenconners gave at their estate in Scotland. I think it was the actual party at which Margaret met Roddy; in any event they were both in attendance at the one in the film.

Anne was slender, attractive, personable, and very intelligent. Nancy Carroll is well-cast as Lady Anne; IMO she does a very good job, and the hair and costumes are dead on. 

And, here's a footnote about the sometimes small world of the British aristocracy. When she was a young woman, Anne (then Lady Anne Coke) was all but engaged to Johnny Spencer, heir to the Spencer title. He was quite a catch in those days. However, the ever-ambitious Lady Fermoy threw her nubile daughter Frances at Johnny, and he was smitten, so Anne was dumped. Yes, Johnny Spencer married Frances Fermoy. They settled down as tenants of Park House on the grounds of Sandringham, where Frances gave birth to four living children, including Diana, later Princess of Wales. 

ETA: Here's Lady Glenconner spilling the tea about her honeymoon on the Graham Norton Show: 

And here she is in a less hilarious interview: 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Jeeves
more stuff, and corrected a mistake

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, meatball77 said:

the Queen dies (or 25, she may be immortal). 

Maybe the queen is the Highlander.

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

People couldn't accuse her of being parvenu. 

They certainly couldn't—her family was older than Philip's.

I watched that Graham Norton interview when it was first aired. She's so blasé about everything. No wonder Olivia Colman is appalled, hee. I can't wait to read Lady Anne's memoir. She's had A Life.

[Umbelina]

@methodwriter85  Answering your question from the WAR thread.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one who had to google the Hillsborough Disaster.  😉

Why would she be blamed for that?  What am I missing?

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

@methodwriter85  Answering your question from the WAR thread.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one who had to google the Hillsborough Disaster.  😉

Why would she be blamed for that?  What am I missing?

It's quite general that if the authorities had failed their duties, the government  is blamed, especially if he/she had reduced funds, orders are insufficient etc. In the parliamentary system the prime minister often decides to offer the responsible minister by forcing him/her to resign and thus saves his/her government.

[Jeeves]

10 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I watched that Graham Norton interview when it was first aired. She's so blasé about everything. No wonder Olivia Colman is appalled, hee. I can't wait to read Lady Anne's memoir. She's had A Life.

When I learned that she had a memoir about to be published, I ordered the hardcover from amazon.co.uk last year, rather than wait several months for it to be published in the US. I mostly buy ebooks these days but I'm glad I made an exception. She has indeed Had A Life. Here's the full Graham Norton interview, which includes her relating how supportive Princess Margaret was when Lady Glenconner's son had AIDS back in the early days when medical science was still figuring it out and the public was scared of it.

 

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

Honestly I only know that the Hillsborough Disaster is a thing . . .

It's not an event I would have expected to see in the Crown, though, because there was really zero relation to the Royal family. It wasn't like Aberfan, I guess mostly because most of the victims were older.

I'm glad this came up because I never knew much about that event and your post caused me to read up on it. I would also not expect to see it on The Crown. Aberfan - although revealed to be caused by human negligence - was more of a "natural disaster" event and as noted, so many children died right there in their school. Hillsborough was from the first characterized by the authorities and press as caused by a bunch of people misbehaving (I understand that words like "scum" and I suppose "thugs" were tossed around, it was claimed the rowdy fans were to blame, etc.). And the victims weren't, AFAIK, little kids. Very different type of tragedy. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Jeeves
formatting

[swanpride]

Hillsborrough was that decades Greenfelt….and knowing about it, I wasn't surprised how Greenfelt unfolded, especially the part where they tried to blame the first responders.

[Cirien]

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

@methodwriter85  Answering your question from the WAR thread.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one who had to google the Hillsborough Disaster.  😉

Why would she be blamed for that?  What am I missing?

There's a feeling that Thatcher wanted the criticism of the police contained in Lord Taylor's report ( in the aftermath of the disaster) deflected, to place more blame on the Liverpool fans (who were not drunk) because she had very cosy relationship with the South Yorkshire police after the 1984 miner's strike. 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/hillsborough-disaster-margaret-thatcher-wanted-1324983

To quote the Former Home Secretary Jack Straw: 

 “The Thatcher government, because they needed the police to be a partisan force, particularly for the miners’ strike and other industrial troubles, created a culture of impunity in the police service.

