Season 5: History Beyond the Episodes

[Athena]

Discussion of season 5 overall: what TPTB could have done, comparison to actual historical events, and what they missed out on. Future history and spoilers are allowed. Not for the discussion of the current BRF.

[formerlyfreedom]

I’m surprised that Diana’s break up with Hasnat Khan was minimized.  There seems to be a strong felling that led to her connecting with Dodi al Fayed.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, saoirse said:

I’m surprised that Diana’s break up with Hasnat Khan was minimized.  There seems to be a strong felling that led to her connecting with Dodi al Fayed.

Also Diana's former lover James Hewitt was minimimized in S4 as well as Andrew Parker Bowles. 

[Spartan Girl]

It’s a shame Diana couldn’t make it work with Hasnat. He could have been good for her.

Is the show trying to portray Diana and Dodi as doomed soulmates? Because I don’t think that was the case in real life. Sure they liked each each other, but people think that for her, he was a rebound to make Hasnat jealous.

I wonder if that scene with Charles and Diana is the last time he speaks to her before he dies. If so, I dearly hope he’s in for one hell of a guilt trip when she dies next season.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

It’s a shame Diana couldn’t make it work with Hasnat. He could have been good for her.

I doubt it. Just because he was emphatic towards his patients' relatives, doesn't guarantee that that he would such to his lover or wife - especially after the long and hard day. Poor Diana got - again - a crush on a man before she let her time to get to know him. To an outsider, there was a clear red flag when he told that he was so busy in his doctor's work that he had no time for go to the movies for ages.

Except for the loss of privacy for life, he would have been very difficult to continue his work as "Mr Diana". 

[katha]

I enjoyed the season but think it's the weakest because it got dragged down by too much Charles/Diana soap opera. They also needed to add the broader political context of the 90ies. By and large like the cast, though.

Debicki makes Diana more brittle, which is fair enough and I also think it's okay to show how much Diana was really contributing to the trainwreck by then. I thought it was appropriate that the older Charles got the larger part of the blame in the fourth season. Here they are both older and responsible for the mess. West doesn't look much like Charles LOL, but I think the way he hints at the mannerisms and speech patterns is fine and I like mix of self-confidence, frustration and petulance he brings to it. 

I also think it's fair enough that the show actually takes a critical stance on Elizabeth. She was always very conservative, but by the 90ies yeah she was very much stuck in a pretty old-fashioned mindset and it's not wrong to point out that Charles saw by then that the monarchy needed restructuring and she was just not willing to do any of it. The reality is that now Charles in his 70ies needs to clean up and streamline stuff that his mother refused to touch for decades. Just because she became revered in her old age doesn't mean the show needs to just gloss over her bad points as a monarch. 

I like Staunton more than Colman. Colman never quite got the reserve down and had a tendency to make Elizabeth to outgoing/warm. I enjoyed her performance, but it seemed much removed from Foy's interpretation and what we have seen of the real Elizabeth. Pryce is also too warm and mild as Philip, but I like his take anyway. Menzies I think was the strongest Philip, getting both the quickness and sharpness, but also the empathy, charm and good humor. Smith had the sharpness, intelligence and humor, but his cruelty often came off as whiny. Menzies has Philip be cruel as well, but it's cold and precise, which seemed more on point. Pryce has the humor, intelligence and warmth, but he's not sharp enough.

[GHScorpiosRule]

In addition to that interview, as horrid as it was, the line “There were three of us in this marriage” was something I was looking forward to because I lived through it and remember how MUCH the American media kept airing it. As young as I was, I remember how sad she looked and how much I detested Bashir even then.And to learn that he tricked Diana into it for…reasons the show didn’t even make clear.

Anyway, as others have stated, Morgan failed to show how much Diana loved her sons and how much they loved her. I remember those scenes of them on the water chute ride, getting wet and laughing. There was a warmth to her the show decided to ignore. Saw Harry speak once-in the first episode about wanting to also go shopping.

I didn’t like how William was portrayed as someone who didn’t love his mother, but spoke with her and spent time with her out of “duty.” At least that’s how it came off to me. That he was embarrassed by her and wanted to avoid her every chance he got.

That doesn’t mean that I agree with Diana treating him as her confidante, if you will, when it came to her love life.

