S05.E10: Decommissioned

[Roseanna]

Charles accused him mum by treating Camilla worse than Diana although Camilla had been a model of "discretion".

Dear Charles, your mum believes in the sanctity of marriage *and* the crown. 

[Zaffy]

Add me to the club of not enjoying this season.
Surely some of the casting was unfortunate (sorry Mr West, I really like you but you were so much misscasted as Charles).

The basic problem with this show..is that these people are BORING. BORING, BORING, BORING!
I am not British or royalist,  I guess they have to behave like human robots, but that doesn't make them appealing and certainly does not justify 50 (soon to be 60) episodes of TV.
They are simply not interesting enough. 

It is not a coincidence that the best episodes of the series were about personalities that lived or events, like Aberfan,  that happened during Elizabeth's reign.
I mean how much can you watch Lilibet not showing emotions  or that entitled brat Charles whining about everything?
Even Diana can't save it. And Diana was probably the most interesting thing that happened to them. 

Weren't any global events in the 90s to see how the royals reacted to them?
Of course they were. The Gulf war. The end of Apartheid. And I mention two events that had connection with UK.
Cause there were more, like the civil war in Yugoslavia.
But no, we had to care about the lost bones of the Czars... 

The only interesting story  this season was about Mohamed Al-Fayed and his lovely little friendship with Diana.
That was all.  

p.s.
I don't know how much close to reality is the portrayal  of Dodi Fayed, but I can't see how Diana fell for this guy.
p.s.2
Most entertaining moment of the season? Diana voting "no to monarchy" a bazillion of times!
 

[retired watcher]

On 11/13/2022 at 7:24 PM, jschoolgirl said:

The actress who plays the Queen Mother takes me out of the scene every time.

I kept thinking she was a lady-in-waiting. How were they so careful getting most of the other looks right and couldn't even get the Queen Mum's body type right? Even when she was near the end of her life she never looked like that. The face is all wrong but I could forgive that if they got the body right.

[swanpride]

Yeah, I have to agree, those people are boring. That's what they did better in the first two seasons, not only did they portray political events in relation to the Royal family, they also had Philip making his on-spot remarks about the situation. Granted, that was out of step with the real Philip, who was maybe even more out of touch with common people than the Queen was, but still. 

Aside from skipping over events which would actually be interesting to cover - the attempted kidnapping of Anne, the fall of the Berlin wall, multiple occasions in which the royal family used their influence behind the scenes aside from the stupid ship (see: Fox hunting), Sarah (not that Sarah was that much more interesting, but it was odd that she was barely a footnote, and showing how differently the coverage of her and Diana was in the media would have been worth some examination) - and making up stuff which is so obviously untrue (I don't even need the confirmation by the most expensive marriage counselor in the world, I am old enough to remember that there was never serious talk about the Queen stepping down in favor or Charles) - this feels like another season going in circles. Yeah, the Queen is dutifully running from event to event and that is apparently really hard work, yeah Margareth is still bitter about the same things, yeah, we still discuss if Charles is too weak (since when is not being able to defend yourself from the humiliation of having the most cringy sex talk ever published is a sign of strength I don't know), oh, and look, there is Andrew, but let's not linger on him for too long. It is really no accident that the strongest episodes of the show - Aberfan and this seasons episode about Mohammed Al-Fayed (though It didn't escape my notice that they glossed over what kind of business partner he had) - are the ones which take a more outsider perspective. 

[truthful]

24 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Yeah, I have to agree, those people are boring. That's what they did better in the first two seasons, not only did they portray political events in relation to the Royal family, they also had Philip making his on-spot remarks about the situation. Granted, that was out of step with the real Philip, who was maybe even more out of touch with common people than the Queen was, but still. 

Aside from skipping over events which would actually be interesting to cover - the attempted kidnapping of Anne, the fall of the Berlin wall, multiple occasions in which the royal family used their influence behind the scenes aside from the stupid ship (see: Fox hunting), Sarah (not that Sarah was that much more interesting, but it was odd that she was barely a footnote, and showing how differently the coverage of her and Diana was in the media would have been worth some examination) - and making up stuff which is so obviously untrue (I don't even need the confirmation by the most expensive marriage counselor in the world, I am old enough to remember that there was never serious talk about the Queen stepping down in favor or Charles) - this feels like another season going in circles. Yeah, the Queen is dutifully running from event to event and that is apparently really hard work, yeah Margareth is still bitter about the same things, yeah, we still discuss if Charles is too weak (since when is not being able to defend yourself from the humiliation of having the most cringy sex talk ever published is a sign of strength I don't know), oh, and look, there is Andrew, but let's not linger on him for too long. It is really no accident that the strongest episodes of the show - Aberfan and this seasons episode about Mohammed Al-Fayed (though It didn't escape my notice that they glossed over what kind of business partner he had) - are the ones which take a more outsider perspective. 