“They really were immune from outside influences and they thought they could rule the roost and that is what we absolutely saw in South Yorkshire.”

 

[dubbel zout]

Quote

 13 HOURS AGO,  CHEEZWIZ SAID: 

I have to wonder if Charles was quite as vile as portrayed in this series. 

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. For example, S4 portrays Charles as a distant father, yet in all the footage I've seen, both William and Harry are happy and comfortable in his presence. Was he as naturally affectionate as Diana? Probably not, but I don't see him as cold and uncaring as Philip either.

I think the showrunners played up Charles' asshole side while minimizing Diana's immaturity and exhausting neediness.

After the divorce, Diana made a point of saying Charles was a very good father. When the princes were looking at all the flowers around Kensington Palace after her death, Charles and Harry were holding hands. I don't think that was performative. I think he's loosened up a lot. 

 

[Jeeves]

22 hours ago, swanpride said:

Hillsborrough was that decades Greenfelt….and knowing about it, I wasn't surprised how Greenfelt unfolded, especially the part where they tried to blame the first responders.

Do you mean the Grenfell Tower fire? I remember reading about it in the news although hadn't realized they were trying to blame the first responders for loss of life. What a stupid stupid tragic loss of so many lives. Somebody should have faced criminal charges IMO but I don't think anyone did.  

[swanpride]

There was a hearing about it last year in which they grilled the first responders. It was disgusting and a very transparent attempt to distract from the cladding and those who chose it and ignored all the protests of the inhabitants. There were also a couple of articles in the usual newspapers about how the survivors now supposedly live in luxury. The usual BS.

[swanpride]

It would be odd if they would just skip the fire in Windsor castle in 1992. I wouldn't be surprised if they use it as the season opener. But I guess they will then jump ahead to roughly 1996 or 1997. 1996 was when Diana lost her title, 1997 wasn't just the year she died, it was also the year Tony Blair became prime minister. The show likes to focus on the relationship between the Queen and the various PMs, it would make kind of sense to have one season just about Tony Blair.

Or maybe they spend a season leading up to Diana Dying and another one on Tony Blair.  

[bijoux]

24 minutes ago, DarkHorse said:

 

I am wondering where they will go next season. Will they jump ahead only a few years and cover Diana's death or will they jump ahead to Harry and Markle? I think a lot of people would expect a few eps on Diana's death. But as with this season we are now in living memory for most of us so it becomes less interesting than previous seasons.

They cast Elizabeth Debicki as Diana already. 

[ruby24]

Just now, swanpride said:

It would be odd if they would just skip the fire in Windsor castle in 1992. I wouldn't be surprised if they use it as the season opener. But I guess they will then jump ahead to roughly 1996 or 1997. 1996 was when Diana lost her title, 1997 wasn't just the year she died, it was also the year Tony Blair became prime minister. The show likes to focus on the relationship between the Queen and the various PMs, it would make kind of sense to have one season just about Tony Blair.

Or maybe they spend a season leading up to Diana Dying and another one on Tony Blair.  

I read that Elizabeth Debicki signed on for seasons 5 and 6, so I'm guessing next season spends most of its time in the 90's. Maybe Diana's death is early in the last season, when Blair comes in.

[swanpride]

In this case my bet is that they start with the fire (which alone can fill one to two episodes considering the fall out of it) and then move through the slow destruction of the royal fassade, first through the end of Andrew's and Sarah's as well as Anne's marriage, and then through the end of Charles and Diana's, possibly ending with Diana losing the title of Princess of Wales.

Honestly, the next season will be mostly about divorces and John Major, I guess...is there much to say about John Major?

[meatball77]

On 11/21/2020 at 9:56 PM, dubbel zout said:

Maybe the queen is the Highlander.

 

I think she was cursed.  Everytime someone says god save the queen it adds another day onto her life.

[swanpride]

How do you know? It's actually just a second, but otherwise you are spot on....

[dubbel zout]

Morgan has repeatedly said he doesn't want to get into the recent past—he feels it becomes journalism—so I wouldn't be surprised if the news of Diana's death were the last scene of the very last episode.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, dubbel zout said:

Morgan has repeatedly said he doesn't want to get into the recent past—he feels it becomes journalism—so I wouldn't be surprised if the news of Diana's death were the last scene of the very last episode.