Forget about how King Charles feels about his portrayal in this. I’m wondering how Prince William feels or thinks (if informed) about how his show counterpart acted toward the mother he loved and was devastated by her death.

Edited November 13, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[Calvada]

Did the RF really have inklings of Morton's book and Diana's role in providing information for it prior to its publication?  I thought it was a bombshell to all when it was published and that Diana was confronted about possibly cooperating, but she swore up and down that she had nothing to do with it.  Whether her denials were believed is a matter for debate.

[BloomsburyRez]

9 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I wonder if that scene with Charles and Diana is the last time he speaks to her before he dies. If so, I dearly hope he’s in for one hell of a guilt trip when she dies next season.

This might have been the last time Charles and Diana were in the same room. It’s undoubtedly the last photo of both boys with their parents. In spring 1997 William was confirmed. In the back row are some of his godparents. 

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I didn’t like how William was portrayed as someone who didn’t love his mother, but spoke with her and spent time with her out of “duty.” At least that’s how it came off to me. That he was embarrassed by her and wanted to avoid her every chance he got.

I didn't get the impression that he didn't like his mom - why else he would have been worried about her? He gave short answers to her in the phone because he was a typical pre-teen boy and there was always somebody else in the room. 

It's true that he was easier with his granny, but is it quite usual?

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Anyway, as others have stated, Morgan failed to show how much Diana loved her sons and how much they loved her. I remember those scenes of them on the water chute ride, getting wet and laughing. There was a warmth to her the show decided to ignore. Saw Harry speak once-in the first episode about wanting to also go shopping.

I didn’t like how William was portrayed as someone who didn’t love his mother, but spoke with her and spent time with her out of “duty.” At least that’s how it came off to me. That he was embarrassed by her and wanted to avoid her every chance he got.

That doesn’t mean that I agree with Diana treating him as her confidante, if you will, when it came to her love life.

Forget about how King Charles feels about his portrayal in this. I’m wondering how Prince William feels or thinks (if informed) about how his show counterpart acted toward the mother he loved and was devastated by her death.

I agree. I have no problem showing Diana’s flaws, but the show needs to balance it out with the warmth that made everyone fall in love with her. It was better emphasized in season 4.

I did think the moment in episode 1 with William holding Diana’s hand in Italy was nice, but we didn’t have enough of those moments. Diana might not have always been a perfect mother, but she loved those boys and they loved her. Yeah, I can’t imagine how William feels about all this. He probably has enough emotional baggage about his mother without the show skewing their relationship like that.

[Roseanna]

Timetable:
1992: Morton's book about Diana
August 1992: Diana and James Gilbert's call published (not mentioned in the show)
November 1992: Charles and Camilla's call published
December 1992: separation announced
1994: Charles's interview by Dimbleby and Dimbleby's book about Charles
November 1995: Diana's interview by Bashir (Diana didn't meet the Queen unlike the show, but called the Private Secretary Robert Fellowes, her own berother-in-law)
February 1996: The Queen meets Charles and Diana (not wrote to them as in the show) and request them to file for divorce ASAP

Diana and Charles had already told their version about their marriage via Morton and Dimbleby. Also their calls that revealed their affairs were published.

So, what was Diana's aim with Bashir interview? To revenge on Charles and get the public on her side? No doubt. To prevent Charles to become King? Likely. To undermine monarchy? Possibly.

We know now that Bashir lied Diana to get the interview and he succeeded because his lies corresponded with fears she had already. So perhaps her motive was also to protect herself.

Did Diana's strategy succeed? She certainly caused damage to Charles but even more to herself - she seemed not have to have anticipated the Queen's harsh reaction but believe that her popularity would protect her. 

The saddest thing is that she didn't seem to understood how her revelations - and that all his school-fellows knew about them - influenced on William who saw the interview in Eton.

On 11/12/2022 at 10:15 PM, Calvada said:

Did the RF really have inklings of Morton's book and Diana's role in providing information for it prior to its publication?  I thought it was a bombshell to all when it was published and that Diana was confronted about possibly cooperating, but she swore up and down that she had nothing to do with it.  Whether her denials were believed is a matter for debate.