I'm sorry, but what on earth did you want them to do in regards to the fall of the Berlin Wall? Like have a ten second conversation between the Queen and her husband about the incident over breakfast? Or maybe a whole episode of the fall of the wall as a kind of clumsy metaphor about the Royal family? I mean if you want to watch the fall of the Berlin Wall there are plenty of clips to see, you might even get to see the Queen in one of them. But Peter Morgan is telling a very obvious, very focused fictionalized version of events regarding the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It's not a documentary, which means not everything that happened during that time will be shown if it doesn't fit in with the idea and themes that he will be trying to get across in the show.

But even if it was a documentary about the Queen then I hardly think the Berlin Wall and the fall of it would be referenced.

[swanpride]

It is less the fall itself which is interesting, but what it meant for the whole make-up of Europe. Keep in mind that Thatcher would have preferred Germany to stay split, and that was a common sentiment in Britain. Considering the German roots of Royal Family, a discussion about Britain's position in this matter would have been interesting (especially considering that the Queen visited Berlin no less than seven times, before and after the wall went down). Granted, since the Queen never voices a position, any discussion would have been entirely theoretical, but then, the whole Romanov discussion was even more fictional. There is no evidence that the Queen particularly cared about their funerals. 

The first seasons had more of a history background, with the prime ministers playing an important role, and important events (the Suez Crisis, the Fog in London, the debt situation of Great Britain, the dead of Kennedy, the moon landing) being addressed. But now the historical background is missing (and yes, it feels odd to talk about "history" regarding events I am old enough to remember, but that's what it is). Honestly, if not for Blair turning up, I would think that the show is still in the 1980s, it doesn't feel like anything changed. 

[truthful]

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

It is less the fall itself which is interesting, but what it meant for the whole make-up of Europe. Keep in mind that Thatcher would have preferred Germany to stay split, and that was a common sentiment in Britain. Considering the German roots of Royal Family, a discussion about Britain's position in this matter would have been interesting (especially considering that the Queen visited Berlin no less than seven times, before and after the wall went down). Granted, since the Queen never voices a position, any discussion would have been entirely theoretical, but then, the whole Romanov discussion was even more fictional. There is no evidence that the Queen particularly cared about their funerals. 

The first seasons had more of a history background, with the prime ministers playing an important role, and important events (the Suez Crisis, the Fog in London, the debt situation of Great Britain, the dead of Kennedy, the moon landing) being addressed. But now the historical background is missing (and yes, it feels odd to talk about "history" regarding events I am old enough to remember, but that's what it is). Honestly, if not for Blair turning up, I would think that the show is still in the 1980s, it doesn't feel like anything changed. 

The Romanov episode wasn't really about the Romanovs, but more about the relationship between the Queen and her husband. But the family, tenuous as the link was to the Queen of the 90s, was probably more interesting to Morgan as the story was less known than the fall of the Berlin Wall. 

The later seasons and their focus more on family drama compared to earlier seasons where historical events took a larger part in the storyline I believe is a deliberate choice by Peter Morgan to show the increasingly insular nature of the Royal Family and how they have become detached from the important events of real life. 

[BloomsburyRez]

Yes given the time frame this covers I did expect at least a brief mention of the Gulf War from the pm in one of the early episodes. And the Berlin Wall was coupled with the break up of the Soviet block, and the continuing shifts of Russia throughout the 90s was a major event. The Romanov funeral would have been as significant to them as any other state funeral or memorial service, especially since the family was cousins to both Phillip and the Queen. I do remember the state visit. I think the Queen was given a few items to bring back to the UK that had belonged to the family, I think a Faberge egg and possibly a piece of jewelry that the Tsarina received from her grandmother Queen Victoria. 
 

In the end there are many choices in deciding what to portray in each season and I feel that this season missed the mark. I will also still miss the season we could have had with Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen as Blair, yes it’s a bit of a been there done that (and Sheen is too old) but there is a reason they’ve recreated those roles a few times and at least the Queen wouldn’t look confused in every scene that she’s in. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by BloomsburyRez

[Lady Whistleup]

I too found this season underwhelming. I think because it focused so much on the soap opera/trainwreck of Charles and Diana. The Crown has always been great at weaving the story of the Royals with the current events of the time. Like last season I might have found Margaret Thatcher insufferable, but they did capture the essence of Thatcherism. I also really liked the episode which ended with the Queen giving her first garden party.

But this season, there was almost none of that. We instead got John Major, who apparently had no duties as PM and could just play divorce lawyer for Chuck and Di.

I've mentioned that I found Dominic West really off as Charles. I also found Imelda Staunton strangely bland as QE. Claire Foy and Olivia Colman were better at showing the emotion behind the stoic demeanor.

[truthful]

It's interesting how risky nearly all the actor changes have been in this series because this is a character based show and people get attached to the actors who first played the part. I wonder if they anticipated the backlash to the changes?

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I also found Imelda Staunton strangely bland as QE.

It felt like she was an occasional guest star in all the other stories told this season.  I kind of get it.  She isn't an emotional person, and her strongest relationships appear to be with her dogs, horses and yacht.  As opposed to other seasons, she was just kind of there in this one.   

