History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Umbelina]

34 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Diana should have realized that Charles was basically shopping for a broodmare and she checked all the boxes.  Some could have made it work, but I think she demanded more attention than he could provide. And then she became unhinged.  Throwing herself down the stairs, crank-calling her boyfriends, binge eating, calling the heart surgeon at the hospital 20 times a day, airing their dirty laundry in public...it all sounds like a Dr. Phil show.

She was 19.

A sheltered, 19 year old virgin.  

Yes, too bad she wasn't a jaded, sophisticated, experienced woman who could have realized Charles was using her.  Or, you know, too bad he couldn't manage to at least be honest with her.

[Ellaria]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She was 19.

A sheltered, 19 year old virgin.  

We can never know with complete certainty if someone "in the know" took this sheltered, 19-year-old virgin aside and explained what life would be like married to the insecure, 30-something heir to throne. Did the people around her truly understand Charles and his difficulties? Perhaps not because I don't believe that Charles was particularly self-aware at that time. 

Charles and Diana were poorly suited for each other. They barely knew one another when they married and only afterwards learned that the reality of their life together would be much different that the perception. Neither one of them knew what to expect or what was expected of them.

IMO, both bear some responsibility not only for the failure of the marriage but how publicly it failed. However, there is also plenty of blame that extends beyond Charles and Diana.

Also, the power imbalance in the early years of their marriage was huge and doomed their relationship. Couple that with a lack of honesty and common courtesy...well, few relationships could survive.  

I find it difficult to say that "Diana should have known/realized." I certainly have misjudged relationships with men. Even though I was older than Diana, more sophisticated and didn't have the world watching, I still could not see the reality of particular relationships.

In the end, Diana isn't here to see her sons, their wives and her grandchildren. Charles has Camilla - the woman he truly loves - and, presumably one day, his throne. To me - and this may be an unpopular opinion - it seems terribly unfair.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[suomi]

What is rarely mentioned when examining the circumstances and decisions surrounding the engagement is that Diana's intellectual/emotional age was far younger than her chronological age of 19.

Charles' behavior was much more in tune with his actual age.  It is not unusual to see well-educated and experienced men in their 30s bend to various pressures and expectations from their families, business partners and those in their social set.

I think it is not stretching the truth to say that Diana, on the other hand, was the mental and emotional equivalent of a girl in junior high school. Once she was on the path she had "chosen" she became caught up in events and it was too late to turn back, especially after the birth of William. 

It is quite easy, and perhaps natural, for people who have the "normal" set of tools in their toolbox to judge and censure those whose toolbox (through no fault of their own) is not similarly stocked. 

Because they were much older than Diana and experienced in the art of subterfuge the behavior and strategies of Charles and Camilla were not far removed from those who function as pimps. There is no excuse for what they did, in this day and age, and to say that I do not wish them well is an understatement. 

 

[Joan of Argh]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She was 19.

A sheltered, 19 year old virgin.  

Yes, too bad she wasn't a jaded, sophisticated, experienced woman who could have realized Charles was using her.  Or, you know, too bad he couldn't manage to at least be honest with her.

exactly.... and IIRC Charles aired their dirty laundry first... Mr. Tampon himself...

[Crs97]

17 minutes ago, Joan of Argh said:

 

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She was 19.

A sheltered, 19 year old virgin.  

Yes, too bad she wasn't a jaded, sophisticated, experienced woman who could have realized Charles was using her.  Or, you know, too bad he couldn't manage to at least be honest with her.

exactly.... and IIRC Charles aired their dirty laundry first... Mr. Tampon himself...

 

Not exactly.  Andrew Morton’s book that quoted “sources” later confirmed to be Diana herself came out right before they separated in 1992.  The transcript of Charles and Camilla’s bugged conversation was leaked in 1993.  Charles gave his interview in 1994 and Diana in 1995.

It takes two people to make a crappy marriage, and Diana lied to him throughout their courtship as well.  They both share responsibility for the mess they made IMO.

[Umbelina]

31 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

Not exactly.  Andrew Morton’s book that quoted “sources” later confirmed to be Diana herself came out right before they separated in 1992.  The transcript of Charles and Camilla’s bugged conversation was leaked in 1993.  Charles gave his interview in 1994 and Diana in 1995.

It takes two people to make a crappy marriage, and Diana lied to him throughout their courtship as well.  They both share responsibility for the mess they made IMO.

What did Diana lie about during their 12 dates?

[Roseanna]

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

What did Diana lie about during their 12 dates?

If one leaves out that Diana pretended to have just those qualities she understood Charles wanted, she lied that she loved the country, shared Charles's hobbies and liked his  friends. If she had told the truth about any of those matters, Charles wouldn't have proposed her.

On 1/27/2020 at 1:10 PM, Umbelina said:

She was 19.

A sheltered, 19 year old virgin.  

Yes, too bad she wasn't a jaded, sophisticated, experienced woman who could have realized Charles was using her.  Or, you know, too bad he couldn't manage to at least be honest with her.