After the book was published, Diana met one of her friends who was believed to be one of Morton's "sources" and she made sure that the photographers were present outside that house - that was a strong statement that she wasn't angry to her friend, unlike in the case if her friend had broken her confidence without her knowledge. Thus, she confirmded what the book told, which was an embarrashment for Buckingham Palace that had denied it.

If Morton really said as in the show that he had not interviewed Diana, he lied (he had presented her questions on paper and she had answered to them via tapes). If he had said that he had never met her, that would be the literal truth, although misleading on purpose. 

On 11/12/2022 at 8:21 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Anyway, as others have stated, Morgan failed to show how much Diana loved her sons and how much they loved her. I remember those scenes of them on the water chute ride, getting wet and laughing. There was a warmth to her the show decided to ignore. Saw Harry speak once-in the first episode about wanting to also go shopping.

In the first episode Diana and her sons (maybe also other children?) were seen together in a motor boat, enjoying the speed waterfowl, whereas Charles sat on the deck of the yacht speaking with his friend. Actually, what we was never shown was his *private* behavior as father, only how stiff he was in public compared with the demonstrative Diana (whose warmth was no doubt sincere but she also aware of the photographers and even gave them hints about places where she "privately" went with her sons).

Maybe the boys could have shown more but it could also be that the real persons' privacy was protected?

To me, the worst omission was the concentration almost only on the private life. We saw Diana visit once a hospital and Charles's work in Prince's Trust, but generally the impression was that they just wallowed in self-pity (true enough about Charles) or suffered of loneliness and paranoia (Diana). At least they both were presented as good and supporting friends.

The Queen was presented, not only meeting her Prime Ministers but also doing her regular endless public tasks (lacking any glamour and no doubt boring to her but important to local places and people).

Edited November 16, 2022 by Roseanna
Correction: Morton's book published not 1991 but 1992

[katha]

I thought Diana's warmth as a parent was shown quite well. It's pretty well documented that she tended to parentify William and crossed boundaries with him on occasion, though. And the show basically just rather cautiously follows those stories. IMO you see it in the picture William and Harry paint of their mother to this day: Harry has a rather uncomplicated view of her as a victim of circumstances and the media around her. William seems much more aware of her paranoia and mental health issues, perhaps even over-emphasizing them. Which is probably grounded in the different relationships they had with her. For Harry, she was his loving and unhappy parent. While she turned to William for emotional support and blurred the lines between parent/friend. In that sense he's also probably more willing to give Charles the benefit of the doubt because he saw first-hand how troubled his mother was and that it wasn't all on Charles. 

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

To me, the worst omission was the concentration almost only on the private life. We saw Diana visit once a hospital and Charles's work in Prince's Trust, but generally the impression was that they just wallowed in self-pity (true enough about Charles) or suffered of loneliness and paranoia (Diana). At least they both were presented as good and supporting friends.

Why didn’t the show give us more of Diana’s charity work on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients? The door was opened wide in last season with her visit to the New York hospital. Sure, the scene with her visiting Dr. Khan’s patients was nice, but what about when she publicly met with those AIDS patients and shook their hands to help combat the stigma of the disease? That was such a monumental moment not only in her life, but in the history of the royal family. And the show decided to just leave that out?!

If you want to show Charles’ own charity work and him breakdancing, fine, but do not downplay Diana’s. She didn’t just use the media to her own advantage, she used it to help other people. And her flaws and mental health issues shouldn’t overshadow that.

Is it too much to hope that next season will at least touch on her work on helping land mine victims before her death?

Edited November 13, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, katha said:

I thought Diana's warmth as a parent was shown quite well. It's pretty well documented that she tended to parentify William and crossed boundaries with him on occasion, though. And the show basically just rather cautiously follows those stories. IMO you see it in the picture William and Harry paint of their mother to this day: Harry has a rather uncomplicated view of her as a victim of circumstances and the media around her. William seems much more aware of her paranoia and mental health issues, perhaps even over-emphasizing them. Which is probably grounded in the different relationships they had with her. For Harry, she was his loving and unhappy parent. While she turned to William for emotional support and blurred the lines between parent/friend. In that sense he's also probably more willing to give Charles the benefit of the doubt because he saw first-hand how troubled his mother was and that it wasn't all on Charles. 

I agree. Plus, William was two years older - that means a lot in that age.

