Season 4: History Beyond the Episodes

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

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. 

Yes, they were sisters, and they had good times as well as the bad.  The show does focus so much on the bad that I have a hard time seeing this version of Elizabeth meeting with the cast of The Golden Girls.  I also can't see this version of the Queen Mum sitting at home watching the show either.

[Umbelina]

33 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Yes, they were sisters, and they had good times as well as the bad.  The show does focus so much on the bad that I have a hard time seeing this version of Elizabeth meeting with the cast of The Golden Girls.  I also can't see this version of the Queen Mum sitting at home watching the show either.

Ha!

I can see the Queen Mum not only watching it, but throwing things (like the ice cubes from her never ending gin glass) at the TV.  

Actually, I bet Camilla watches this as well, and probably even Charles, especially now that they have so much backlash they have closed down comments on their accounts.

I'm not happy about the comments, BTW, and even though I have never liked either of them, I would not be commenting hatefully about them on their various social media or official pages.  

Other royals that have probably watched?  Well, two formal royals may have watched the first two seasons (before Diana) both Harry and Meghan I'd guess, after Diana?  I kind of doubt it.  The Middletons?  Probably.  Kate or William?  No guess.  Fergie, the girls, possibly Andrew?  Leaning towards yes on all of them, for all seasons.  The Queen and Philip?  I seriously doubt it.  The huge staff of all the various royals?  I'd guess most are.

Adding in various COVID restrictions, voluntary or not, I think leads to more at home time, thus a higher chance of them watching.

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Ha!

I can see the Queen Mum not only watching it, but throwing things (like the ice cubes from her never ending gin glass) at the TV.  

Actually, I bet Camilla watches this as well, and probably even Charles, especially now that they have so much backlash they have closed down comments on their accounts.

I'm not happy about the comments, BTW, and even though I have never liked either of them, I would not be commenting hatefully about them on their various social media or official pages.  

Other royals that have probably watched?  Well, two formal royals may have watched the first two seasons (before Diana) both Harry and Meghan I'd guess, after Diana?  I kind of doubt it.  The Middletons?  Probably.  Kate or William?  No guess.  Fergie, the girls, possibly Andrew?  Leaning towards yes on all of them, for all seasons.  The Queen and Philip?  I seriously doubt it.  The huge staff of all the various royals?  I'd guess most are.

Adding in various COVID restrictions, voluntary or not, I think leads to more at home time, thus a higher chance of them watching.

I find social media trolling of royals so weird. First of all staff run the accounts -- the actual royals themselves probably never see the comments. Second of all I follow celebrities or people I like. But the royals seem to have a bunch of hate followers -- people who follow their accounts just to leave nasty comments. 

I think Kate would probably watch the show. She might binge-watch when she's with her parents. William probably not as I bet the stuff about his parents' marriage might still be too painful since he actually lived it. 

Another thing the show could do a better job of is the characterization of the Queen Mum. Except for brief moments in Season 1 she's almost 100% unlikable. While I don't doubt that she was a prickly character in real life there must have been SOME reason the kind, gentle and gracious Bertie/George loved her.

[kwnyc]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

While I don't doubt that she was a prickly character in real life there must have been SOME reason the kind, gentle and gracious Bertie/George loved her.

Well she was a bit of a looker back in the day... 😉

[Anothermi]

10 minutes ago, kwnyc said:

Well she was a bit of a looker back in the day... 😉

Well... using this picture, so was Bertie/George!  In actual fact it was clear to me that the long, (and I used to refer to the look as horsey-faced, but I've gotten kinder as I age) ahem.. aristocratic features that Charles exhibits came from him. 

[Umbelina]

 

Perhaps one of the ugliest wedding dresses ever?

[PeterPirate]

4 hours ago, kwnyc said:

Well she was a bit of a looker back in the day... 😉

Wow.  Now we know where Margaret got her looks from.