On 1/27/2020 at 8:11 PM, suomi said:

What is rarely mentioned when examining the circumstances and decisions surrounding the engagement is that Diana's intellectual/emotional age was far younger than her chronological age of 19.

It's true that Diana was immature. But also some teenagers can be devious and beat their parents and teachers.

On 1/27/2020 at 6:07 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

In the end, Diana isn't here to see her sons, their wives and her grandchildren. Charles has Camilla - the woman he truly loves - and, presumably one day, his throne. To me - and this may be an unpopular opinion - it seems terribly unfair.

Life is unfair. 

Yet, it's hard to a beautiful women to become old. How Diana would have reacted when Kate and Meghan to outsihined her? Would she ever have been capable to form a lasting relationship?   

On 1/27/2020 at 6:07 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

We can never know with complete certainty if someone "in the know" took this sheltered, 19-year-old virgin aside and explained what life would be like married to the insecure, 30-something heir to throne. Did the people around her truly understand Charles and his difficulties? Perhaps not because I don't believe that Charles was particularly self-aware at that time. 

According to Diana herself, her only confidantes during the courtship were the girls she shared her flat with and they were as eleted as she when she got the biggest "catch". She never consulted her grandnmother who was (or had been) a lady-of-waiting, nor did she warn her. She didn't talk to her older sister, either, who had earlier dated Charles and knew more about the relationship - which is undertandable as she wanted outshine her.

But Charles consulted before the engagement his friends who were older and more experienced and they liked Diana and thought she was the right girl and encouraged him to propose. There were three excpetions (they were worried how Diana on purpose pursued Charles and controlled the situation and one said that Diana was more in love with the position than with the Charles) but Charles didn't listen to them.

One biographer of the Queen wrote that if it had been about breeding horses, she would certainly have regarded Diana as an unsuitable mare because of her troubled background, meaning her parents' quarrelsome divorce.

It has been said by many that if Mountbatten had been alive, he would have warned Charles off.  

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

If one leaves out that Diana pretended to have just those qualities she understood Charles wanted, she lied that she loved the country, shared Charles's hobbies and liked his  friends. If she had told the truth about any of those matters, Charles wouldn't have proposed her. 

She liked the country, but not hunting, which he most certainly would have realized quickly.  Shared WHAT hobbies?  Polo?  Hunting?  Screwing his friend's wife?  What young girl doesn't try to like her romantic partner's friends, or the things he likes?  

She was hardly some kind of villain here.  Later, after repeated humiliations and hurts, she tried to fight back or at least get even a bit, but again?  So what?  Why on earth shouldn't she, after appeals to The Queen for assistance in saving her marriage been ignored/dismissed?

As far as her bulimia and other issues?  It's quite likely that realizing she had a loveless marriage caused her great grief and despair, as well as realizing her husband, and the father of her children, preferred Camilla and met her for sex frequently at his grandmother's house, WITH "their" friends very aware of what was happening.

He had his arm around her waist and said "Bit chubby there" right before the wedding which started her eating disorder.  She, if she were a bit older and wiser, would have told him right then that the wedding was off.

As far as being in love with the idea of being a princess and future queen?  She was in a large company there, including most of the world's young romantic girls.  Charles wasn't called "the world's most eligible bachelor" for no reason.

When she shone at public events with her easy and shy charm, it annoyed him.  Had she failed badly it would have probably annoyed him as well.  Diana couldn't win, no matter what she did.

I can't imagine being in that situation at such a young age and not being unhappy, and after trying everything else, to want revenge at the whole sorry, sickening mess.  

The show seems intent on showing Charles' great "love" Camilla story though, even going so far as rewriting their previous story about good old uncle Nazi, and implying that both he and Charles shared the horror of the Palace keeping them apart from the women they loved.  Barf.

I hope they rewatch their previous episodes about Uncle Nazi, and change courses next season, but it sure doesn't look like that's what's going to happen, at least not from the set ups of season three.

I'm very curious about why THE CROWN is choosing to support Prince Tampon, but I hope it will at least present a balanced view of his marriage.

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Umbelina

[Ellaria]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's true that Diana was immature. But also some teenagers can be devious and beat their parents and teachers. 

What does this mean? What does it have to do with Diana?

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Life is unfair. 

Yet, it's hard to a beautiful women to become old. How Diana would have reacted when Kate and Meghan to outsihined her? Would she ever have been capable to form a lasting relationship?    

Please don't use the "life is unfair" here. I'm sure that we are all aware of that fact. IMO, life is unfair when ANY mother does not get to see their children grown up and happy, Diana included.

Please also don't attribute statements to me that I didn't make. I said nothing about life being unfair and "beautiful women getting old." 

It is one thing to have opinions on the nature of Charles and Diana's relationship. It's an entirely other thing to make derogatory remarks about how she would react to her daughters-in-law. None of us can know that. 

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

According to Diana herself, her only confidantes during the courtship were the girls she shared her flat with and they were as eleted as she when she got the biggest "catch". She never consulted her grandnmother who was (or had been) a lady-of-waiting, nor did she warn her. She didn't talk to her older sister, either, who had earlier dated Charles and knew more about the relationship - which is undertandable as she wanted outshine her.