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Why didn’t the show give us more of Diana’s charity work on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients? The door was opened wide in last season with her visit to the New York hospital. Sure, the scene with her visiting Dr. Khan’s patients was nice, but what about when she publicly met with those AIDS patients and shook their hands to help combat the stigma of the disease. That was such a monumental moment not only in her life, but in the history of the royal family. And the show decided to just leave that out?!

If you want to show Charles’ own charity work and him breakdancing, fine, but do not downplay Diana’s. She didn’t just use the media to her own advantage, she used it to help other people. And her flaws and mental health issues shouldn’t overshadow that.

Is it too much to hope that next season will at least touch on her work on helping land mine victims before her death?

I don't want to downplay Diana's charity work - that's why I wasn't contented to see only one hospital visit.

I completely understand that it's more difficult to make drama of work, but at least some scene (f.ex. taking William privately to the shelter of the homeless without any photographers) or at least a montage (like about the Queen's job) would have been necessary.

Dr Khan was told that when she visited her friend, she began to speak also with other patients - because we weren't shown it, it could be interpreted that she had done so in order to impress him. 

AIDs patents were handled on the previous season. I am afraid that land mines can't be handled because in the episode 10 she already is going to the cruise.

[BloomsburyRez]

This is the only season that has not prominently featured the pm and the cabinet. In the past four seasons it’s been such a giant part of the plot not just the famous to Americans pms like Churchill and Thatcher but the others as well. Granted when I rewatch season one I tend to skip most if not all Churchill scenes. This is also the first season that I’d still argue the Queen is the supporting actress not lead. I know Charles & Diana occupied most of the attention of the 90s but it’s still The Crown not The Wales. I’d still also argue that leaving the real Elizabeth aside the character portrayed by Imelda Staunton bares little resemblance to the one established by Claire Foy and continued by Olivia Coleman. Two of my absolute favorite episodes are Vergangenheit and Paterfamilias and in both of those while the Queen was secondary to the main plot in the scenes she was in you had no doubt what she was thinking and doing. 
 

One thing I wasn’t bothered about were the complaints that the focus was on William not Harry. Harry was younger when this was all taking place, both of his parents probably did try to shield the baby etc. Plus in keeping with the name The Crown the focus would be on William over the Queen’s other seven grandchildren. With the exception of last season’s episode Favourites the Queen’s two younger sons have had how many scenes or lines of dialogue? The exception is each season’s Margaret centric episode which oddly I’ve liked. I’ve always thought that the real Margaret was such an unpleasant person, absolutely racist and antisemitic but I’ve loved all three Margaret actresses and this season’s Margaret is the only one who feels like a continuation of the established character. 
 

I will still watch the final season and if the prequels do happen give those a try, but these ten episodes feel like a different show then the previous forty. 
 

[greekmom]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I agree. Plus, William was two years older - that means a lot in that age.

I wonder why they didn't show William's reaction to the Dimbleby interview. I mean it was just as damning and it was only 1 year prior to the Diana interview.

[Spartan Girl]

24 minutes ago, greekmom said:

I wonder why they didn't show William's reaction to the Dimbleby interview. I mean it was just as damning and it was only 1 year prior to the Diana interview.

Double standards.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, greekmom said:

I wonder why they didn't show William's reaction to the Dimbleby interview. I mean it was just as damning and it was only 1 year prior to the Diana interview.

Maybe because his reaction isn't known, or even if he watched it. 

[dubbel zout]

When has that ever stopped Peter Morgan? I've mentioned elsewhere that I think he's being especially careful with how he portrays the boys because they were minors when all of this was going down.

[Lady Whistleup]

10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Why didn’t the show give us more of Diana’s charity work on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients? The door was opened wide in last season with her visit to the New York hospital. Sure, the scene with her visiting Dr. Khan’s patients was nice, but what about when she publicly met with those AIDS patients and shook their hands to help combat the stigma of the disease? That was such a monumental moment not only in her life, but in the history of the royal family. And the show decided to just leave that out?!

If you want to show Charles’ own charity work and him breakdancing, fine, but do not downplay Diana’s. She didn’t just use the media to her own advantage, she used it to help other people. And her flaws and mental health issues shouldn’t overshadow that.

Is it too much to hope that next season will at least touch on her work on helping land mine victims before her death?