[BloomsburyRez]

Here is a photo of Diana at the ballet as shown in this episode. She didn’t just decide to go to the ballet that night. In the divorce episode they talked about her monetary settlement and keeping Kensington Palace apartment but did not include other items which included keeping some of her royal patronages, and the ability of the monarch to request that she attend events if felt warranted. As Diana loved ballet it’s easy to see that she’d want to keep this one. 

[PeterPirate]

I think this show did a poor job in portraying most of the women of the House of Windsor.  Only Anne came across as a determined, thinking person.  I can speculate that this was Peter Morgan trying to maintain good relations with the monarchy so he can continue to make shows about them.  But that is just speculation.  

The Crown must win, after all.  And Real The Crown must win over Show The Crown.  

Edited November 17, 2022 by PeterPirate

[truthful]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

I think this show did a poor job in portraying most of the women of the House of Windsor.  Only Anne came across as a determined, thinking person.  I can speculate that this was Peter Morgan trying to maintain good relations with the monarchy so he can continue to make shows about them.  But that is just speculation.  

The Crown must win, after all.  And Real The Crown must win over Show The Crown.  

Does the Monarchy own Netflix? Or is there some antiquated British law that says that the Monarchy can send anyone they feel has slighted them up to the tower of London? Because Peter Morgan just portrayed the current King as trying to get his own mother to abdicate, so I hardly think he's too worried what they think of the show.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The actress who plays the Queen Mother takes me out of the scene every time.

She played Bunty on an episode of Keeping Up Appearances. Every time I saw her I went "Yes that's right I'm Bunty." I agree she was horribly miscast, looks-wise. I mean, the actress they chose to play Diana seems to have been cast almost entirely based on her resemblance to the real Diana. You'd think they could find someone who bore at least a passing resemblance for the Queen Mother.

Johnny Lee Miller's wig also took me out of every scene he was in.

Quote

I don't know how much close to reality is the portrayal  of Dodi Fayed, but I can't see how Diana fell for this guy.

We don't know that she did "fall" for him. I think she enjoyed the money and the security that the Al-Fayeds had to offer but we'll never really know whether she would have married Dodi or not. 

Overall I think almost all of the characters came off worse than in any previous season. John Major summed them up perfectly in (I think) the first episode, telling someone they were all so vacuous and disconnected from reality and entitled. 

[jschoolgirl]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I don't know how much close to reality is the portrayal  of Dodi Fayed, but I can't see how Diana fell for this guy

He often reminded me of Fredo Corleone!

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, truthful said:

Does the Monarchy own Netflix? Or is there some antiquated British law that says that the Monarchy can send anyone they feel has slighted them up to the tower of London? Because Peter Morgan just portrayed the current King as trying to get his own mother to abdicate, so I hardly think he's too worried what they think of the show.

Yes, but must that necessarily be considered bad?  To some this season could be interpreted as Charles stepping up as the Alpha Male, ready and eager to take the reins (reign) and lead Britain into the modern era.  Rule Britannia, yo.  

[truthful]

11 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Yes, but must that necessarily be considered bad?  To some this season could be interpreted as Charles stepping up as the Alpha Male, ready and eager to take the reins (reign) and lead Britain into the modern era.  Rule Britannia, yo.  

Or as disrespectful to his own mum and the institution she represents.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Yes, but must that necessarily be considered bad?  To some this season could be interpreted as Charles stepping up as the Alpha Male, ready and eager to take the reins (reign) and lead Britain into the modern era.  Rule Britannia, yo.  

8 hours ago, truthful said:

Or as disrespectful to his own mum and the institution she represents.

How Charles expect William to be loyal to him, if he isn't loyal to his mum?

Plus, after the divorce Charles's popularity was so low that he should have been thankful that he was still the Prince of Wales.

[Spartan Girl]

On 11/17/2022 at 3:15 AM, BloomsburyRez said:

Here is a photo of Diana at the ballet as shown in this episode. She didn’t just decide to go to the ballet that night. In the divorce episode they talked about her monetary settlement and keeping Kensington Palace apartment but did not include other items which included keeping some of her royal patronages, and the ability of the monarch to request that she attend events if felt warranted. As Diana loved ballet it’s easy to see that she’d want to keep this one. 

Oh she looked so pretty.

Like I said, the ballet scene was one of the better parts of this episode, if not the whole season. It was a callback to how she wanted to be a ballerina, and maybe she was imagining about what could have been. Not to mention the imagery of being alone in her box and the symbolism of Swan Lake representing her sorry love life. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 11/10/2022 at 4:32 AM, Roseanna said:

I guess Charles' actions against the Queen is invented for dramatic purpose, now when the battle between him and Diana is almost ended. But it makes Charles look not only illoyal but stupid as it's clear that at least *after* the divorce his best protection was his old-fashioned Mummy, the only constant in the changing world.  