But Charles consulted before the engagement his friends who were older and more experienced and they liked Diana and thought she was the right girl and encouraged him to propose. There were three excpetions (they were worried how Diana on purpose pursued Charles and controlled the situation and one said that Diana was more in love with the position than with the Charles) but Charles didn't listen to them.

One biographer of the Queen wrote that if it had been about breeding horses, she would certainly have regarded Diana as an unsuitable mare because of her troubled background, meaning her parents' quarrelsome divorce.

It has been said by many that if Mountbatten had been alive, he would have warned Charles off.  

Again, none of us truly know who said what to whom. None of us were there. If Charles and Diana had people in their lives that were capable of advising them against the marriage, then they should have listened. Or - at the very least - proceeded slowly and with caution.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

What does this mean? What does it have to do with Diana?

Diana's own grandmother described her as "devious" and other people who knew her when she was young have said that she had difficulties to keep in truth.

Therefore, her age and immature doesn't mean that she couldn't scheme as well as people older than her.

14 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Please also don't attribute statements to me that I didn't make. I said nothing about life being unfair and "beautiful women getting old." 

I didn't attribute those statesments to you. They were naturally mine. I am sorry they offended you.    

[Ellaria]

27 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I didn't attribute those statesments to you. They were naturally mine. I am sorry they offended you.    

It didn't offend me. I just didn't want to be linked that opinion.

37 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Diana's own grandmother described her as "devious" and other people who knew her when she was young have said that she had difficulties to keep in truth.

Therefore, her age and immature doesn't mean that she couldn't scheme as well as people older than her.

Frankly, I don't know what the truth is and I would guess that none of us do.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Ohiopirate02]

29 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I have trouble with these random collection of statements from various sources (none of which are linked) to support a point of view. I don't know what the truth is and neither do most of us.

I agree with you about these types of statements coming from both camps.  We know both Charles and Diana manipulated the truth when they separated.  Both of them did interviews to get their side out in order to sway public opinion.  Neither one was a saint and both contributed to the destruction of their marriage.  The real truth about what happened is something that no one knows.  

[Ellaria]

19 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree with you about these types of statements coming from both camps.  We know both Charles and Diana manipulated the truth when they separated.  Both of them did interviews to get their side out in order to sway public opinion.  Neither one was a saint and both contributed to the destruction of their marriage.  The real truth about what happened is something that no one knows.  

Thank you. Agree completely here.

As I said above, both bear some responsibility not only for the failure of the marriage but how publicly it failed.

[Roseanna]

On 1/28/2020 at 8:19 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

The real truth about what happened is something that no one knows.  

It's not different in any other happenings in history. Human beings aren't capable to "know the truth". But that doesn't mean that lies don't exist. Nor does it mean that people can't try to clear up the happenings. On the contrary, they must, even if there are only pieces of past left. 

Memoirs written afterwards are generally considered as only secondary sources. Even most honest people tend to forget things that are unfavorable to themselves and, most if all, to make the story consistent although happenings seldom are such.

Primary sources are those who are written just after the happening and aren't meant to the public. Of course one must ask f.ex.: Was the writer present or otherwise in such a position that he/she can know the matter (one can't know other people's intentions and motives), is he/she partial towards one party, is he/she generally trustworthy?

Today, we only have secondary sources about Charles, Diana and Camilla, but we can make comparisons between them. If we live long enough, diaries of dead people can be used by the researchers. Then some elemental things (most of all, when Charles and Camilla were lovers) will be known.

But I guess that even then there will be different interpretations. Also reseachers see people differently. And most of all, people are enigmas, or at least those are who are interesting after centuries. Take f.ex. Anne Boleyn - did her "no" mean "no" or a means to catch Henry? 

Therefore, it's probable that the triangle of Camilla - Charles - Diana will be dealt in biographies, novels, movies and series for a long time.

On 1/28/2020 at 6:04 AM, Umbelina said:

Later, after repeated humiliations and hurts, she tried to fight back or at least get even a bit, but again?  So what?  Why on earth shouldn't she, after appeals to The Queen for assistance in saving her marriage been ignored/dismissed?

Because she hurt also her children terribly which no mother who really loves her children and is healthy won't do.

But of course it's possible, indeed likely, that Diana was so ill that she couldn't help but do it.

On 1/28/2020 at 6:04 AM, Umbelina said:

He had his arm around her waist and said "Bit chubby there" right before the wedding which started her eating disorder.  

Queen Silvia of Sweden said something like that to Crown Princess Victoria who also had anorexia, but nobody regards Silvia anything but as a loving mother, Nor were eating disorders weren't general knowledge at the time.

There were similarities between Victoria and Diana: both were young, lived under constant pressure of media attention and were unsecure about their role. Actually, Victoria's situation was in the beginning worse as she couldn't chose at all but her role as the furture monarch was decided by the new Swedish constitution when she was a toddler. 

But in the following sexuel there was an important difference: Victoria's parents arranged her to the US where she could study, live with their friends and free from media, have therapy and stydy. When she came home, she had accepted her role and fate, yet become strong enough that, when she found her true love, an ordinary quy, ready to fight for years in order to be able to marry him.