I think this season Peter Morgan wants to peel back Diana's saintly public image and show more of her calculation and manipulation. And honestly, it's a valid take. Many people in Diana's life eventually became disenchanted with her when they ran first hand into her volatility and neediness, and saw that the saintly public rep masked an extremely difficult person.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Lady Whistleup

[katie9918]

I’m okay with them not focusing too much on Diana’s good points because they’ve also been doing the same to Charles and they did it to him last season as well.

It’s a struggle to get through this season because I had very little patience for this when it actually happened when I was a teenager. I always felt bad for the Queen and Philip being surrounded by either ingrates, entitled narcissists, or decent ones no one was paying attention to because of the aforementioned ingrates and narcissists.

Charles and Camilla got better, thankfully.

[truthful]

I've seen people complaining how The Crown has focused less and less in regards to real world events compared to earlier seasons. I'm wondering if that was a deliberate choice by Morgan to show how the Royal family were becoming increasingly irrelevant and insular as they approached the 21st century.

[qtpye]

A podcast on this season.

https://tomandlorenzo.com/2022/11/pop-style-opinionfest-has-the-crown-gone-soft-podcast-the-crown-season-5-tv-reviews/

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I think this season Peter Morgan wants to peel back Diana's saintly public image and show more of her calculation and manipulation. And honestly, it's a valid take. Many people in Diana's life eventually became disenchanted with her when they ran first hand into her volatility and neediness, and saw that the saintly public rep masked an extremely difficult person.

A good point. However, I think showing different sides of her would have been a better solution. 

[Pallas]

Lot of discussion in the "Annus Horibilus" topic about Margaret's decision not to marry Peter, and how it seems to have been based on her refusal to give up her royal status. Here is the BBC news feature about the plan being worked out by Prime Minister Eden for Margaret's marriage to Townsend. From the overall "History Talk" topic: 

On 2/17/2022 at 4:29 AM, Roseanna said:

It's also possible that the reason Margaret gave to the public - the the Anglican church didn't accept divorce - was genuine. She was religious, actually they both were.

I agree. Not only could divorced people not remarry in the Church, remarried divorced people and their spouses were not allowed to take communion. The first point made in "Annus Horribilis" is that Margaret's faith was important to her as a standard and a solace. It was not until 2002 that the Church of England allowed divorced congregants, in some cases, to marry in the Church. 

Margaret would also have only been allowed to assume royal duties if the marriage met with public approval in the Commonwealth. Not for nothing -- Commonwealth disapproval had been the final blow to her Uncle David's final offer of a morganatic marriage, though it seems likely that Margaret's marriage would have been supported. 

Margaret alluded to both these questions in her October 1955 statement, written by Peter, breaking their engagement: 

"I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But, mindful of the Church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others...."

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

Not only could divorced people not remarry in the Church, remarried divorced people and their spouses were not allowed to take communion. The first point made in "Annus Horribilis" is that Margaret's faith was important to her as a standard and a solace. It was not until 2002 that the Church of England allowed divorced congregants, in some cases, to marry in the Church.

Yet, her faith didn't stop her to have an affair with Peter Townsend who was married man and had two sons, even to be the party to made the initiave, and thus (at least partly) cause his dicorce, if we are believed how this show again presented the happenings.

Peter Townsend told otherwise in his memoirs, maybe to protect Margaret and even himself. Margaret told in the show that they fell in the first time for during the Royal family's journey to South Africa in 1947 she wasn't even 17 years old whereas he was 32. Irl he came to the service of the royal family already in 1944 when she was 14. 

For some reason that it's hard to undestand outside the Anglican and Catholic church, just the dicorce and remarriage were the sins that couldn't forgiven whereas adultery could be, even if there was no wish to stop it (Charles is said to be religious too). 

[PeterPirate]

 Here is a decent documentary about Martin Bashir 

Having watched a part of the actual interview, I don't see any manipulation on Bashir's part.  As far as I know she never recanted anything she said.  So what if he did some dodgy things to secure the interview.  She was going to spill the tea to someone eventually.  

I'm not trying to defend Bashir.  My point is that by focusing on what he did to get the interview, the show is taking agency away from Diana being able to make her own choices and tell the truth as she understood it.  It also detracts from conversation about whether Diana's words were valid and the effect they had on the monarchy. 