And "Mummy" paid the settlement to Diana from her own funds!

On 11/12/2022 at 5:54 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Probably was, but considering what a bang-up job the family did with raising Charles as the heir, one couldn’t blame her if she didn’t want William to be tainted in the same way. What mother wouldn’t want to protect her child from being burdened with such a responsibility?

And then William will spend the better part of his life waiting for his father to die, just as Charles is clearly doing with his mother: “You can’t be blamed for living a long life”!

On 11/15/2022 at 9:14 PM, ahpny said:

This seemed petty and stupid. But why couldn't Charles simply pay for an upgrade to first class if that was so important to him? I doubt that would have broken the royal bank account, and what of frequent flyer miles, no?

He has security and staff accompanying him, who also would have had to sit in first class, which would have added considerably to the cost.

[PeterPirate]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

How Charles expect William to be loyal to him, if he isn't loyal to his mum?

Plus, after the divorce Charles's popularity was so low that he should have been thankful that he was still the Prince of Wales.

Well, as the saying goes, Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown,  

Regarding Charles' popularity, the events depicted may have occurred 30 years ago, but they are being shown now, and I strongly suspect the show has been written with current public opinion in mind.   

[PRgal]

This whole season was really boring.  Having parents from Hong Kong, I thought the season finale would bring out some emotion on my part, but nope.  And was Dodi really that kind of guy?  All he seems to want to do is spend Daddy's money.  

[GaT]

I finally slogged through the season, & boy was I bored. This had to be the worst season IMO. I didn't like Charles' casting at all, & The Queen was so weepy it was annoying. Another thing I can't believe they skipped over is in 1991, William got hit in the head with a golf club & needed emergency surgery. Diana stayed overnight at the hospital in a bed next to him. Charles stopped in for a 15 minute visit then went to the opera. People were not understanding of that. It was a huge deal & there wasn't even a mention anywhere.

[Conotocarious]

On 11/16/2022 at 10:58 AM, retired watcher said:

I kept thinking she was a lady-in-waiting. How were they so careful getting most of the other looks right and couldn't even get the Queen Mum's body type right? Even when she was near the end of her life she never looked like that. The face is all wrong but I could forgive that if they got the body right.

I was well over halfway into the season before I even asked myself “who’s the old lady supposed to be.” Boy, was that bad casting.

[PRgal]

I wonder if skipping over certain points of history was logistic related since they were filming during the pandemic. 

[truthful]

39 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I wonder if skipping over certain points of history was logistic related since they were filming during the pandemic. 

More theme related I think. The crown becoming more insular, losing their humanity. 

[sistermagpie]

On 11/12/2022 at 3:44 AM, Helena Dax said:

There's something's almost comical in the way Charles tries to use every opportunity to get his mother retired.

Maybe that's why Diana's attracted to him--she's gotten used to That Guy.

On 11/12/2022 at 3:44 AM, Helena Dax said:

It's interesting that Dodi seems to have the same relationship with his father that Charles has with his mother. I didn't know anything about him until this season, but I can't tell I'm impressed (although Chariots of Fire is a great movie). The whole scene in the restaurant was painful to watch.

It reminded me of Succession. There's a son in that who also clearly dumps a girl he's been fawning over because his father isn't impressed by her. I liked her, though. Good for her being the person at the table calling out the two misogynists for their conversation. Sure the wife had made her deal, but she wasn't getting paid enough to be insulted yet.

On 11/17/2022 at 6:20 PM, PeterPirate said:

Yes, but must that necessarily be considered bad?  To some this season could be interpreted as Charles stepping up as the Alpha Male, ready and eager to take the reins (reign) and lead Britain into the modern era.  Rule Britannia, yo.  

I don't think trying to wheedle an early treat out of one's other would ever be considered an Alpha Male move. 😏

On 11/20/2022 at 2:21 AM, GaT said:

I finally slogged through the season, & boy was I bored. This had to be the worst season IMO. I didn't like Charles' casting at all, & The Queen was so weepy it was annoying. Another thing I can't believe they skipped over is in 1991, William got hit in the head with a golf club & needed emergency surgery. Diana stayed overnight at the hospital in a bed next to him. Charles stopped in for a 15 minute visit then went to the opera. People were not understanding of that. It was a huge deal & there wasn't even a mention anywhere.

Oh man, I'd forgotten about that but yes, that was huge at the time.

[Roseanna]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, GaT said:

Another thing I can't believe they skipped over is in 1991, William got hit in the head with a golf club & needed emergency surgery. Diana stayed overnight at the hospital in a bed next to him. Charles stopped in for a 15 minute visit then went to the opera. People were not understanding of that. It was a huge deal & there wasn't even a mention anywhere.

I wrote my answer in the history section.