[Minivanessa]

On 11/29/2020 at 2:23 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. . . .

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.

Those are great points. Diana's warm gestures were genuine to her nature. That scene where Charles berated her, IMO was meant to show the gulf between those actions and the way the rest of the senior royals behaved. And to show that, at least at that point, Charles really hadn't grasped that Diana wasn't performing a phony "stunt" for the cameras. She had an almost uncanny gift of empathy for people who were suffering in any way.

That kind of behavior probably *would* have been a stunt if Anne or HM or Charles had tried it. I've read that the Queen has a horror of what she calls public "stunts," inauthentic public behavior performed for the benefit of polishing the PR image. There are degrees of it of course, but this series does IMO accurately show that HM is by nature a reserved and somewhat serious person. That's not at odds with the cultural "stiff upper lip" reserve of the British ruling/aristo classes so it's worked pretty well for her as head of state. I suspect that until Diana came along and demonstrated warmer behavior, that reserve displayed by HM was ingrained and ossified as the expected and appropriate royal public behavior, with of course everyone in the BRF taking their cue from the boss at the top. As you put it, "a chilly remove." 

I don't snark on Anne for refusing to hug kids just for the benefit of a photo opp; it wasn't authentic for her. She did her bit for her chosen charities, including many non-glam trips to Africa and behind the scenes service on boards, etc.  And I think it was an honest response that respected the kids she didn't want to hug for the cameras. I hate the assumption that any random child would welcome a hug from a stranger. I assume that Diana could read the room, and didn't force her hugs on kids who didn't want them. If any of those kids who were present when the photogs asked Anne to hug one of them, understood what the photos were asking, they might have been rather relieved not to be grabbed for such an embrace by a stranger. Sheesh. Those kids were people, not props. 

Yes, I believe that over time, the BRF learned lessons from Diana's style of public appearances. But in the maelstrom of the first decade of Diana's marriage, I doubt that any of the senior royals understood that her warmth was as genuine as their public reticence, and they were increasingly frightened by the implications of the huge public response to her press coverage. That may have been Charles screaming in her face after her NY trip in this show, but IMO it well represented the fears and frustrations of the BRF in reaction to Diana's tsunami of press coverage and public fandom. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Jeeves

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I don't snark on Anne for refusing to hug kids just for the benefit of a photo opp; it wasn't authentic for her. She did her bit for her chosen charities, including many non-glam trips to Africa and behind the scenes service on boards, etc.  And I think it was an honest response that respected the kids she didn't want to hug for the cameras. I hate the assumption that any random child would welcome a hug from a stranger. I assume that Diana could read the room, and didn't force her hugs on kids who didn't want them. If any of those kids who were present when the photogs asked Anne to hug one of them, understood what the photos were asking, they might have been rather relieved not to be grabbed for such an embrace by a stranger. Sheesh. Those kids were people, not props.

I agree. Not all *people*, not just children want to hug or to be hugged, especially by a stranger. 

[AZChristian]

Bringing this topic here as it was "beyond the episode." 

I found nothing sad about Mountbatten's assassination, other than the death of the child who was with him.  Mountbatten was reported to be a serial sexual abuser of children.  His preference was boys between 8 and 12.  Remember that Anthony Blunt who was featured in the series as the expert on the royal artwork?  He was part of the same circle of abusers.  Some sources refer to them as "child traffickers."  

Lots of info out there about the both of them.  

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Bringing this topic here as it was "beyond the episode." 

I found nothing sad about Mountbatten's assassination, other than the death of the child who was with him.  Mountbatten was reported to be a serial sexual abuser of children.  His preference was boys between 8 and 12.  Remember that Anthony Blunt who was featured in the series as the expert on the royal artwork?  He was part of the same circle of abusers.  Some sources refer to them as "child traffickers."  

Lots of info out there about the both of them.  