Therefore I think that one must always remember how insecure childhood Diana had. But she also refused to have therapy.

And of course no ordinary person can ever understand what it means to live under constant media attention.  

[Umbelina]

I was just chatting with a friend of mine that lives a couple of miles from Harry and Meagan's new place.  He saw them a few times when they were last visiting, people left them alone, and they seemed very much at peace, loving the forest and sea.

Anyway, he worked quite a bit with AIDS/HIV (can't say much more or he'd be identifiable.)  He just told me that he used to see Harry's mom, Diana, all the time, at a place called Lighthouse Palliative Care Centre for those dying of HIV/AIDS, to quote him directly, "no press just Diana holding somebody’s hand."  

For various reasons it's likely they will meet up at some point during recreational activities, so I may get a little insider "gossip" but right now, all I have is that most there are pleased they have decided to share their spot of heaven on earth, and wishing them well.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Umbelina

[AZChristian]

Anne's almost-kidnapping DEFINITELY should have been included in the show!!!!

[Umbelina]

On 2/12/2020 at 5:56 AM, AZChristian said:

Anne's almost-kidnapping DEFINITELY should have been included in the show!!!!

Speaking of Anne, her son just announced he is getting divorced.

Perhaps this will be the second of Queen Elizabeth's “annus horribilis.”  It hasn't been a very good year for the monarchy.

 

ETA

Beatrice is about to be married as well, no grand Abby wedding for her with Andrew walking her down the aisle.  So a "private wedding" with a grand party at Buckingham palace to follow.

I wonder if it would have been a bigger wedding if Andrew wasn't having sex with kids?

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Umbelina

[chitowngirl]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Anne's almost-kidnapping DEFINITELY should have been included in the show!!!!

I wonder if they will some sort of flashback to this since it was such an event to not cover at all. And her marriage too!

[dubbel zout]

Neither of those focuses on Philip, so I'd say no.

[Umbelina]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:11 PM, dubbel zout said:

Neither of those focuses on Philip, so I'd say no.

Ha!

Well, she IS his daughter, and I imagine he would insert himself into every bit of it, not to mention the impact it could have on the husband and wife as they coped/heard.  

Odd that they skipped that.  SO much potential for all kinds of character interactions.

[Umbelina]

Earlier she had said:

“It was all so infuriating; I kept saying I didn’t want to get out of the car, and I was not going to get out of the car. I nearly lost my temper with him, but I knew that if I did, I should hit him and he would shoot me.”   https://flashbak.com/the-murderous-attempt-to-kidnap-british-princess-anne-in-1974-1756/

[Roseanna]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:56 PM, AZChristian said:

Anne's almost-kidnapping DEFINITELY should have been included in the show!!!!

 

On 2/12/2020 at 11:59 PM, chitowngirl said:

I wonder if they will some sort of flashback to this since it was such an event to not cover at all. And her marriage too!

 

On 2/13/2020 at 12:11 AM, dubbel zout said:

Neither of those focuses on Philip, so I'd say no.

 

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Ha!

Well, she IS his daughter, and I imagine he would insert himself into every bit of it, not to mention the impact it could have on the husband and wife as they coped/heard.  

Odd that they skipped that.  SO much potential for all kinds of character interactions.

I don't think that the incident itself was necessary to describe, however thrilling it was. But if the incident and the reactions to it was made to show something deeper, most of all the different character of Anne and Charles, and how different their relationship with their parents was, that would have made a good episode. Unlike Anne said, it wasn't only that Charles was an heir that he was treated so harsly for Anne would also reacted differently because she wasn't shy nor timid as a child.

Obviously, Charles triangle with Camilla and Diana will get so much space that it was decided to keep Anne as a side character, especially as she has mostly succeeded to keep her private life as private and her ex-husband and ex-lovers have been suitable discreet.

[Umbelina]

Yes, it seems obvious to me that the writers/showrunners have decided they are monarchists after all.  The story they seem to want to tell is what a great guy Charles is, and how he's suffered, and earned his spot as King.  So they played up the "great love" of Camilla being stolen from him, and Diana will probably be completely raked over the coals to pump up Charles.  They've already managed to smear the Queen to prop up Charles, she's so cold she can't even cry at multiple dead children, she hates her son so much she won't even praise him for Wales, she has one expression, almost never smiles, and ruined Charles' life, along with Uncle Mountbatten and the suddenly nasty Queen Mother!

(articles cited above and elsewhere mention that the showrunner has decided the monarchy is a good thing after all)

Anyway, in my opinion of course, the show suffered.  I think skipping over the royal wedding of Anne, AND her kidnapping (and beyond spunky response) was a huge error. 

Instead we got "star vehicles" for the "star cast" including that boring as fuck episode for Tobias Menzies, just to give him significant air time.  He needed "HIS episodes!"  I also think fast-forwarding Margaret's long term love affair all the way to 1976 or whatever it was when the photos were released and cause a scandal was simply catering to the CAST instead of story.  HBC is a big star, she needed HER episodes!  Ditto Charles Dance and that boring episode that did give him his "star moment" and also allowed him to ruin "poor" Charles' life.