I kind of think a good ending scene would be Charles and Camilla's wedding in 2005.  Diana died in 1997.  Watching the queen loosen up a bit on her feelings about Camilla might be interesting.  

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I kind of think a good ending scene would be Charles and Camilla's wedding in 2005.  Diana died in 1997.  Watching the queen loosen up a bit on her feelings about Camilla might be interesting.  

That is a natural ending, and could at least be spun to be hopeful.  I always thought the natural ending point of the show is 2002 where both Dowager Queen Elizabeth and Margaret pass away.  

[SeanC]

On 11/19/2020 at 8:24 PM, Umbelina said:

Charles is "unlucky" as a name for a UK King from what I've heard.

The people in the media who make that argument always focus on Charles I and seem to forget that Charles II, the “Merry Monarch”, existed.  There was wine, theatre, and mistresses for all!

[swanpride]

The natural end of the show would be when Elizabeth passes away or alternatively, when Phillip dies - whatever happens first. But just in terms of the six seasons already confirmed, and working under the assumption that the show will continue to jump from PM to PM, the natural end would be 2007, when Blair's Premiership ended. It also happens to be the year in which Elizabeth became the oldest reigning British monarch ever.

But I wouldn't put it past them to also cover the last years in a seventh season if there is enough interest in it. I mean, it is not like the Queen isn't still a topic of discussion...the the EU hat.

[JudyObscure]

It being all about The Crown it would be nice to see it end with the next coronation, and if that's ten years from now it's fine with me.

[Gareth3]

I've wondered if the series would end at Edward's wedding in 1999. It's after Diana dies, long enough ago that it's not "journalism", and the only successful first marriage of all the siblings.

[swanpride]

If they have patience enough they could get away with two additional seasons even now. There is so much which happened in the last years….the problem is just that there isn't the benefit of hindsight just yet.

[SeanC]

28 minutes ago, Gareth3 said:

I've wondered if the series would end at Edward's wedding in 1999. It's after Diana dies, long enough ago that it's not "journalism", and the only successful first marriage of all the siblings.

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.

 

 

[retired watcher]

I was surprised to see them using Diana's clothes but not in the right place. I remember the iconic yellow overalls from a boat trip she was on with friends including Charles. I guess it was cheaper to show them at a horse show.

On 11/16/2020 at 2:14 AM, swanpride said:

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.

On 11/16/2020 at 4:37 PM, RemoteControlFreak said:

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

Thanks for mentioning the podcast. I listened to it for the past 3 seasons and just subscribed again.

[retired watcher]

On 11/18/2020 at 7:54 PM, ruby24 said:

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. 

I think the British press was very racist in their reporting of her. That is what she wasn't prepared for.

[Umbelina]

54 minutes ago, retired watcher said:

I think the British press was very racist in their reporting of her. That is what she wasn't prepared for.

AND the public, or at least some of them, as well as some of the members of the royal extended family.  Racism is alive and well, and Diana's children sell papers.  The papers cater to the people who want to read the kind of stuff they publish.  It's a vicious circle, and I'm glad Harry is well away from all of that.

As far as Americans?  Just the opinion of this particular American, but British Royalty is kind of like rare exotic birds in a zoo, or slightly bizarre and occasionally horrifying or entertaining stage show from another era, perhaps vaudeville, that has stayed on the stage too long, but can be slightly amusing at times, but I know I don't take them seriously as some kind of God Given Right To Reign edict.  As far as claiming all Queens and Kings are appointed by God? 

Seriously?  Considering the kind of monarchs that have ruled in Britain, it's very hard for me to believe anyone actually buys that anymore, even the Church. 

So, no, I doubt Harry and Megan will be hounded in the USA as much as they would be if they remained in the UK.  Sure, if they sell papers, they will be photographed, and spied on, anywhere they go.  However, moving to the LA area was kind of brilliant for them, since there are famous people all over the place there, so the paparazzi isn't quite so single minded.  

Aside from everything else, including trying to protect his wife and child, I do wonder if Harry feels the whole monarchy thing is ridiculous in this day and age?  I think he respects the Queen, but does he really believe it should continue after she dies?  The hypocrisy of Charles being anointed?  I'm sure he loves his dad, but you can love someone dearly and still not believe they should be King.

I dunno, just musing.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Umbelina
typo