I'm far more interested in Blunt as a spy.  I loved the scene when he told Philip that he HAD those sketches made by Stephen Ward, threatening him, even after he was discovered to be a spy.  That was a nice little snippet, along with the fear of the USA finding out the UK had yet ANOTHER highly placed spy in their midst, and lying about it.

Mountbatten knew, or should have known, the danger he was in hanging out in that part of Ireland, during their gorilla-war-style fight against the crown for self determination.  It was egotistical and stupid to expose himself that way, nearly rubbing salt in the deep wounds of Ireland.  It was very like other things Mountbatten did, causing the deaths of thousands of servicemen, during his war career, all ego and bluster, and fancy uniforms.

In short, he was always a social climbing, self-promoting pompous ass, and it finally bit him in the ass.

It's a bit odd to me that other than that scene earlier in the series with his wife mocking him for his hundreds of fancy "uniforms" and that coup attempt, The Crown has basically made him such a sympathetic character, even with trying to force the made up  MOUNTBATTEN name on the crown.  

Hell, they could do a whole series on him alone, meanwhile there are plenty of documentaries around on youtube and other places that give a clearer picture of who this man was.  So, no, I wasn't sad to see him die, I was sad for the innocents on that boat with him.

[Growsonwalls]

One thing that kind of puzzles me is that when I see old photos of Elizabeth she's often wearing cute peep-toe shoes. But it's apparently one of the biggest royal rules that all ladies must wear close-toes shoes at all times. Why is that? The Queen herself didn't follow that rule when she was young. 

She wore these shoes to her wedding:

[Umbelina]

Mostly just covering his death, but still good, and a very different take than The Crown.

[RunningMarket]

16 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

One thing that kind of puzzles me is that when I see old photos of Elizabeth she's often wearing cute peep-toe shoes. But it's apparently one of the biggest royal rules that all ladies must wear close-toes shoes at all times. Why is that? The Queen herself didn't follow that rule when she was young. 

She wore these shoes to her wedding:

Kate has worn open-toe shoes on multiple occasions. I believe it's one of those urban myths that's become "fact" in popular culture. If there is a "rule" regarding footwear, it's likely for practicality and safety. Open-toe shoes are harder to say, run in, if there is an emergency.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, RunningMarket said:

Kate has worn open-toe shoes on multiple occasions. I believe it's one of those urban myths that's become "fact" in popular culture. If there is a "rule" regarding footwear, it's likely for practicality and safety. Open-toe shoes are harder to say, run in, if there is an emergency.

The ones I know are they must always wear hose with dresses, pale or natural color nail polish only (the Queen uses Essie Ballet Slippers usually,) and no crossing legs at the knee.

Anyway, I found the real Dickie Mountbatten speaking, and holy shit!  What an asshole!  He actually says he has NEVER made a mistake, etc.  Wow.

ETA, I've been watching more and more about Charles' idol Mountbatten.  This could explain a lot about Charles.  

Staying at home so much is certainly giving me a completely new appreciation for youtube.

This one came up, and it's mostly about his wife's many lovers.  Wow, she was a busy girl, beautiful, and she obviously enjoyed sex.  I think we are up to about a dozen lovers now, and she is still not thirty!  Several long term lovers as well.  Oh, and she was bisexual as well.  

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Umbelina

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

The ones I know are they must always wear hose with dresses, pale or natural color nail polish only (the Queen uses Essie Ballet Slippers usually,) and no crossing legs at the knee.

They're actually not supposed to cross their legs at all but supposed to do the "Duchess slant."

Yet there are pics of Kate and Diana crossing their legs at the knees:

As well as images of her doing the Duchess slant:

The other royal rule I know about is they're not supposed to eat finger foods -- ever. So no pizza or chips. And no shellfish. 

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

They're actually not supposed to cross their legs at all but supposed to do the "Duchess slant."