For me, this season really fell apart, and it's because the agenda of the writer/showrunner is whack.  He's forcing story instead of telling it, or letting it unfold, and the catering to the "big names" was sickening.

ETA I am in no way blaming the actors, these were, I suspect, entirely showrunner decisions.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Umbelina
they not the

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, it seems obvious to me that the writers/showrunners have decided they are monarchists after all.  The story they seem to want to tell is what a great guy Charles is, and how he's suffered, and earned his spot as King.  So they played up the "great love" of Camilla being stolen from him, and Diana will probably be completely raked over the coals to pump up Charles.  

I don't see Charles (I mean the character in The Crown) as a great guy. He pities too much himself. 

It's true that the show probably wants to present that Camilla was Charles great love from the beginning, but that is probably due to the romance. "One true love he could never forget" is a far easier formula than "the affair that became serious only years later".  

But I think it's still quite possible that the show doesn't vilify neither Charles nor Diana but will present the happenings from the perspective of both. 

    

 

[MadyGirl1987]

6 hours ago, Roseanna said:

But I think it's still quite possible that the show doesn't vilify neither Charles nor Diana but will present the happenings from the perspective of both. 

This is my hope. That marriage was such a mess from all sides, and the only truly innocent people in the situation were William and Harry. I would be disappointed if they showed it as "one was good, the other evil" as it's clear the situation was more complicated then that.

[PeterPirate]

Going back to the episodes in Season 2, I think they've done an effective job showing Charles as particularly emotionally deprived and perhaps even stunted.  

I'm not sure how they are planning to introduce Diana Spencer, as a passive ingenue or a conniving schemer, but sooner or later she is going to find her voice and give those snooty royals whatfer.  

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

This is my hope. That marriage was such a mess from all sides, and the only truly innocent people in the situation were William and Harry. I would be disappointed if they showed it as "one was good, the other evil" as it's clear the situation was more complicated then that.

Mine too but I'm have a feeling that's not going to happen. 

21 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't see Charles (I mean the character in The Crown) as a great guy. He pities too much himself. 

It's true that the show probably wants to present that Camilla was Charles great love from the beginning, but that is probably due to the romance. "One true love he could never forget" is a far easier formula than "the affair that became serious only years later".  

But I think it's still quite possible that the show doesn't vilify neither Charles nor Diana but will present the happenings from the perspective of both. 

    

 

I wouldn't have minded if they presented Camilla as that since they do eventually end up together. Sure its not what happened. But okay fine. But that's not how they presented her or their relationship. At best they showed Camilla as a confused hussy who dated Charles while still with Andrew but you know she really does love Charles but never stopped dating Andrew. Or at worse a bitch who used Charles to get back at Andrew. And Charles does find out at least that she was still with Andrew while they were together. So they've given us zero reason why Charles is in love with her or should ever want anything to do with her ever again or any reason to believe its a great relationship. But in the end that doesn't even matter because the Queen Mother and Mountbatten "broke" them up. So Charles will end up "blaming" the Crown for it instead of on Camilla where it really should be or have him break up with her he ends up not doing anything. The way the presented the relationship and QM and Mountbatten's meddling makes zero sense. 

Second they decided to hammer in our heads or Charles that he's just like the Duke of Windsor, the poor, poor Duke of Windsor who was the victim of his mean old family and forced him out. They want us to forget the whole Nazi episode they did on him and Wallis. Which is never brought up. Not even when the Queen finds out Charles has been writing him. Now we're suppose to believe that the Queen who had been duped by her uncle in that episode into almost giving him a job before she was clued in on everything regarding her uncle hasn't said anything to Charles? Or Philip? Or the Queen Mother? That seems unlikely even for the show. They spent too much time trying to set up Charles and Camilla as just like Edward and Wallis or at least in Charles's mind. Which is why I think their going to continue with the poor Charles routine.

I do think their going to make Diana the "bad" one in the marriage. It'll fit with "poor" Charles his family made him break up with his true love and "poor" Charles was forced by his family and "tricked" by Diana into the marriage. But the second reason is we've had two seasons with Philip whining, complaining and blaming Elizabeth despite the fact he knew from the beginning he was marrying the heir to the throne. While Elizabeth pretty much just takes it and no one ever points out to Philip, that it was his damn choice to marry Elizabeth. In season three they still couldn't resist to give us another episode of Philip whining.  I get the feeling were going to get the same crap from Charles. Neither one taking any responsibility for their own choices. Its always someone else's fault. For Philip it was Elizabeth, for Charles it'll be his family and Diana.

[merylinkid]

Aberfan happened in the 60s.   The coal tips were removed RIGHT?   Well guess what?   Landslide not more than 8 miles from Aberfan yesterday.   Coal tip.   Fortunately there was warning and the residents evacuated.   But why is this still happening?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-wales-51522197/storm-dennis-tylorstown-landslide-after-heavy-rain

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Aberfan happened in the 60s.   The coal tips were removed RIGHT?   Well guess what?   Landslide not more than 8 miles from Aberfan yesterday.   Coal tip.   Fortunately there was warning and the residents evacuated.   But why is this still happening?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-wales-51522197/storm-dennis-tylorstown-landslide-after-heavy-rain

WOW.