[Roseanna]

15 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

 Here is a decent documentary about Martin Bashir 

Having watched a part of the actual interview, I don't see any manipulation on Bashir's part.  As far as I know she never recanted anything she said.  So what if he did some dodgy things to secure the interview.  She was going to spill the tea to someone eventually.  

I'm not trying to defend Bashir.  My point is that by focusing on what he did to get the interview, the show is taking agency away from Diana being able to make her own choices and tell the truth as she understood it.  It also detracts from conversation about whether Diana's words were valid and the effect they had on the monarchy. 

BBC has made an apology for the interview.

Generally speaking, I don't believe that anybody should reveal her childhood, marriage or any other private matters without first having years of therapy. 

[dubbel zout]

It’s how Bashir got the interview that was manipulative, not the interview itself. Nothing he asked Diana in it was a surprise.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

 Here is a decent documentary about Martin Bashir 

Having watched a part of the actual interview, I don't see any manipulation on Bashir's part.  As far as I know she never recanted anything she said.  So what if he did some dodgy things to secure the interview.  She was going to spill the tea to someone eventually.  

I'm not trying to defend Bashir.  My point is that by focusing on what he did to get the interview, the show is taking agency away from Diana being able to make her own choices and tell the truth as she understood it.  It also detracts from conversation about whether Diana's words were valid and the effect they had on the monarchy. 

I agree that Diana was always going to talk to someone.  Her line about there being 3 in her marriage was rehearsed. She wanted the opportunity to say this on camera. She also had an understanding on how to craft a narrative in order to get what she wanted.  What she wanted was to get free from her marriage to Charles and the whole royal circus while still having custody of her sons.  In her mind, that required getting the public on her side.  I think she was too naive and thought that once she was free from being a royal that the press would back off.  She never realized that by letting Andrew Morton and later Martin Bashir into her life the press was never going to back off.  

This does not absolve Bashir for what he did to secure the interview, though.  

[Roseanna]

18 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree that Diana was always going to talk to someone.  Her line about there being 3 in her marriage was rehearsed. She wanted the opportunity to say this on camera. She also had an understanding on how to craft a narrative in order to get what she wanted.  What she wanted was to get free from her marriage to Charles and the whole royal circus while still having custody of her sons.  In her mind, that required getting the public on her side.  I think she was too naive and thought that once she was free from being a royal that the press would back off.  She never realized that by letting Andrew Morton and later Martin Bashir into her life the press was never going to back off.  

This does not absolve Bashir for what he did to secure the interview, though.  

I agree that Diana was anyway going to talk to someone. But the BBC should haven't done it. It's another thing to criticize monarchy - that it should absolutely do if the royals don't do their job or spend too much or accept lavish gifts, but not on the level of tabloids. 

However, I doubt that Diana really wanted "out". It seems that the Queen's request, or rather command, for divorce surprised her. And, although she had became an internationally super star, nobody would have heard if her if she hadn't married Charles. If she wanted to promote causes, the position as the Princess of Wales gave her an extra bonus.

As for media, it's rarely remembered that in the beginning of her and Charles's marriage the Queen met the editors and asked to respect her privacy, so that she could go to the nearby village to simple shop without being disturbed. And when the photo about the pregnant Diana in the bikini was published, the Palace strongly disapproved - but Diana secretly sent a word that she wasn't angry.       

[GaT]

Of course we can't count on this show to be historically accurate, but I find it hard to believe that Diana & her brother Charles didn't get some legal advice when this whole Martin Bashir thing happened. There should have been a lawyer (attorney? counselor? barrister? solicitor?) present during the meeting & they should have reviewed the evidence. Instead, these 2 idiots just believed everything he said.

Edited November 17, 2022 by GaT

[Lady Whistleup]

22 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Yet, her faith didn't stop her to have an affair with Peter Townsend who was married man and had two sons, even to be the party to made the initiave, and thus (at least partly) cause his dicorce, if we are believed how this show again presented the happenings.

Peter Townsend told otherwise in his memoirs, maybe to protect Margaret and even himself. Margaret told in the show that they fell in the first time for during the Royal family's journey to South Africa in 1947 she wasn't even 17 years old whereas he was 32. Irl he came to the service of the royal family already in 1944 when she was 14. 