Yet there are pics of Kate and Diana crossing their legs at the knees:

As well as images of her doing the Duchess slant:

The other royal rule I know about is they're not supposed to eat finger foods -- ever. So no pizza or chips. And no shellfish. 

I think the shellfish and garlic thing is just at Buckingham Palace.  The Queen doesn't approve, but I seriously doubt she monitors diets outside of her home (at the time, whichever castle or palace she's at.)

Kate is wearing tights!  That was a nono for a very long time.  Flesh colored hose were required.  

Things are changing, but not the nail polish rule.

[Growsonwalls]

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think the shellfish and garlic thing is just at Buckingham Palace.  The Queen doesn't approve, but I seriously doubt she monitors diets outside of her home (at the time, whichever castle or palace she's at.)

Kate is wearing tights!  That was a nono for a very long time.  Flesh colored hose were required.  

Things are changing, but not the nail polish rule.

Diana wore black tights. I think the rule is you're supposed to be wearing some sort of hosiery.

Sophie wears them too:

I thought the no finger foods and shellfish rule was an across the board rule. Doesn't that go back to the idea that a royal woman is never supposed to be seen chewing? 

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

Diana wore black tights. I think the rule is you're supposed to be wearing some sort of hosiery.

Sophie wears them too:

I thought the no finger foods and shellfish rule was an across the board rule. Doesn't that go back to the idea that a royal woman is never supposed to be seen chewing? 

No, she's afraid of shellfish poisoning.

Interesting about the tights though.  I wonder if the photos of Diana were after their divorce?  

[Growsonwalls]

The sheer black tights was a really popular 80s look.

She definitely wore them to "stand out" like in this famous dress:

The thicker black tights that Kate and Sophie favor are I think an acknowledgement that sometimes in the UK it's just really fucking cold in the winter. And the sheer nude tights that the Queen favors aren't practical if you're going to be outdoors. 

But times are changing: I even found a photo of Kate in shorts:

This shot shows btw that without the high-placed belts she wears on her dresses Kate actually has a very long torso compared to her legs. A fashion blog I follow pointed out how often Kate hikes up her waist with a belt and it's one of those things where once you see it you can't unsee it.

[kaygeeret]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Mostly just covering his death, but still good, and a very different take than The Crown.

Just watched this and it does bring back memories for this 5th generation American with Celtic/Scandinavian/European mutt roots of that  particular time in history.  The Scots/Irish heritage is particularly resonant in my family.

In relation to The Crown.. for me this documentary underlines the utter powerlessness of the royal family.  And raises the interesting question of why anyone cares about them.  Seriously, they are apparently just celebrities, 'A' list, but still.....extraordinarily wealthy , but still....why does anyone really care?

What on god's green earth does the Queen do all day and why does she do it?  If she is reading gov't stuff, why?  She has no influence, so again I ask WHY?

 

 

 

[Scarlett45]

On 11/24/2020 at 9:16 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

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.  

I think so. 

[dubbel zout]

46 minutes ago, kaygeeret said:

What on god's green earth does the Queen do all day and why does she do it?  If she is reading gov't stuff, why?  She has no influence, so again I ask WHY?

To answer the first question, she open hospitals, tours factories, awards honors, etc. She does it because that's part of what the royal family does. To answer the second: She reads government papers because the government is formed in her name and acts in her name. To answer the third: She has "soft" influence, and because she's had so many prime ministers, she has a perspective very few, if any other people in the government have. She signs laws because they are acted upon in her name.

[swanpride]

Kate's style is either way pretty backwards. Granted, I never really saw Diana as "style icon" either, but at least she didn't look like she was wearing clothes from at least 50 years ago. I am far from telling anyone how to dress, but Kate's clothing is really aging her...the good thing is: she will look the same age for the next decade or so because of it, until the clothes actually fit her age.