[NUguy514]

Dominic West, as good an actor as he is, was just completely miscast as Charles; he's so effortlessly sexy and charming, and those are two qualities Charles has never possessed and will never possess. Josh O'Connor is hot, but he is more of a chameleon and did a fabulous job of making Charles the bratty, dim, weak, dorky, self-aggrandizing, and self-pitying asshole he is. West's casting and the writing of Charles honestly were my least favorite aspects of the season because it seemed to prop up Charles as this progressive, thoughtful revolutionary and he and Camilla as these star-crossed, misunderstood, aggrieved lovers, and honestly? Fuck that. It's weird since Charles and Camilla were not written the same way during Seasons 3 or 4.

I thought Elizabeth Debicki was pretty fantastic, though.  Her Diana seemed like where Emma Corrin's Diana was headed at the end of last season.

[truthful]

46 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

Dominic West, as good an actor as he is, was just completely miscast as Charles; he's so effortlessly sexy and charming, and those are two qualities Charles has never possessed and will never possess. Josh O'Connor is hot, but he is more of a chameleon and did a fabulous job of making Charles the bratty, dim, weak, dorky, self-aggrandizing, and self-pitying asshole he is. West's casting and the writing of Charles honestly were my least favorite aspects of the season because it seemed to prop up Charles as this progressive, thoughtful revolutionary and he and Camilla as these star-crossed, misunderstood, aggrieved lovers, and honestly? Fuck that. It's weird since Charles and Camilla were not written the same way during Seasons 3 or 4.

I thought Elizabeth Debicki was pretty fantastic, though.  Her Diana seemed like where Emma Corrin's Diana was headed at the end of last season.

Why do you and others so desperately want Charles to be the villain of the piece? Were all those Saturday morning cartoons not enough for you all? 

[andromeda331]

Okay, this is probably a stupid question but why can't the Queen pay for the repairs to the Britianna herself? If she loves it so much. 

I love her reaction to the suggestion of someone else buying it and renting or loaning it to the Royal Family as needed. Remind me again Elizabeth how use the country gets from it?

Except for Dodi's father and the Romanov DNA this season has mostly been boring. I wish the relationship between Charles and Diana had been better in the show so it was sad that the marriage ended or that Charles and Camilla's had been better done over the season so it felt great that they ended up together. I wish Margaret and Philip would stop blaming Elizabeth once a season. 

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Dominic West, as good an actor as he is, was just completely miscast as Charles; he's so effortlessly sexy and charming, and those are two qualities Charles has never possessed and will never possess. Josh O'Connor is hot, but he is more of a chameleon and did a fabulous job of making Charles the bratty, dim, weak, dorky, self-aggrandizing, and self-pitying asshole he is. West's casting and the writing of Charles honestly were my least favorite aspects of the season because it seemed to prop up Charles as this progressive, thoughtful revolutionary and he and Camilla as these star-crossed, misunderstood, aggrieved lovers, and honestly? Fuck that. It's weird since Charles and Camilla were not written the same way during Seasons 3 or 4.

I thought Elizabeth Debicki was pretty fantastic, though.  Her Diana seemed like where Emma Corrin's Diana was headed at the end of last season.

9 hours ago, truthful said:

Why do you and others so desperately want Charles to be the villain of the piece? Were all those Saturday morning cartoons not enough for you all? 

I don't think that means he has to be the villain. I didn't consider Josh O'Connor's Charles a villain just because he was all those things listed above. I think what's jarring is that at the moment he stops seemingly being this basket of insecurities he's also a misunderstood, progressive, thoughtful revolutionary etc. There's not enough of the old Charles there for me to sympathize with him in the same way. Now he just seems like a guy who was inconvenienced and made some mistakes in how he worked around it. And I see no reason at all why anybody is even suggesting they're worried about his ability to be king. The earlier Charles I could.

[NUguy514]

10 hours ago, truthful said:

Why do you and others so desperately want Charles to be the villain of the piece? Were all those Saturday morning cartoons not enough for you all? 

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't think that means he has to be the villain. I didn't consider Josh O'Connor's Charles a villain just because he was all those things listed above. I think what's jarring is that at the moment he stops seemingly being this basket of insecurities he's also a misunderstood, progressive, thoughtful revolutionary etc. There's not enough of the old Charles there for me to sympathize with him in the same way. Now he just seems like a guy who was inconvenienced and made some mistakes in how he worked around it. And I see no reason at all why anybody is even suggesting they're worried about his ability to be king. The earlier Charles I could.

@sistermagpie explained it better than I could.  Diana was no saint, but Charles and Camilla were both assholes.  I never said they were villains; they're just assholes.  West's Charles was much too suave and self-assured, which didn't track with O'Connor's much more layered and interesting portrayal.  While I could see how Debicki's Diana linked perfectly to Corrin's Diana, I have no idea how West's Charles could ever link to O'Connor's Charles; they're two different characters completely.  It doesn't help that the writing this season was also very pro-Charles, which was a major switch, because I thought the writing was more balanced between all the characters' motivations last season.  In fact, in writing Charles as more insecure and in O'Connor's portrayal, I had way more sympathy for Charles in the previous two seasons (despite his terrible treatment of Diana); this season, the writing made it feel like we were supposed to sympathize with this debonair Charles (he had the last word in every argument this season, for example), and I hated that.  Maybe Morgan was pulling some triple reverse psychology, but I don't think he's quiiiiiite talented enough for that.

[PeterPirate]

I don't have a strong opinion about whether they wrote a positive version of Charles.  They did include the Phone Call, after all.  And they created a story line wherein he wanted his mother to abdicate so he could lead Britain into the modern era (although mileage will vary about whether that was a positive portrayal or a negative one).  

My main objection is how they portrayed Diana (and Elizabeth too for that matter).  As I wrote before, 

On 11/17/2022 at 4:45 AM, PeterPirate said:

we got a version of Diana that was self-absorbed, easily manipulated, and a lousy mother, instead of the real-life version who was unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable. 

So in the end I would say that, relatively speaking, Charles had a significantly more positive treatment than Diana or Elizabeth.  

I will add that it would have been pretty entertaining if they had added a scene where Charles daydreams about tying his wife and/or mother to some train tracks like he was Snidely Whiplash.  

[truthful]

8 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't think that means he has to be the villain. I didn't consider Josh O'Connor's Charles a villain just because he was all those things listed above. I think what's jarring is that at the moment he stops seemingly being this basket of insecurities he's also a misunderstood, progressive, thoughtful revolutionary etc. There's not enough of the old Charles there for me to sympathize with him in the same way. Now he just seems like a guy who was inconvenienced and made some mistakes in how he worked around it. And I see no reason at all why anybody is even suggesting they're worried about his ability to be king. The earlier Charles I could.

I thought he was even more insecure in season 5. But because the focus on him was pulled back compared to other seasons meant that it wasn't as in your face. Plus he seemed to have more support from Camilla. It's interesting, clearly Charles and Camilla were friends and lovers during season 4, but you felt that Camilla could easily leave him at any moment. But in season 5 Camilla seemed much more invested in the relationship, which no doubt helped Charles and his insecurity in some ways. But of course Charles being Charles still showed some insecurity during the season.

Why do you think we should sympathise with Charles? I don't think Peter Morgan wants us to have any sympathy for any of the royal family. He's written them all as rather insular and selfish. Magnifying those traits as the seasons progress, widening the distance between the monarch and the public. I see the show as a criticism of the system and those who choose to participate in it. Like Charles, who wants to think that he is himself progressive, but his spoilt nature and selfishness from being brought up in the system that says to him that he is the chosen one, means that and progressive talk from him will come across as rather hollow and meaningless.

[formerlyfreedom]

Please remember the Site’s Golden Rule - Be Civil. If you are not able to respond to fellow posters in a civil manner, your post may be removed and other sanctions may occur, including warnings, suspensions, moderated content, and up to a site ban. 

Posts have been removed. If you have questions, start a PM with the forum mods - @Athena and @saoirse. Please remember that moderation actions are not discussed in topic. Thank you.
 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, truthful said:

It's interesting, clearly Charles and Camilla were friends and lovers during season 4, but you felt that Camilla could easily leave him at any moment. But in season 5 Camilla seemed much more invested in the relationship, which no doubt helped Charles and his insecurity in some ways. But of course Charles being Charles still showed some insecurity during the season.

To me that's another reason why Charles no longer seems as insecure--or more accurately, less helpless in his insecurity. Now she's just his longterm girlfriend.

1 hour ago, truthful said:

Why do you think we should sympathise with Charles? I don't think Peter Morgan wants us to have any sympathy for any of the royal family. He's written them all as rather insular and selfish. Magnifying those traits as the seasons progress, widening the distance between the monarch and the public. I see the show as a criticism of the system and those who choose to participate in it. Like Charles, who wants to think that he is himself progressive, but his spoilt nature and selfishness from being brought up in the system that says to him that he is the chosen one, means that and progressive talk from him will come across as rather hollow and meaningless.

I think we're meant to empathize with the characters--maybe that's a better word. But watching Josh O'Connor's Charles, even at his worst, made me think that Charles was a mess in a way that made me both get why he had problems and how frustrating it must be to be him. This Charles doesn't seem to particularly need anyone liking him more. He's not stone or anything, but he doesn't have that yawning pit of need or hurt he did previously.

I also don't get the impression that the show is one big criticism of those who choose to participate. I couldn't nail down what the show wants me to think of the monarchy, but I can't look at Elizabeth and think i'm expected to judge her for participating in it. It seems more like this is a bunch of people who were born into this weird situation and it just is what it is.

[truthful]

38 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

To me that's another reason why Charles no longer seems as insecure--or more accurately, less helpless in his insecurity. Now she's just his longterm girlfriend.

I think we're meant to empathize with the characters--maybe that's a better word. But watching Josh O'Connor's Charles, even at his worst, made me think that Charles was a mess in a way that made me both get why he had problems and how frustrating it must be to be him. This Charles doesn't seem to particularly need anyone liking him more. He's not stone or anything, but he doesn't have that yawning pit of need or hurt he did previously.