For some reason that it's hard to undestand outside the Anglican and Catholic church, just the dicorce and remarriage were the sins that couldn't forgiven whereas adultery could be, even if there was no wish to stop it (Charles is said to be religious too). 

The thing is this ... divorce and remarriage are visible. Adultery is usually hidden in the bedroom, unless one of the parties speaks out about it. For this reason, in any deeply religious community, you'll find a lot of adultery but very few divorces. 

In real life, Elizabeth made a lot of arrangements for Margaret to be happy with Peter. I wish the Crown had shown that because the show made her seem like a shitty sister, when in real life it was actually the opposite. Elizabeth and Margaret were very close.

[Roseanna]

About Charles's behavior during William's accident and operation in the hospital:

It seems that people nowadays have a fixed opinion how a good parent *must* behave and don't understand that some persons have such a profession that they are just now in the middle of some task that demands them to put their job before their family - at least, if there is no emergency situation, it's enough to have one parent with the child.

However, Charles was *not* in that kind of situation that he must put his job over his family, but he was given the bad advice that because he had promised to be present, he just couldn't "disappoint people". Those who gave this advice not only didn't understand the public's feelings and the tabloid's influence on them, but they had forgotten the history's lesson: how Nicholas II's reputation was damaged by going to the ball of the French ambassy after Kholynka tragedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khodynka_Tragedy

[Magnumfangirl]

On 11/13/2022 at 7:36 PM, truthful said:

I've seen people complaining how The Crown has focused less and less in regards to real world events compared to earlier seasons. I'm wondering if that was a deliberate choice by Morgan to show how the Royal family were becoming increasingly irrelevant and insular as they approached the 21st century.

I think you are right, but it made for mostly boring TV.  And I still can't figure out why he wasted an entire episode on the Fayeds.  I'll watch next season even thou I think most of the casting was a misfire.  The two best were Debecki and Jonny Lee Miller and neither of them will be around for season 6.  ☹️

[truthful]

55 minutes ago, Magnumfangirl said:

I think you are right, but it made for mostly boring TV.  And I still can't figure out why he wasted an entire episode on the Fayeds.  I'll watch next season even thou I think most of the casting was a misfire.  The two best were Debecki and Jonny Lee Miller and neither of them will be around for season 6.  ☹️

Actually I think it made for a deeper story. These characters became more flawed and therefore richer in their complexity. And I feel that the episode on the Fayeds was to contrast Diana's situation. A man who wanted nothing more than to be in the system compared to a woman who wanted nothing more than to leave the system. And also, and I'm of course just speculating here, I feel that the death of Diana will also focus on the death of Dodi. So we'll probably have some scenes of Mou Mou grieving. If they hadn't done that episode focused on that family and showed scenes of Dodi's family grieving for him some people, ok the Diana fanatics, would be pissed off that they took focus off her death. Which I know sounds ridiculous but these Diana fanatics get annoyed if she isn't portrayed as anything other than an angel descended from Heaven to guide humanity. 

[Razzberry]

Has anyone read Shadows of a Princess, by Patrick Jephson?  I'm pretty sure he's the one who claimed that Charles was talking about Elizabeth II stepping down, only it wasn't to John Major.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, truthful said:

Actually I think it made for a deeper story. These characters became more flawed and therefore richer in their complexity. And I feel that the episode on the Fayeds was to contrast Diana's situation. A man who wanted nothing more than to be in the system compared to a woman who wanted nothing more than to leave the system. 

Though Diana certainly started out wanting to be part of the system even more than she already was!

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, truthful said:

a woman who wanted nothing more than to leave the system.

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Though Diana certainly started out wanting to be part of the system even more than she already was!

I don't know if Diana wanted to leave the system, at least it seems to have been a surprise to her that her interview made the Queen in practice order her and Charles sue for divorce. In any case, I doubt if she had any realistic view how her situation would change without HRH which she wanted to keep but which the Queen refused.

If Diana hadn't married the Prince of Wales, nobody would have heard of her. Then she become an international super star who could promote issues she cared for. But her influence was entirely dependent on her popularity and the public's favor is fickle: the tabloids adore you one moment and let your down the next moment, if it sells the papers better.