[Umbelina]

17 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

To answer the first question, she open hospitals, tours factories, awards honors, etc. She does it because that's part of what the royal family does. To answer the second: She reads government papers because the government is formed in her name and acts in her name. To answer the third: She has "soft" influence, and because she's had so many prime ministers, she has a perspective very few, if any other people in the government have. She signs laws because they are acted upon in her name.

Pretty easy job for that kind of money/wealth.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

Kate's style is either way pretty backwards. Granted, I never really saw Diana as "style icon" either, but at least she didn't look like she was wearing clothes from at least 50 years ago. I am far from telling anyone how to dress, but Kate's clothing is really aging her...the good thing is: she will look the same age for the next decade or so because of it, until the clothes actually fit her age.

I find that all of the Windsor women to dress so conservatively that they do not register as "style icons."  Diana was also hampered by the fact that she shot to mega stardom in quite possibly one of the worst decades in fashion history.  No one looked good in the 80s.  

[Umbelina]

I'm curious.

Do these "fringe royals" buy all their own clothes?  By "fringe" I mean anyone who is not the Queen.  

I assume the Queen's are paid for by the public, since most are for "official duties" like the tour in Australia, where she was arguing about having so many, and asking about economizing, and talking about public criticism, etc.  However, perhaps that all changed later.

So, just curious.  Diana's, Kate's, Fergie's, Margaret's, Anne's, etc.  Public dime, or private?

[Epeolatrix]

According to Marie Claire: "Being royal comes with a lot of rules and obligations. On the upside, the job also comes with a pretty incredible wardrobe. Members of the royal family aren't expected to pay for the clothes they wear to official royal engagements. Prince Charles picks up the tab for the clothes Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince Harry, and, now, Meghan Markle, wear to official events—and that budget has skyrocketed since Harry and Meghan got engaged."

Edited December 2, 2020 by Epeolatrix
Previous reply looked snarky, which was not intended

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, Epeolatrix said:

According to Marie Claire: "Being royal comes with a lot of rules and obligations. On the upside, the job also comes with a pretty incredible wardrobe. Members of the royal family aren't expected to pay for the clothes they wear to official royal engagements. Prince Charles picks up the tab for the clothes Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince Harry, and, now, Meghan Markle, wear to official events—and that budget has skyrocketed since Harry and Meghan got engaged."

Oh please!  Just another Meghan slam (again some more.)  I highly doubt her clothes cost more than Diana's, Kate's, or Camilla's.

[Epeolatrix]

Wasn't posted to be a Meghan slam, it was just the top Google entry that answered the question of who pays for the royals' clothes.

 

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, Epeolatrix said:

Wasn't posted to be a Meghan slam, it was just the top Google entry that answered the question of who pays for the royals' clothes.

 

Oh, not about you!  I meant that about Marie Claire!  

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Oh, not about you!  I meant that about Marie Claire!  

Aside from the clickbait headline it’s really not. Marie Claire is generally Meghan friendly. Here’s the next section of the story:

“Don't blame the change on Meghan though. First of all, the royal family famously did not start picking up the tab for her clothing until Harry put a ring on it on May 19. Meghan Markle reportedly spent almost $30,000 of her own money on clothing for royal events through March 2017. 

Even if the reports of Meghan paying for her own pre-wedding wardrobe weren't true, blaming the increase on the newest royal in-law would still be unfair. The main cause for the increase is simple: Prince William, Prince Harry, and Kate Middleton have been taking on more and more royal duties in the past year as Queen Elizabeth II cuts back. More royal appearances means more clothes to wear during royal appearances, which means more money spent on clothes.“

[dubbel zout]

Any new member to the family will cause the budget to skyrocket. And really, the royal women can't win with their wardrobes. "Another new coat?" "Why is she wearing that coat again?"

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I'm curious.

Do these "fringe royals" buy all their own clothes?  By "fringe" I mean anyone who is not the Queen.  

I assume the Queen's are paid for by the public, since most are for "official duties" like the tour in Australia, where she was arguing about having so many, and asking about economizing, and talking about public criticism, etc.  However, perhaps that all changed later.