More here, with interviews, and apparently these coal tips are still all over the valley.

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2020-02-17/rhondda-residents-call-for-immediate-inspections-after-mountains-hit-by-landslides/

Quote

The Coal Authority told ITV News they are not responsible for any of the sites that collapsed at the weekend.

Several interviews on this site.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

14 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Mine too but I'm have a feeling that's not going to happen. 

I wouldn't have minded if they presented Camilla as that since they do eventually end up together. Sure its not what happened. But okay fine. But that's not how they presented her or their relationship. At best they showed Camilla as a confused hussy who dated Charles while still with Andrew but you know she really does love Charles but never stopped dating Andrew. Or at worse a bitch who used Charles to get back at Andrew. And Charles does find out at least that she was still with Andrew while they were together. So they've given us zero reason why Charles is in love with her or should ever want anything to do with her ever again or any reason to believe its a great relationship. But in the end that doesn't even matter because the Queen Mother and Mountbatten "broke" them up. So Charles will end up "blaming" the Crown for it instead of on Camilla where it really should be or have him break up with her he ends up not doing anything. The way the presented the relationship and QM and Mountbatten's meddling makes zero sense. 

Second they decided to hammer in our heads or Charles that he's just like the Duke of Windsor, the poor, poor Duke of Windsor who was the victim of his mean old family and forced him out. They want us to forget the whole Nazi episode they did on him and Wallis. Which is never brought up. Not even when the Queen finds out Charles has been writing him. Now we're suppose to believe that the Queen who had been duped by her uncle in that episode into almost giving him a job before she was clued in on everything regarding her uncle hasn't said anything to Charles? Or Philip? Or the Queen Mother? That seems unlikely even for the show. They spent too much time trying to set up Charles and Camilla as just like Edward and Wallis or at least in Charles's mind. Which is why I think their going to continue with the poor Charles routine.

 

I knew the show was always going to botch up the Charles-Camilla love story from the 70s.  I hate the way they went with it because the show took away Camilla's agency.  I wish we would have seen Camilla choose Andrew without any meddling.  I think they squandered a great opportunity to have a character look at what it means to be a member of the Firm and choose not to go down that route.  Camilla was not ready to be the wife of the Prince of Wales back then.  Why not explore that.  I realize the show is not going to continue to the point for us to see when Camilla is ready, but why not plant that seed just in case.  

 

[andromeda331]

28 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I knew the show was always going to botch up the Charles-Camilla love story from the 70s.  I hate the way they went with it because the show took away Camilla's agency.  I wish we would have seen Camilla choose Andrew without any meddling.  I think they squandered a great opportunity to have a character look at what it means to be a member of the Firm and choose not to go down that route.  Camilla was not ready to be the wife of the Prince of Wales back then.  Why not explore that.  I realize the show is not going to continue to the point for us to see when Camilla is ready, but why not plant that seed just in case.  

 

That would have been a great story. 

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The Coal Authority told ITV News they are not responsible for any of the sites that collapsed at the weekend.

Quelle surprise.    Didn't they try to disclaim responsibility over Aberfan and claim Act of God?   Then charged the charity fund for the cost of removing the coal tip that KILLED CHILDREN????

The more things change ....

[Umbelina]

18 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Quelle surprise.    Didn't they try to disclaim responsibility over Aberfan and claim Act of God?   Then charged the charity fund for the cost of removing the coal tip that KILLED CHILDREN????

The more things change ....

It's strange.  The article says they don't know WHO actually owns the places that had slides after the flood/storm that hit that valley in the preceding days.  The coal authority says they own 11 (I think) but none of those had slides.  

How difficult could it possibly be to find out who owns them?  Here, it's a simple request made at City/County offices to find something like that out.  I assume GB has the same kind of set up to keep track of who owns what property.  Either the newspaper didn't do due diligence or there is something very fishy.  Probably the first, but still?  Odd.

[merylinkid]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Here, it's a simple request made at City/County offices to find something like that out. 

Clearly you've never checked into what goes on at Super Fund site.   Suddenly no one owns the land so they can't be held responsible.   sure there are records.   But it says "corporation Z owns the land."   So you dig up Corp Z records.   Turns out they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Corp Y.   Which has a general partner of Corp X.    Based in the Caymans of course.   And so on and so on.   

 

Amazing how they own 11 of the tips but NOT THE TIPS THAT SLID.   What a coincidence.

[Roseanna]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:14 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I knew the show was always going to botch up the Charles-Camilla love story from the 70s.  I hate the way they went with it because the show took away Camilla's agency.  I wish we would have seen Camilla choose Andrew without any meddling.  I think they squandered a great opportunity to have a character look at what it means to be a member of the Firm and choose not to go down that route.  Camilla was not ready to be the wife of the Prince of Wales back then.  Why not explore that.  I realize the show is not going to continue to the point for us to see when Camilla is ready, but why not plant that seed just in case.  