I also don't get the impression that the show is one big criticism of those who choose to participate. I couldn't nail down what the show wants me to think of the monarchy, but I can't look at Elizabeth and think i'm expected to judge her for participating in it. It seems more like this is a bunch of people who were born into this weird situation and it just is what it is.

Probably because his needs are now met by Camilla and his inner circle of sycophants. 

[Sweet-tea]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:07 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

I loved this season. Thought it was much better than S4 which was swallowed up by the early Charles/Diana drama. These characters felt lived in; accustomed to being unhappy with their lives and weary of the limitations placed on them.

I was skeptical of the casting of Dominic West but he was brilliant in showing Charles’ discontent, hubris and self-importance. Jonny Lee Miller was terrific. He was the voice of reason to the viewers as well as the royal family.

I think that the show was fair in its presentation of Diana and her choices and how those choices affected everyone around her.

After watching the last episode my thought was this season went out with a whimper. I found the whole season disappointing, especially after waiting two years. Are we going to have to wait that long for the last season?

Quote

I can see on the one hand why she was cast because she did have the look and the mannerisms down pat. But what I had a hard time getting past is how she towered over everyone! The woman is a giant. Diana should not be taller than Prince Phillip!

Yes she was too tall. I looked up their heights. Site below lists Diana and Charles as same height, 5’10”. Elizabeth Debicki is 6’3”. Wow! That explains it. Dominic West is pretty tall at 6’ but still noticeably shorter than Diana here. 

https://www.goodto.com/entertainment/royal-news/was-diana-taller-than-charles-princess-diana-height

Quote

Seriously. Why couldn’t they have gotten him instead? Who cares if he’s older? If HBC could play Margaret on this show, and the Queen Mum in King’s Speech, that could work too.

I also think Michael Sheen was better as Tony Blair. I don’t think he would’ve been too old for this role, because a few times in the episode Charles comments on how he and Blair are the same age. It distracted me because Dominic West looks about 10 years older than Bertie Carvel, the actor playing Blair. Turns out West and Sheen are both 53 and Carvel is 45. I think it could’ve worked if the emphasis was them being the same age, because West is also a little too old as Charles during this period of his life. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Sweet-tea
Spelling

[qtpye]

On 11/25/2022 at 11:40 AM, sistermagpie said:

I don't think that means he has to be the villain. I didn't consider Josh O'Connor's Charles a villain just because he was all those things listed above. I think what's jarring is that at the moment he stops seemingly being this basket of insecurities he's also a misunderstood, progressive, thoughtful revolutionary etc. There's not enough of the old Charles there for me to sympathize with him in the same way. Now he just seems like a guy who was inconvenienced and made some mistakes in how he worked around it. And I see no reason at all why anybody is even suggesting they're worried about his ability to be king. The earlier Charles I could.

On 11/25/2022 at 1:18 PM, NUguy514 said:

@sistermagpie explained it better than I could.  Diana was no saint, but Charles and Camilla were both assholes.  I never said they were villains; they're just assholes.  West's Charles was much too suave and self-assured, which didn't track with O'Connor's much more layered and interesting portrayal.  While I could see how Debicki's Diana linked perfectly to Corrin's Diana, I have no idea how West's Charles could ever link to O'Connor's Charles; they're two different characters completely.  It doesn't help that the writing this season was also very pro-Charles, which was a major switch, because I thought the writing was more balanced between all the characters' motivations last season.  In fact, in writing Charles as more insecure and in O'Connor's portrayal, I had way more sympathy for Charles in the previous two seasons (despite his terrible treatment of Diana); this season, the writing made it feel like we were supposed to sympathize with this debonair Charles (he had the last word in every argument this season, for example), and I hated that.  Maybe Morgan was pulling some triple reverse psychology, but I don't think he's quiiiiiite talented enough for that.

Both of you have summed up my thoughts beautifully.

Prince Charles has some good qualities and he is not evil.

Princess Diana was far from a saint.

However, the writing and the casting are really weighing what is usually a top-quality series down and it is becoming unwatchable.

[Zaffy]

West was  such a miscast that he was like if  belonging to another show. His character's writing also didn't help and all this lead to a different Charles than the one from previous seasons. As a result I had trouble following and believing everything this Charles was doing and saying.
I really do not get why they didn't use the same actor, a little makeup and he would be fine as an older Charles. Same as the Queen. Their formula of changing the actors didn't work in the show's favor this season.

[truthful]

31 minutes ago, Zaffy said:

West was  such a miscast that he was like if  belonging to another show. His character's writing also didn't help and all this lead to a different Charles than the one from previous seasons. As a result I had trouble following and believing everything this Charles was doing and saying.
I really do not get why they didn't use the same actor, a little makeup and he would be fine as an older Charles. Same as the Queen. Their formula of changing the actors didn't work in the show's favor this season.

What was wrong with the writing of his character this season?

[formerlyfreedom]

Let’s please take discussion of the writing this season to the Season Five topic to keep us on topic here and avoid the potential for talking future history. Thank you!

[jeansheridan]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:07 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

I was skeptical of the casting of Dominic West but he was brilliant in showing Charles’ discontent, hubris and self-importance. Jonny Lee Miller was terrific. He was the voice of reason to the viewers as well as the royal family.

I feel like the writing failed him in that he was always hammering on about modernization and being a young man (at 50!).  He comes off as always being desperate for revelance. 

The actress playing Camilla was perfect. I loved her wink when she heard Charles had to fly business class. I have always felt warmly towards her. I find her more relatable. Anne too with her dry wit.

For me though, Imelda wins this ep. She's a Queen in total control again. No dithering. Sharp. With dry humor. Her voice seems perfect to me. She sounds a lot like Olivia Colman, just older. 

The Hong Kong scenes were notably unsubtle. Yikes.

One thing too about this ep. Charles lists Camilla's qualities. He defends her and when he talks to Blair indicates he wants to marry her ASAP. 

And this season we see Wallace and Edward again as a reminder of what can happen when a King does as he pleases.

So in terms of the show, I can kind of see why Elizabeth is just kind of over it with Charles. Love and companionship are all very nice thank you, but they're not more important than the job of being Monarch. Philip can be a great support but he isn't always (again just referring to the show). 

The Queen doesn't lean on people, not really. Anne maybe a bit but not excessively.  I do like that Anne is frank with her mother. That says a lot about how secure she feels. And she is frank with Charles. She's barely on screen and she may be the MVP of this family.

[Camera One]

I didn't expect the episode and season to end in such an unmemorable way.  

This episode wasn't very engaging, and it felt like a repetition of the weak season premiere.  The Britannia issue was still there, with no real solution.  I can understand why the Queen would feel emotional over it.  Charles was still going on and on about how much more progressive he was than his parents, and seemingly trying to take the Queen's job, which I still found ridiculous, unlikely and off-putting.  And of course, the tired old metaphor of Elizabeth as the Britannia, just like she was compared to an old TV an episode or two ago.

And like the last few episodes, it was still the Charles and Diana show, though I did like some of Diana's scenes, like at the ballet and with Mou Mou.  

I didn't find any of the characters too charismatic or relatable in this one.  I felt a little sad at John Major's last scene with the Queen, but it also reminded me that they did practically nothing with him all season, at least related to his role as Prime Minister (Family Law doesn't count).  Most of the previous Prime Ministers got an episode to show off their character.  

The scenes in Hong Kong were nice visually, so I didn't mind if they had built an episode around that, just with a focus that we didn't see already multiple times this season.

Although I had mixed feelings about this season, it was still engaging enough to make me want to watch an episode a day.  For me, it was probably on par with Season 3, where I also struggled to like the characters and their new portrayals.  I almost want next season to have a whole bunch of flashbacks and feature some of the old cast members again, since that might be more fun.

[dubbel zout]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

The Britannia issue was still there, with no real solution. 

It was decommissioned. We saw the queen pay her one final visit before that happened.

[Paws]

The highlight of this season for me was Mohamed Al Fayed. The actor who portrayed him was amazing, and you can see that maybe Diana doesn’t fall for Dodi necessarily but for the warmth of a real family that can argues but love each other and show it and provides both physical and emotional security.  

[MMEButterfly]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:29 AM, jeansheridan said:

I feel like the writing failed him in that he was always hammering on about modernization and being a young man (at 50!).  He comes off as always being desperate for revelance. 

The actress playing Camilla was perfect. I loved her wink when she heard Charles had to fly business class. I have always felt warmly towards her. I find her more relatable. Anne too with her dry wit.

For me though, Imelda wins this ep. She's a Queen in total control again. No dithering. Sharp. With dry humor. Her voice seems perfect to me. She sounds a lot like Olivia Colman, just older. 

The Hong Kong scenes were notably unsubtle. Yikes.

One thing too about this ep. Charles lists Camilla's qualities. He defends her and when he talks to Blair indicates he wants to marry her ASAP. 

And this season we see Wallace and Edward again as a reminder of what can happen when a King does as he pleases.

So in terms of the show, I can kind of see why Elizabeth is just kind of over it with Charles. Love and companionship are all very nice thank you, but they're not more important than the job of being Monarch. Philip can be a great support but he isn't always (again just referring to the show). 

The Queen doesn't lean on people, not really. Anne maybe a bit but not excessively.  I do like that Anne is frank with her mother. That says a lot about how secure she feels. And she is frank with Charles. She's barely on screen and she may be the MVP of this family.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who connects to Camilla and Anne. They both seem like strong, emotionally mature women caught up in royal drama but with a healthy humor and reliability. 

[jeansheridan]

3 hours ago, MMEButterfly said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who connects to Camilla and Anne

They seem like good get-a-grip friends. At least as seen on the show! But I can also see why Anne couldn't be fussed with Diana.