So, just curious.  Diana's, Kate's, Fergie's, Margaret's, Anne's, etc.  Public dime, or private?

Charles pays for his immediate family out of his private income from the Duchy of Cornwall. 

I’m not certain about the others but I believe it is private just because of the lack of information available. Anything they spend from the sovereign grant is public record. 

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Any new member to the family will cause the budget to skyrocket. And really, the royal women can't win with their wardrobes. "Another new coat?" "Why is she wearing that coat again?"

Oh exactly.

3 hours ago, Dani said:

“Don't blame the change on Meghan though. First of all, the royal family famously did not start picking up the tab for her clothing until Harry put a ring on it on May 19. Meghan Markle reportedly spent almost $30,000 of her own money on clothing for royal events through March 2017. 

Good to know!

I've discovered *from boredom* this channel on youtube called Absolute History.  The more episodes I watch, the more I think some storylines come, at least partially, from this series, for example, in earlier seasons, Philip's problems with the "firm" and with his mother in law.  Lots of palace insiders speak on these, including ladies in waiting, etc.  Philip and the coronation for example.

ETA

This also discusses "The Thursday Club" and says that Kim Philby was also a member!  (!)  So Philip was palling around with more than one spy.

[buttersister]

On 11/30/2020 at 5:03 PM, Umbelina said:

On 11/30/2020 at 4:54 PM, 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. 

FWIW, I thought cold season 3 Elizabeth was an angle that permitted her to ruin her sister's life. At the time, anyway.

[Umbelina]

Mr Bowes-Lyon, whose father was a first cousin of the Queen Mother once removed, told The Daily Telegraph that the storyline was 'complete fantasy' and that he had spoken to Margaret about Nerissa and Katherine on several occasions. 

'She knew who they were in every respect,' he said. 'It is completely wrong to say they were forgotten and certified as lunatics.'

In 1963, the family's entry in Burke's Peerage declared that both daughters were dead, which Mr Bowes-Lyon said he believed was simply a mistake. 

Queen's cousin blasts The Crown over 'fantasy' plot about monarch's relatives 'certified as lunatics' and left to rot in mental asylum - saying it caused 'frustration' in the family

Years later Onelle Braithwaite, one of the nurses who cared for them, remarked: 'I remember pondering with my colleague how, if things had been different, they would surely have been guests at the wedding.'

Speaking in the Channel 4 documentary, she added: 'Today they’d probably be given speech therapy and they’d communicate much better.

'They understood more than you'd think. It was so sad. Just think of the life they might have had. They were two lovely sisters.' 

[Razzberry]

On 12/1/2020 at 9:54 AM, AZChristian said:

Bringing this topic here as it was "beyond the episode." 

I found nothing sad about Mountbatten's assassination, other than the death of the child who was with him.  Mountbatten was reported to be a serial sexual abuser of children.  His preference was boys between 8 and 12.  Remember that Anthony Blunt who was featured in the series as the expert on the royal artwork?  He was part of the same circle of abusers.  Some sources refer to them as "child traffickers."  

Lots of info out there about the both of them.  

I've heard those rumors as well but any evidence has probably been covered up.  I did read a letter he wrote to his daughter that read more like a love letter to a paramour, which was pretty creepy. Apparently they had an open marriage and various lovers living all together like one big happy family

[kaygeeret]

23 hours ago, Razzberry said:

I've heard those rumors as well but any evidence has probably been covered up.  I did read a letter he wrote to his daughter that read more like a love letter to a paramour, which was pretty creepy. Apparently they had an open marriage and various lovers living all together like one big happy family

Ah, the aristocracy!

[Badger]

One of Edwina's long term lovers was Harold "Bunny" Phillips who eventually married Georgina Wernher.  She was the daughter of Zia Wernher the sister of  Nadeja Milford Haven who was married to Lord Mountbatten's elder brother George.  The Phillips' younger daughter Natalia married the 6th Duke of Westminster.  She is one of William's godparents.  Her son Hugh who succeeded his father in 2016 is one of George's godparents.

Lord Mountbatten had a long affair with the woman that Colette based her novel "Gigi" on.  Her name was Yola Letellier.  Before anyone gets any ideas (LOL) they were the same age and their affair began in 1932 so they were both in their thirties and lasted until his death.  

 

[Lorna Mae]

On 12/2/2020 at 2:12 PM, swanpride said:

 Granted, I never really saw Diana as "style icon" either

A lot of people did, though. I'm convinced that the popularity of coin spots (polka dots in the US) in the '80s was because of her. I know her circa-1981 hairstyle was much copied. 

As far as the Fairytale episode, when Diana chose the blue ring, I said, with the correct accent, "Sapphire has been assigned!" (I've been watching Sapphire and Steel on streaming.) And do you think they had enough foreshadowing shots of Diana in a car? I think there was even one going through a tunnel.

----------------------

The late Mike Royko, columnist for various Chicago papers, wrote about Charles and Diana several times. First was at the time of the wedding, to the effect of "You're young and presumably in love; be good to each other." He later regretted it, thinking it glurgey before the term was coined, but it went on a lot of fridges.

The others were published during the divorce, and there's one that was hilarious. (Not available online and wasn't published in a collection, dang it!) He'd happened to read somewhere that Camilla "shares Charles' love of tramping the grouse fields in the howling wind." From that, he extrapolated Charles trying and failing to get Diana to share his interests.  "But darling, there's a howler of a wind, and the fields have never been grousier." "I want to go shopping. And then to a disco." He kept repeating "tramp" "grouse fields" "howling winds" and "I want to go to a disco." 😂 But of course, being a hard-boiled American newspaperman who mostly wrote about politics and baseball, he didn't know that Charles and Camilla had been tramping those fields, literally and figuratively, when Diana was a preteen. If she'd shot a brace of grouse, it still wouldn't have helped her situation.

 

[PeterPirate]

Apparently, Queen Elizabeth has attended the funeral services of only two of her PMs, Churchill and Thatcher.

Queen made personal decision to attend Lady Thatcher's funeral

 

[Umbelina]

I wish we'd seen a bit more of the ski party and avalanche, that snow was effective, and I do realize it's mostly about how the Queen reacted (not much) but  in real life, Diana was there, Fergie was there, and I think it could have been quite good.  This may be one of the episodes where COVID precautions interfered or shortened the story, perhaps ski lodge and skiing filming just didn't work for them?

Still, It could have given the actor playing Charles so much to do, and I think would have been quite dramatic and cinematic.  Either the podcast, or a review of that episode said that Diana and Fergie had decided not to ski that day.  Also, that the wife of the man killed was pregnant with their (I think) first child.  Diana, doing one thing she was very good at, stuck by the wife's side, let her talk, comforted her, and helped her through that devastating time.  

I would have liked so see "Charles" facing death though, and his later reflections on how close he'd come (probably Camilla scenes there.)  Contrasting that with Buckingham Palace's reaction, and the devastated wife, actually seeing the man who died at least once, joking with Charles on the slopes or something.

It wouldn't have had to be terribly long, just an additional few minutes to give this story impact, on Charles and the Queen mostly, on Diana in a more minor way.  The queen in Dear Mrs. Kennedy saying that you don't know what happiness is, until something worse happens, seems like an apt thought for Diana here, for example.  That could have prompted the whole "trying harder" performances to try to show him that?

I would have put this in the episode thread, but it goes too much into real life events not shown on the episode.

[swanpride]

Frankly, considering how much "negative" scenes they gave Charles this season, they could have shown how level-headed he reacted in this particular situation, Not that I agree with the "Crown needs a disclaimer" crowd, but one thing which would make Charles as a character more interesting would be to show more of him than just his obsession over Camilla. No one is just one thing.

[j5cochran]

On 12/1/2020 at 8:36 PM, Growsonwalls said:

They're actually not supposed to cross their legs at all but supposed to do the "Duchess slant."

Yet there are pics of Kate and Diana crossing their legs at the knees:

As well as images of her doing the Duchess slant:

The other royal rule I know about is they're not supposed to eat finger foods -- ever. So no pizza or chips. And no shellfish. 

Part of the "crossed legs" no-no is a cultural one. In some cultures, Japan, some other Asian nations, and in Arab nations, sitting with your legs crossed is disrespectful. Getting into the habit of never crossing your legs in formal, public places is good practice for that international tour or greeting visitors to the UK.

(I used to teach software classes across the U.S. and occasionally overseas. I learned to read up on the culture of the nations that I was visiting, so that I would not inadvertently insult all of my students! In general, visiting European nations and the rest of North America was not difficult -- just a few hand gestures that mean different things outside the U.S. But I had to do some serious studying and preparation for Japan, for something as simple as exchanging business cards. But I digress....)

[Umbelina]

What's so strange is the QEII did cross her legs in that first televised Christmas message!  I thought the show made a mistake, so I found the real video on youtube (long ago) and yup, she crossed her legs!

Perhaps nerves.

[Growsonwalls]

Speaking of protocol, I had to laugh the other day when William and Kate on the train tour made roasted marshmallows, foods neither are allowed to eat because they count as finger foods. (And Kate wouldn't be allowed to eat them anyway because royal women can't eat carbs.)

I wonder if the royal restriction on foods will let up once Queen E passes away.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Ohiopirate02]

21 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Speaking of protocol, I had to laugh the other day when William and Kate on the train tour made roasted marshmallows, foods neither are allowed to eat because they count as finger foods. (And Kate wouldn't be allowed to eat them anyway because royal women can't eat carbs.)

I wonder if the royal restriction on foods will let up once Queen E passes away.

I do think that the so-called restrictions about royal women not eating food in public are blown out of proportion.  There are times when eating is called for like in this picture.  It would be rude of Kate not to take part in the activity.  An activity courtiers would have approved long before.  The restriction from Elizabeth is probably along the lines of making sure royal women are not camped out at the buffet during an event.  

[Growsonwalls]

7 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do think that the so-called restrictions about royal women not eating food in public are blown out of proportion.  There are times when eating is called for like in this picture.  It would be rude of Kate not to take part in the activity.  An activity courtiers would have approved long before.  The restriction from Elizabeth is probably along the lines of making sure royal women are not camped out at the buffet during an event.  

Check out this article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.delish.com/uk/food-news/gmp32141355/foods-the-royal-family-dont-eat/

Royals are not allowed to eat bread crust, potatoes, pasta and rice. So basically carbs are a no-no. I think Kate probably made the marshmallows but didn't eat them. 

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Check out this article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.delish.com/uk/food-news/gmp32141355/foods-the-royal-family-dont-eat/

Royals are not allowed to eat bread crust, potatoes, pasta and rice. So basically carbs are a no-no. I think Kate probably made the marshmallows but didn't eat them. 

That article is not contradicting what I said though.  Most of what is listed there are foods that are not served to the royals in their own palaces and Her Majesty's personal preferences.  But, I cannot imagine a royal on a state visit to Japan or China not eating rice.  It would be rude. They are going to follow the customs of the land.  When in Rome and all that jazz.  

 Like I said, these rules are blown out of proportion by the media.  These types of articles make it seem like once you marry into the family you have to give up all of the foods you love. I cannot imagine that being the case.  These are just foods they do not partake in while in Her Majesty's presence or while out doing business for the Crown.  Some of the items do make sense like garlic, onions, local tap water, or shellfish.  No one wants to cancel events because they are indisposed after eating a bad mussel.