That was only clear afterwards. After Camilla married Andrew, it seemed there was no option to marry Charles and Camilla didn't even want to divorce from Andrew. They were forced to do so after Charles ungentlemanly admitted his adultery in TV. But if Diana had been alive, Charles and Camilla would hardly could have marry.

I think the most decisive moment for Camilla was when she became serious about Charles. Was it before his marriage or only after his marriage was broken and it was only she who could give him support? 

But looking from Charles's POV, there is no doubt that having a serious affair while looking for a wife, drove out those candidates who would have been suitable but who were experienced enough to realize that he was emotionally engaged.    

On 2/17/2020 at 8:38 AM, andromeda331 said:

At best they showed Camilla as a confused hussy who dated Charles while still with Andrew but you know she really does love Charles but never stopped dating Andrew. Or at worse a bitch who used Charles to get back at Andrew. And Charles does find out at least that she was still with Andrew while they were together. So they've given us zero reason why Charles is in love with her or should ever want anything to do with her ever again or any reason to believe its a great relationship.

Yes, they totally missed to present those qualities of Camilla that irl made her Charles's best friend and confidante. 

[Ellaria]

On 2/17/2020 at 1:38 AM, andromeda331 said:

At best they showed Camilla as a confused hussy who dated Charles while still with Andrew but you know she really does love Charles but never stopped dating Andrew. Or at worse a bitch who used Charles to get back at Andrew. And Charles does find out at least that she was still with Andrew while they were together. So they've given us zero reason why Charles is in love with her or should ever want anything to do with her ever again or any reason to believe its a great relationship.

On 2/17/2020 at 4:14 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I knew the show was always going to botch up the Charles-Camilla love story from the 70s.  I hate the way they went with it because the show took away Camilla's agency.  I wish we would have seen Camilla choose Andrew without any meddling.  I think they squandered a great opportunity to have a character look at what it means to be a member of the Firm and choose not to go down that route.  Camilla was not ready to be the wife of the Prince of Wales back then.  Why not explore that.  I realize the show is not going to continue to the point for us to see when Camilla is ready, but why not plant that seed just in case.  

Agree with both points of view. Frankly, I was looking forward to seeing how they presented the start of the Charles/Camila love story because it is central to nearly everything that came later. The "why" of that relationship went unexplored. It is my great disappointment of the season.

An a slightly different topic: did anyone watch the first episode of "The Windsors" on CNN? It is a six-part series. Sunday's episode focused on the Duke of Windsor and what led to his abdication. It was was well-done and there were a few things that I didn't previously know. However, the entire series seems remarkably similar to "The Royal House of Windsor" series on Netflix.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Roseanna]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:28 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

Frankly, I was looking forward to seeing how they presented the start of the Charles/Camila love story because it is central to nearly everything that came later. The "why" of that relationship went unexplored. It is my great disappointment of the season.

There are two oppoite lines of interpretation: either it was the great love from the beginning (at last from Charles's side) and therefore it couldn't be won by anything, or it became serious later because of circumstances.

I find the second interpretation more interesting: making choices people are ignorant of the other person and even themselves, and in addition there are outer circumstances and fate (f.ex. Mountbatten's murder made Charles vulnerable). 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Roseanna
adding "of"

[Umbelina]

Prince Charles tests positive for the Corona virus.

This is rather bizarre, since I've been doing a lot of speculating in the History Thread here that the public might have a very hard time accepting him as King, and especially Camilla as Queen, but they would probably welcome William and Kate.  (It was with general speculation about whether or not the Monarchy would continue after the remarkable QEII dies.)

Prince Charles, the Queen's son and the first in line to the British throne, has tested positive for coronavirus and is now self-isolating in Scotland.

Quote

 

Here's the statement from Clarence House:

“The Prince of Wales has tested positive for coronavirus. He has been displaying mild symptoms but otherwise remains in good health and has been working from home throughout the last few days as usual. 

 

It goes on of course.

It was, IMO, foolish to keep having their regular schedule for so long.

[MadyGirl1987]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

This is rather bizarre, since I've been doing a lot of speculating in the History Thread here that the public might have a very hard time accepting him as King, and especially Camilla as Queen, but they would probably welcome William and Kate.  (It was with general speculation about whether or not the Monarchy would continue after the remarkable QEII dies.)

I know a lot of people want to see William on the throne instead of Charles, but honestly I do not. I want Kate and him to be able to have their freedom for as long as possible before they are thrown into the roles they will have the rest of their lives. Especially with their kids being so young, still. Let them have this time to enjoy their children and family life before being thrown into the chaos being King and Queen would entail.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

I know a lot of people want to see William on the throne instead of Charles, but honestly I do not. I want Kate and him to be able to have their freedom for as long as possible before they are thrown into the roles they will have the rest of their lives. Especially with their kids being so young, still. Let them have this time to enjoy their children and family life before being thrown into the chaos being King and Queen would entail.

Personally, I don't want a monarchy at all, but if there is one, I definitely don't want King Charles and Queen Camilla.

I hope they all didn't wait too long to stop meeting crowds and shaking hands though.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

Historyextra's articles are open for some time:

https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/prince-charles-camilla-history-relationship-young-why-marry-diana-crown-netflix/

 

[Roseanna]

 

[dubbel zout]

I fell down a Wiki rabbit hole (as one does) recently and discovered that Louis Mountbatten and Princess Alice had a sister, Louise, who was a queen of Sweden. She was remarkable in her own right, though in a quieter way than Alice or Louis.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I fell down a Wiki rabbit hole (as one does) recently and discovered that Louis Mountbatten and Princess Alice had a sister, Louise, who was a queen of Sweden. She was remarkable in her own right, though in a quieter way than Alice or Louis.

Yes, but Queen Louise was the second wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf and they had no children. His first wife was Margaret was also British, the daughter of Prince Arthur and the granddaughter of Queen Victoria. She died young and was movingly eulologized for her charity work by the author Selma Lagerlöf.

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

[Roseanna]

Anna-Stina Nykänen's column in Helsingin Sanomat today: "Elizabeth praised the pride of the people, Carl Gustav understood the individualists - there were differences in the coronavirus speeches of the royals"

https://www.hs.fi/sunnuntai/art-2000006466805.html

Quote

The Queen's speech was filmed in Windsor Castle, the King' speech in Stenhammar Castle. And at the beginning of each speech, a picture of the castle was shown first. Of course.

The castle is a well-known symbol. Like some ancient place that has endured the twists and turns of history. That's how Piia Jallino interpreted it in Facebook. She is a professor of health sociology at the University of Tampere.

Jallinoja had picked up a list of words from the speeches. They could be grouped as follows:

The Queen's speech. A good person is now: selfless, strong, proud, strong, disciplined. Actions are marked by: serenity, good-natured determination, companionship, and pride in what we are. Positive right now: an opportunity to slow down life, take a break and reflect.

The King's speech. A good person is now: brave, persevering, caring. Actions are marked by: accepting even the most unpleasant things, they are rather small sacrifices, however, responsibility and selflessness, duty and thinking of fellow human beings. Positive right now: the difference between important and non-important is revealed.

Our interpretation of the broad lines was the same. The Queen's speech emphasized a proud and strong, united nation. After all, the British have had two world wars and a world empire at the bottom, Jallinoja wrote.

The King of Sweden's speech, on the other hand, emphasized the individualistic people, who must now for a moment compromise their freedom so that other individuals do not suffer fatal losses. But the king left a little door open for the individualist to return, the queen did not refer to such, Jallinoja interpreted.

I think Carl Gustav showed understanding to those who are used to meeting friends. Yes, the guy knows how strongly the entertaiment sometimes calls. It is suitable for Sweden. Freedom, prosperity and entertainment are valued there.

Neither speech showed any celebratory, extravagant, unruly crowd raging in the restaurants.

Jallinoja thought the king seemed moved when he spoke, the queen did not.

The king read his speech on paper and sought support from them. The queen looked straight at the camera, reading from the prompt.

Neither was sour or bitter. Both settled on the same side with the people.

 

 

[ProudMary]

I watched The Queen at War last night on PBS. Short (<60 mins.) documentary on how living and serving during WWII shaped Queen Elizabeth II's future life and reign. Worth a watch. I'm sure it'll be re-broadcast on PBS. It's also available to stream on the PBS website linked below.

https://www.pbs.org/show/queen-war/

[JudyObscure]

Yes, that was well worth it.

My You-tube rabbit hole was  all about Princess Anne after reading here about the kidnapping attempt. 

I've always been a fan of Princess Anne's for all the thousands of hours of charity work she does, even trudging through the dirt and heat of poor villages in  Africa as part of her work for her "Save The Children," charity.  I thought it was so unfair that Diana, who did a fraction of the charity work Anne did, would be the one renowned as, "The Caring Princess."  I guess to the public it's all down to how many pretty pictures you pose for while doing the work.

Both the kidnapping, where Anne faced down a murderer with a gun in her face, and her Olympic riding where she was badly thrown several times but kept on riding, were so impressive and yet "The Crown" doesn't tell us about any of that.  Instead they make sure we see that she slept around a bit and we see her actually  in bed with Parker-Bowles.  Something no mother wants her children to see.  I think if any living Royal has a right to be angry with the show It's Anne.

[Notwisconsin]

I've spent the last few days binging and while I'm pretty sure how this is has been discussed before...Tommy Lescalles is the villain of the piece. A total shit, who jeleous of his power made the lives of the Royals hell, especially Margret. I like the stuff about the private lives of the Prime Ministers. The clusterfuck over Churchill's stroke was really well done. I really look forward to how they do the Profumo affair.

 

[Badger]

The Profumo Affair was in the very early 1960's so I'm guessing they've decided to skip over it.

[Umbelina]

On 6/17/2020 at 3:48 PM, Badger said:

The Profumo Affair was in the very early 1960's so I'm guessing they've decided to skip over it.

There were episodes about it on THE CROWN.