[Pallas]

11 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Has anyone read Shadows of a Princess, by Patrick Jephson?  I'm pretty sure he's the one who claimed that Charles was talking about Elizabeth II stepping down, only it wasn't to John Major.

Yes, and Jephson comes across as discerning, fair-minded and stout-hearted. He sees people and events in the round. He speaks of Charles's visiting the idea of a regency not in his book but in a recent interview with the Telegraph. 

[Razzberry]

In the interview with the Telegraph, it sounds like the critics really ruffled Jephson's feathers.  I also love the picture of Charles they chose for the article.  lol

"If the creative classes decide to fill that gap, how they do it is up to them. That’s called freedom of speech and it’s a right worth defending, even against those who live and work in palaces. In fact, especially against those who live and work in palaces, given their controlling instincts. What’s more, no playwright ever did as much harm to them as they have done – and continue to do – to each other."  - Jephson

I just started Jephson's book and am loving it.  He's arrived at Kensington Palace for a job interview and luncheon with Diana.  His description of their apartment as so dark and gloomy they have to burn lights even in the daytime, the lime green carpeting, Diana's perfume, etc.  I feel like I'm there. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Razzberry

[Roseanna]

I just read that both Norton and Penny Romsey were two of Charles's three friends who warned him not to marry Diana. In some quarrel he revealed it to her which made her to force him to not to see them.

I wonder if Romseys' presence on the yacht only only a way to introduce Penny as a grieving mom for the episode with Philip.

[Pallas]

On 11/24/2022 at 4:44 PM, Roseanna said:

I wonder if Romseys' presence on the yacht only only a way to introduce Penny as a grieving mom for the episode with Philip.

The Romseys were present on the cruise.

[jeansheridan]

On 11/16/2022 at 11:33 AM, Roseanna said:

If she wanted to promote causes, the position as the Princess of Wales gave her an extra bonus.

The show has done a crap job showing her developing her charity interests. Even if some of her charities were selected by committee or PR teams, she eventually developed her own ideas and style. First Ladies do this and usually they pick no brainers like Reading or Health or Just Say No (I can't recall Barbara Bush's but it was no doubt very sensible). But they usually pick one that's a good fit. Diana did this too. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of working Diana. It is always more than putting on a good dress and waving.

On 11/12/2022 at 1:55 AM, Roseanna said:

Andrew Parker Bowles. 

Camilla's husband???? I know you are generally right about facts but ouch. Way too close. What did HE get out of that? Yikes.

On 11/22/2022 at 3:08 AM, Roseanna said:

About Charles's behavior during William's accident and operation in the hospital:

What accident? I missed a scene I think. 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, jeansheridan said:

What accident? I missed a scene I think. 

It wasn't in the show that I remember. He got hit with a golf club at school.

[jeansheridan]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

It wasn't in the show that I remember. He got hit with a golf club at school.

Yikes! That can be serious.  But of it was his leg or arm...

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

Yikes! That can be serious.  But of it was his leg or arm...

Iirc, it was his head and he had surgery.

[jeansheridan]

I know Anne wasn't on screen much this season but I think she is the MVP of this family and in RL too. She's frank with her mother, candid with Charles, and seems to keep her RL messes private.  I think she was smart to keep her kids out of the family business too as much as possible. Stupid Morgan! I am interested in Anne too and her decisions. So many tedious shots of cars pulling up to houses. Meh.

[Roseanna]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:25 PM, jeansheridan said:

I know Anne wasn't on screen much this season but I think she is the MVP of this family and in RL too. She's frank with her mother, candid with Charles, and seems to keep her RL messes private.  I think she was smart to keep her kids out of the family business too as much as possible. Stupid Morgan! I am interested in Anne too and her decisions. So many tedious shots of cars pulling up to houses. Meh.

I agree. If Dodi was compared with Diana (or, come to think, with Charles?), why wouldn't Anne be compared with Charles?

As Philip once said in the show, Anne should have been a boy and Charles a girl. Old-fashioned thinking of course, but Anne had a character fit to be heir, although she didn't seem to get any trauma for being the spate and then passed by her younger brothers. 

The Queen of Denmark and King of Norway also have a yacht:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMY_Dannebrog_(A540)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMY_Norge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia