History Talk: The British Monarchy

[merylinkid]

Oh if only he had married Maria.   She wouldn't have been in Russia during the Revolution and would have survived.   If only they had married those girls off (who were old enough).   That's what I think every time I see a reference to Russian nobility alive around that time-- those who got out mostly survived.   Those still in Russia ... didn't.

[roamyn]

On 6/29/2018 at 11:40 PM, merylinkid said:

Oh if only he had married Maria.   She wouldn't have been in Russia during the Revolution and would have survived.   If only they had married those girls off (who were old enough).   That's what I think every time I see a reference to Russian nobility alive around that time-- those who got out mostly survived.   Those still in Russia ... didn't.

It’s not that the Tsar didn’t want to, but the girls Tatiana & Olga mostly, didn’t want to leave Russia, and the Tsarina was against them marrying outside Russia, as well.  They were a very close family, and w/the possible exception of Queen Alexandra of England, N&A’s aunt, Tsarina Alexandra was the most smothering mother.

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, roamyn said:

It’s not that the Tsar didn’t want to, but the girls Tatiana & Olga mostly, didn’t want to leave Russia, and the Tsarina was against them marrying outside Russia, as well.  They were a very close family, and w/the possible exception of Queen Alexandra of England, N&A’s aunt, Tsarina Alexandra was the most smothering mother.

Exactly.  Alexandra was quite neurotic and she kept her kids very close to her and didn't let them experience the outside world without her- and she was essentially a shut-in.  People who knew them thought the girls behaved much younger than their ages because of this.  They were childish and immature. None of them were emotionally prepared to leave their family home, let alone marry and leave Russia forever as would usually be expected with a royal marriage.  It's a really tragic story at its core; both Nicholas and Alexandra created a situation that ultimately meant that none of them could escape.

Edited July 5, 2018 by doodlebug

[Badger]

That was one of the reasons everyone was so eager to have Princess May of Teck marry Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale and the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. She was serious, intelligent and mature in a way Bertie and Alexandra's children were not.  Then, of course, after Eddy died, they made sure she married his younger brother George.

[Roseanna]

On 7/5/2018 at 2:18 PM, doodlebug said:

Alexandra was quite neurotic and she kept her kids very close to her and didn't let them experience the outside world without her- and she was essentially a shut-in.  People who knew them thought the girls behaved much younger than their ages because of this.  They were childish and immature. None of them were emotionally prepared to leave their family home, let alone marry and leave Russia forever as would usually be expected with a royal marriage.  

 

Didn't they serve as nurses during WW1? That certainly demands maturity.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:40 PM, merylinkid said:

Oh if only he had married Maria.   She wouldn't have been in Russia during the Revolution and would have survived.   If only they had married those girls off (who were old enough).   That's what I think every time I see a reference to Russian nobility alive around that time-- those who got out mostly survived.   Those still in Russia ... didn't.

There was many ways to secure the life of whole Imperial family: Nicholas II could not to join the WW1 after experiencing how the defeat in the war against Japan had led to the revolution in 1905. Alexander III could have signed the constitution that his father Alexander II had prepared to sign just before he was murdered in 1881.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:27 AM, PinkRibbons said:

Oh the Romanov girls were some of the most popular potential brides in Europe. Victoria and Albert had set the precedent of marrying for love but also marrying someone of relatively equal station. They were very careful about this when marrying off their own children, and then their children were in almost every royal house of Europe and doing the same. So when a European monarch at the time was looking for a candidate to marry their child off to, they were searching for a good lineage but also a genuinely good match, and the pool of candidates was not large. 

It's funny to think that for all that being four girls in a row was a disaster for Russia, it was fantastic for the other royal houses of Europe: four girls, all beautiful, all charming, and all educated for life as nobility. Add to that no baggage from being in the line of inheritance and also the fact that they were part of one of the richest monarchies in the world and therefore could be expected to come with insane dowries, and they were utterly ideal. A book I read on the sisters mentioned that at every public event the girls were at from the time they were toddlers, they were being surveyed as brides. I believe Edward VIII/Uncle David was mentioned as being quite fond of Olga. Imagine if she had lived and he'd made a proper royal marriage with her!

However good qualities these girls personally and because of their status had, they were like to fail in their most important duty, to produce healthy sons. Even if there was at that time no knowledge that their brother's sickness was due the sickly gene carried by their mother, there must have been some suspicion. 

Also, the failed marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna with Prince Wilhelm of Sweden in 1908 was no recommendation to chose a Russian bride:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Pavlovna_of_Russia_(1890–1958)

[doodlebug]

17 hours ago, Roseanna said:

However good qualities these girls personally and because of their status had, they were like to fail in their most important duty, to produce healthy sons. Even if there was at that time no knowledge that their brother's sickness was due the sickly gene carried by their mother, there must have been some suspicion. 

Also, the failed marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna with Prince Wilhelm of Sweden in 1908 was no recommendation to chose a Russian bride:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Pavlovna_of_Russia_(1890–1958)

After their remains were found, genetic testing was done and it turned out only one of the four daughters (Marie, I think) carried the gene for hemophilia.. Of course, there was no way to know this back in 1917, but the Russian royal family had been very careful to keep the nature of Alexei’s illness secret, even amongst their own extended family; so potential suitors wouldn’t have necessarily known about the hemophilia. Queen Victoria lost a son to hemophilia but managed to get all of her daughters married off; such were the strictures on royal marriages at the time that there was a limited pool of potential brides.  Even if a suitor knew about the hemophilia, which they did know was inherited by sons through the mother; someone would’ve taken a chance.

17 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Didn't they serve as nurses during WW1? That certainly demands maturity.

The hospital where they volunteered was on the grounds of the palace where they lived at Tsarkoe Selo. All of them did things like rolling bandages and visiting the soldiers, who were mainly officers from the upper classes of Russian society.  Only the two older girls, along with their mother, did actual patient care and the eldest, Olga, found it too emotionally difficult and didn’t last long at it.  So, while they did do some nursing, it was in the company of their mother, on the grounds of the palace and involved no exposure to people not from the upper echelon.  The girls were very willing and hardworking volunteers within that limited framework though.

[doodlebug]

For those interested in the Romanovs; they were murdered late night/early morning 100 years ago on July 16-17, 1918 by the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinberg.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nicholas.htm

Edited July 17, 2018 by doodlebug

[VCRTracking]

Their murder was shown in 2003 The Lost Prince miniseries about Prince John, George V and Mary's youngest son who suffered from epilepsy and hidden away from the public.

Synopsis excerpts from Wikipedia:

Quote

When summer arrives there is much excitement again as Tsar Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra, and their children, visit their relatives, the British royals at the Isle of Wight. The Russians entrance Prince John with their exotic splendour. It is clear, even at this stage, that Johnnie, a charming and attractive boy, has an eccentric view of the world and is uninhibited in a way that is alien to his parents. His ailing grandfather, King Edward VII, loves him for his frankness. It is clear also that his nanny, Lalla, is reluctant to reveal the seriousness of his medical condition.

Quote

George is alarmed at the reaction of his own subjects and persuades Stamfordham to press Lloyd George to reverse the invitation to the Tsar. Johnnie dreams innocently of his Russian cousins coming to live with him and is being prepared by Lalla to give a recital to his parents.

[VCRTracking]

From Vanity Fair.com "What Happens When the Queen Dies?"

I like the code "London Bridge is down."

[PinkRibbons]

May she live to be 120.

[latetotheparty]

I was 6 months old when she ascended to the throne. I can’t imagine the world without her. 

[katie9918]

33 minutes ago, latetotheparty said:

I was 6 months old when she ascended to the throne. I can’t imagine the world without her. 

Nor I.

 

I’m not a Charles-hater; in fact, I’m a little fond of him in spite of myself. 

 

But it’s going to be a different world when Her Majesty and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh go. And I don’t think one will significantly outlive the other, unless it’s her.

Edited August 22, 2018 by katie9918

[anyanka323]

On 7/15/2018 at 4:06 AM, Roseanna said:

Didn't they serve as nurses during WW1? That certainly demands maturity.

There was many ways to secure the life of whole Imperial family: Nicholas II could not to join the WW1 after experiencing how the defeat in the war against Japan had led to the revolution in 1905. Alexander III could have signed the constitution that his father Alexander II had prepared to sign just before he was murdered in 1881.

However good qualities these girls personally and because of their status had, they were like to fail in their most important duty, to produce healthy sons. Even if there was at that time no knowledge that their brother's sickness was due the sickly gene carried by their mother, there must have been some suspicion. 

Also, the failed marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna with Prince Wilhelm of Sweden in 1908 was no recommendation to chose a Russian bride:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Pavlovna_of_Russia_(1890–1958)

Maria Alexandrovna, daughter of Alexander II, married Prince Alfred, the son of Queen Victoria.  She never fully adjusted to life in Great Britain or overcame her dislike of the UK.  She also had issues with order of precedence and didn't like being being second after the Alexandra, Princess of Wales. 

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

[VCRTracking]

This is a great tweet:

[Jeeves]

5 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

 I'm shocked to read that Prince Andrew and Prince Edward also went to Gordonstoun.  I wonder if, in the interest of school tradition, they were assigned that bed by the broken  window. Doesn't sleeping in the rain in Scotland  constitute a breach of child abuse laws? I kept thinking of how two of Charlotte Bronte's  sisters  died at boarding school before their father decided to let the other girls stay home.

I don't blame  Philip or Elizabeth because I think they really were doing what they thought was best for Charles, but I do think they might have learned better before the younger boys followed.

(^^From one of the episode discussions - Paterfamilias.)

Because I've wasted entirely too much time reading about the Royal Family, I think that Andrew was probably better suited for Gordonstoun than either of his brothers. He's outgoing and certainly not over-sensitive, lol. As a young adult he absolutely thrived in the military, unlike Charles or Edward. As a kid he probably had the robust personality and physical strength to handle Gordonstoun. I didn't know Edward had attended as well. That's a head-scratcher. 

Of course, of all the Queen's children, I think Princess Anne would have done the best at Gordonstoun. Well, except for the girl thing, lol. But as has often been said, she's the son that Philip wanted Charles to be. No-nonsense, not over-sensitive, a natural athlete (Olympian-level equestrian). I've kind of quietly admired her over the years. No, she doesn't have Diana's rare talent for empathy and celebrity, and I think it's to Anne's credit she doesn't fake emotions. She may not provide tabloid photo opps by publicly cuddling sick kids, but she has a formidable record as one of the hardest-working royals. She shows up day in and day out and has helped raise awareness, and money, for many good causes, IMO far beyond what the general public credits her with. She managed, among the Royal circus, to rear two children who turned out well. (Among other things, her daughter Zara, like Anne herself, competed in the Olympics as an equestrian.) 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Jeeves

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

No, she doesn't have Diana's rare talent for empathy and celebrity, and I think it's to Anne's credit she doesn't fake emotions. She may not provide tabloid photo opps by publicly cuddling sick kids, but she has a formidable record as one of the hardest-working royals.

I would just change that to, "Diana's talent for celebrity," heh.  One notable charity director said she would rather have one Princess Anne than twenty Dianas.  Anne actually did work for her charities rather than just pose for photoes and go home.  It's a shame that Diana and not Anne became known as, "the caring princess."

I am so looking forward to "The Crown's" coverage of the Diana years.

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

I would just change that to, "Diana's talent for celebrity," heh.  One notable charity director said she would rather have one Princess Anne than twenty Dianas.  Anne actually did work for her charities rather than just pose for photoes and go home.  It's a shame that Diana and not Anne became known as, "the caring princess."

I am so looking forward to "The Crown's" coverage of the Diana years.

Me too. 

I mentioned Diana's rare talent for empathy because I wanted to be fair to her. The best book I've read about her was The Diana Chronicles, by Tina Brown. Brown understands the world Diana lived in, as a child and young adult. She moved in some of those circles herself and with her successful career in journalism and publishing she had golden access to sources for the book. I mean, not just anyone gets to have a nice chatty lunch with Tony Blair (back around 2004-2005 which is when she was writing the book).

I think she gives a balanced picture of Diana and also of Charles.

One of the interesting bits of history I got from the book, is that Diana's paternal grandmother was well known, and liked, in the county for being a truly good Samaritan. She was always traveling around in her shabby little car helping people out, and apparently did it with - actually she was probably acting from - a notable sense of true empathy for those who were suffering or in need. This was at a time when the Spencer family funds were really stretched and Diana's grandfather was struggling to keep the family estate (Althorp) going and to keep Althorp House from going to rack and ruin. Brown suggests that Diana's sometimes uncanny empathy for strangers in need or in pain, was something she shared with that grandmother. 

So although Diana had quite a talent for celebrity, she pulled off those "warm and fuzzy" appearances, because she did have an inherent warmth and empathy for the strangers she encountered and hugged for the tabloids.

BTW, there's a 6-part documentary series now streaming on Netflix, The Royal House of Windsor, which I like. (Not to be confused with a dreadful fictional soap opera, The Windsors, which I've also encountered on Netflix.) In one of the episodes, Diana's former private secretary Patrick Jephson talks about her being savvy about the media and specifically one time when she agreed with a newspaper article that commented she needed to not only do the "hugging the suffering" public appearances, but add other kinds of appearances, lest things would get stale. It was clear to me that Jephson really cared about Diana and grieved her death, although he'd resigned after she did that Panorama interview ("I thought that a Princess who presented herself as a victim was not a Princess I could work for any longer.")

Back during the marriage, when Diana's fame had exploded and she was appearing in support of some "controversial" causes like AIDS treatment/research, HRH the Queen called Diana in for a chat. HRH asked Diana why she couldn't devote her energies to more mainstream un-controversial things like for instance some animal charities. Jephson relates that Diana related the meeting to him and said, "Patrick, we'll start doing animal charities when we run out of people charities." You can tell he just adored her for that.

[PeterPirate]

This discussion reminded me of a debate about whether it was better to be a Roundhead or a Cavalier.  

 

Somewhat ironically, Diana's brother Hugh Charles Spencer made the argument for the Roundheads.   His opponent argued that Cavaliers represented panache and pleasure, while the Roundheads, although disciplined and hard-working, were also repressed and boring.     

(Thanks, Jeeves)

Edited January 20, 2019 by PeterPirate

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Somewhat ironically, Diana's brother Hugh Spencer made the argument for the Roundheads.   His opponent argued that Cavaliers represented panache and pleasure, while the Roundheads, although disciplined and hard-working, were also repressed and boring.     

Thanks for the link.  I've bookmarked it to listen to later. BTW, that is Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, but his name is Charles. 

[SailorGirl]

I wasn't sure where to put THIS one. . . its not factual history, but its not small talk as it does relate to the show . . .  :-D 

Does anyone have thoughts as to how to identify the fabric pattern from the sitting room furniture in Clarence House? Every time I watch the Crown I focus more on that than anything and am conveniently looking to reupholster my current sofa! 

 

 

 

[PeterPirate]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:07 AM, SailorGirl said:

I wasn't sure where to put THIS one. . . its not factual history, but its not small talk as it does relate to the show . . .  :-D 

Does anyone have thoughts as to how to identify the fabric pattern from the sitting room furniture in Clarence House? Every time I watch the Crown I focus more on that than anything and am conveniently looking to reupholster my current sofa! 

 

I don't know if this is what you are asking, but I think the fabric style is called chintz -- hand-painted fabric from India. 
Here is one article about the set pieces:  Behind the Sets of The Crown

[Ame]

On 1/4/2018 at 10:25 PM, Roseanna said:

I scanned this photo where Elizabeth is in bed after giving birth to Edward in 1964, surround By Anne (13), Charles (15) and Andrew (4) from Kitty Kelley's book The Royals, or actually the Finnish translation Kuningasperhe (not very good book, too much sheer gossip). The text says that the photo was published only once in Britain because the Court regarded it too personal.  Hope this is legal. p

Here is a similar one but with Philip

[Ame]

On 1/19/2019 at 10:48 PM, JudyObscure said:

I would just change that to, "Diana's talent for celebrity," heh.  One notable charity director said she would rather have one Princess Anne than twenty Dianas.  Anne actually did work for her charities rather than just pose for photoes and go home.  It's a shame that Diana and not Anne became known as, "the caring princess."

I am so looking forward to "The Crown's" coverage of the Diana years.

Honestly part of me that is bitter kind of hoping they deliver a "surpising" portrayal of Diana so people can finally realize it's a drama and stop saying all Philip did was whine and bully the queen like it's a fact.

[Ame]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-strange-life-profile-of-prince-philip-1563268.html?amp

I found this extremely good interview profile of Prince Philip. It offered very detailed overview of his childhood, touched on his earlier frustration at being prince consort, his relationship with the Queen, and Prince Charles,  as well as questions about his alleged infidelity. Although dated back in 1992, It's very insightful

Edited February 9, 2019 by Ame

[merylinkid]

On 1/19/2019 at 8:39 AM, Jeeves said:

(^^From one of the episode discussions - Paterfamilias.)

Because I've wasted entirely too much time reading about the Royal Family, I think that Andrew was probably better suited for Gordonstoun than either of his brothers. He's outgoing and certainly not over-sensitive, lol. As a young adult he absolutely thrived in the military, unlike Charles or Edward. As a kid he probably had the robust personality and physical strength to handle Gordonstoun. I didn't know Edward had attended as well. That's a head-scratcher. 

Of course, of all the Queen's children, I think Princess Anne would have done the best at Gordonstoun. Well, except for the girl thing, lol. But as has often been said, she's the son that Philip wanted Charles to be. No-nonsense, not over-sensitive, a natural athlete (Olympian-level equestrian). I've kind of quietly admired her over the years. No, she doesn't have Diana's rare talent for empathy and celebrity, and I think it's to Anne's credit she doesn't fake emotions. She may not provide tabloid photo opps by publicly cuddling sick kids, but she has a formidable record as one of the hardest-working royals. She shows up day in and day out and has helped raise awareness, and money, for many good causes, IMO far beyond what the general public credits her with. She managed, among the Royal circus, to rear two children who turned out well. (Among other things, her daughter Zara, like Anne herself, competed in the Olympics as an equestrian.) 

Bit late to commenting, but it took me a bit to navigate all the forum changes.   Annnnyway,

Anne has done a fantastic job given her position in the pecking order.    I mean her brother's WIVES for goodness sake take precedence over her.   On the other hand, part of the reason she gets mostly good press is simply because she is not held to a certain standard like Diana, Meghan, Kate.   With her mother on the throne, she is so far down in the line of succession she could do what she wants.   Once her brother becomes King, her family is sidelined like Princess Margaret's family.    Still there, but paparrazzi aren't staking out her favorite places or criticizing every style choice she makes or anonymous friends aren't calling the press with "inside" stories of misdeeds.    It's easy to look good when everything you do is not criticized.

The Queen is criticized for speaking out on an issue, she's criticized if she doesn't.   Charles is distant, controlling (Poundbury anyone?).  Camilla is raked over the coals regularly.   Kate doesn't do enough or doesn't do the right things.   She goes barelegged.   So does Meghan.   Who doesn't dress right, touches her bump too much, etc.    

Just an example compare Zara's pregnancies with Meghan's.   Zara you got a couple of pictures and, of course, her expressions at Meghan and Harry's wedding.   Then a happy bundle of joy.    Meghan you get "is she even pregnant?"  Well if she isn't why is touching her bump "too much?"   Right clothes for pregnancy, wrong clothes for pregnancy.   Not doing enough even if she is tired from being pregnant.   Etc.

Don't get me wrong -- Anne works really really really hard as a Royal and she deserves all the positive press she gets.  

[dubbel zout]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Once her brother becomes King, [Anne's] family is sidelined like Princess Margaret's family. 

I'd argue that Anne's family was always sidelined, as the chances any of them would ever be close to getting the throne was always remote.

Anne got a lot of negative press in the past for being extremely prickly with the, uh, press. I'm not sure what changed—maybe the attention moving to Charles and Andrew once Diana and Fergie came on the scene?—but it's fairly recent that her popularity has increased. She was always a royal workhorse, but because a lot of it was for less glamorous causes, she often didn't get her rightful due. She used to be near the bottom of the list of most liked in the immediate royal family (i.e., the queen, Prince Philip, the kids and their spouses), and now she's usually pretty highly ranked.

[Ame]

19 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Bit late to commenting, but it took me a bit to navigate all the forum changes.   Annnnyway,

Anne has done a fantastic job given her position in the pecking order.    I mean her brother's WIVES for goodness sake take precedence over her.   On the other hand, part of the reason she gets mostly good press is simply because she is not held to a certain standard like Diana, Meghan, Kate.   With her mother on the throne, she is so far down in the line of succession she could do what she wants.   Once her brother becomes King, her family is sidelined like Princess Margaret's family.    Still there, but paparrazzi aren't staking out her favorite places or criticizing every style choice she makes or anonymous friends aren't calling the press with "inside" stories of misdeeds.    It's easy to look good when everything you do is not criticized.

The Queen is criticized for speaking out on an issue, she's criticized if she doesn't.   Charles is distant, controlling (Poundbury anyone?).  Camilla is raked over the coals regularly.   Kate doesn't do enough or doesn't do the right things.   She goes barelegged.   So does Meghan.   Who doesn't dress right, touches her bump too much, etc.    

Just an example compare Zara's pregnancies with Meghan's.   Zara you got a couple of pictures and, of course, her expressions at Meghan and Harry's wedding.   Then a happy bundle of joy.    Meghan you get "is she even pregnant?"  Well if she isn't why is touching her bump "too much?"   Right clothes for pregnancy, wrong clothes for pregnancy.   Not doing enough even if she is tired from being pregnant.   Etc.

Don't get me wrong -- Anne works really really really hard as a Royal and she deserves all the positive press she gets.  

15 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I'd argue that Anne's family was always sidelined, as the chances any of them would ever be close to getting the throne was always remote.

Anne got a lot of negative press in the past for being extremely prickly with the, uh, press. I'm not sure what changed—maybe the attention moving to Charles and Andrew once Diana and Fergie came on the scene?—but it's fairly recent that her popularity has increased. She was always a royal workhorse, but because a lot of it was for less glamorous causes, she often didn't get her rightful due. She used to be near the bottom of the list of most liked in the immediate royal family (i.e., the queen, Prince Philip, the kids and their spouses), and now she's usually pretty highly ranked.

Only Charles's children are working royals, and both Anne and Edward agreed that their children would not have royal titles. Those are also reasons why they are not being photographed and generating headlines as much as the Cambridges or the Sussexs.

[Badger]

20 hours ago, Ame said:

Only Charles's children are working royals, and both Anne and Edward agreed that their children would not have royal titles. Those are also reasons why they are not being photographed and generating headlines as much as the Cambridges or the Sussexs.

Anne's children weren't entitled to royal titles, but they could have had noble ones if Mark Phillips had become a peer which he chose not to do.

[VCRTracking]

Prince Philip Gives Up Driver’s License At 97 After Crash

Quote

The palace said in a statement that “after careful consideration,” Queen Elizabeth II’s husband “has taken the decision to voluntarily surrender his driving license.”

I think the Queen was like "Phillip, I love you but you could've killed someone and everything we've done in the past 20 years to improve our family's image would've been for nothing so STOP DRIVING."

[pootlus]

On 2/11/2019 at 8:28 PM, VCRTracking said:

Prince Philip Gives Up Driver’s License At 97 After Crash

I think the Queen was like "Phillip, I love you but you could've killed someone and everything we've done in the past 20 years to improve our family's image would've been for nothing so STOP DRIVING."

I don't like him much but Philip would hardly be the only elderly person for whom it took a shock to the system (i.e. accident) before he realised that he probably shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle.  Thankfully no-one was seriously hurt.  I don't understand why he carried on - if I had someone who would drive me around anywhere I wanted at a moment's notice I'd just be slumped in the back seat constantly, asleep or drunk (probably both).  The idiocy on the roads has long since destroyed any joy I might have had in driving.

Of course my argument is slightly underlined by the fact that he was seen driving again soon afterwards, so maybe he was determined to carry on and it was a family intervention (as is so often the case also).  I would have thought someone of his outdated attitudes would be more likely to listen to his sons or his grandsons than his wife, even if she is the Queen!

[JudyObscure]

Prince Philip, with his lifetime of sports, flying planes, driving teams of horses, and all sorts of vehicles, probably has better skills and instincts at 97 than I could ever have.  I see so many young idiots on the roads, usually texting while making left turns, I'm reluctant to say someone shouldn't drive just because they're old.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Prince Philip, with his lifetime of sports, flying planes, driving teams of horses, and all sorts of vehicles, probably has better skills and instincts at 97 than I could ever have.  I see so many young idiots on the roads, usually texting while making left turns, I'm reluctant to say someone shouldn't drive just because they're old.

No, it all depends on health and eyesight. My great-grandfather thought he was fine until he was driving my brother and our cousin somewhere and couldn't tell what color the light was. My brother had eye problems which later turned out to be cataract at the time and couldn't tell what color it was either and my cousin was deaf. By the time my brother was signing the question to him they were already at the light. Luckily it was green or it could have gone very badly. But it was enough for my great-grandfather to decide he was never going to drive again. But not everyone does realizes that. Sometimes you do have to make them quit. Philip was lucky no one else in the other car was seriously hurt. But it clearly wasn't enough to make him stop driving since he was behind the wheel two days later. 

[katie9918]

Yet, it was the other car that hit him.

I agree that it’s a good thing that Philip will no longer be driving on public roads at his age, and even better that he can still drive on the properties privately owned by the family, but it just irks me that everyone is so ready to blame him for the accident just because of his advanced age. Do we know anything about what the other driver may or may not have been doing at the time of the accident?

It reminds me of some appalling statements in the wake of the Brexit vote that people over a certain age shouldn’t have been allowed to vote on such an issue. What’s next, putting all people of a certain age in kennels so they don’t offend the sensibilities of the younger generations?

[Pallas]

Philip was entirely in the wrong, as coverage of the accident makes clear. The other car struck Philip's car because he pulled out onto a major road -- which had a speed limit of 60 MPH -- without a clear view of the oncoming traffic. To the injured passenger in the car with right of way, he later acknowledged, in writing, that he must not have seen the car; on the scene, he acknowledged that he'd been blinded by the setting sun. 

My father was an airplane and sailplane pilot; at 90, he retained good driving motor skills, reflexes and comprehension of the rules of the road. Where I began to see a change was in his judgment: less caution, specifically when it came to accounting for other drivers. Not even to the point of his drawing ire or honking horns -- but nonetheless, a lessening. 

[Ame]

https://youtu.be/DvkAGSgacVo

Here is a documentary about Anne's relationship with the media, as well as her relationship with her ex-sister-in-laws. It's a bit of silly at start and take itself way seriously, and it just blames Anne for her marriage failure without mention that her first husband had fathered a child out of wedlock. But it got a lot of journalists and Royal photographers in it and I learned a lot about press's relationship with the royal family.

Also I love Anne's horsebox with the 1 ANN plate on the back

[BitterApple]

Like everyone else, I'm absolutely dying to see which way they go with Diana. I was always one of the few who thought she was a decent person, but not quite the saint she was made out to be, nor was Charles the evil villain. It was an arranged marriage that didn't work out and both sides made plenty of mistakes.

I understand she has a rabid fanbase, but I'd rather see a well-rounded portrayal, as opposed to the "naive lamb led to the slaughter" trope that's played out for over two decades. 

For as steely as the Queen is, I don't think she was the worst mother-in-law. Could you imagine Diana going up against Queen V or Mary of Teck? She wouldn't have lasted two seconds.

Edited March 13, 2019 by BitterApple

[dubbel zout]

14 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Could you imagine Diana going up against Queen V or Mary of Teck? She wouldn't have lasted two seconds.

I'm not so sure about that. Diana's public persona was shy and demure, but in private she was no pushover. She wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with Prince Philip, even reminding him on one occasion that her (Spencer) title was older his.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

I understand she has a rabid fanbase, but I'd rather see a well-rounded portrayal, as opposed to the "naive lamb led to the slaughter" trope that's played out for over two decades.

I will be unbelievably disappointed if they go the naive lamb route. My dream casting for Diana is Elizabeth Debicki, who I think has the look but with an edgy vibe that I'd really like to see portrayed.

[MadyGirl1987]

23 hours ago, hendersonrocks said:

I will be unbelievably disappointed if they go the naive lamb route. My dream casting for Diana is Elizabeth Debicki, who I think has the look but with an edgy vibe that I'd really like to see portrayed.

Wow, she really does have the Diana look.

I totally agree with being disappointed at them going the naive lamb route as well. She did some good things, but I think she was pretty messed up by her home-life and had mental health issues as well. Seeing the whole thing as evil Charles/ poor Diana bugs me because I think the whole situation was messed up on both sides. They were pressured into the relationship by outside forces. Charles couldn't marry the women he really wanted. He was being pressured to settle down and produce heirs. Diana was way too young and inexperienced for the pressures of royal life, and I would argue had an unrealistic expectation of what royalty and marriage would mean. Honestly, the only good thing that came out of the whole thing were William and Harry.

[Ame]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471559/We-did-our-best.html

An article about the queen and Philip as parents. The Author tried to defend both of them,but he did a lot of interviews with those who know them back then as well as Prince Philip and Princess Anne. And I think it's a realistic portrayal.

 

On 3/13/2019 at 11:07 AM, dubbel zout said:

I'm not so sure about that. Diana's public persona was shy and demure, but in private she was no pushover. She wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with Prince Philip, even reminding him on one occasion that her (Spencer) title was older his.

Always wonder what she means by that? Is House of Spencer  much older than House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or Mountbatten?Or did she mean Princess of Wales is a much older title than Prince Consort? Always confused by why it is seen as a clever reply.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Ame

[dubbel zout]

7 hours ago, Ame said:

Always wonder what she means by that? Is House of Spencer  much older than House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or Mountbatten?

Yes, that the Spencers were the older family, especially with regards to the Greek branch of Philip's family, as well as the current creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title.

It's not that it's an especially clever reply, it's that when the marital problems between Diana and Charles were at their peak, Philip told her that if she didn't behave, they'd take her title away. It wasn't a particularly devastating threat to her. Diana wasn't intimidated by Philip at all.

[Crs97]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471559/We-did-our-best.html

An article about the queen and Philip as parents. The Author tried to defend both of them,but he did a lot of interviews with those who know them back then as well as Prince Philip and Princess Anne. And I think it's a realistic portrayal.

Interesting.  It is telling to me that all those defending Philip seem to focus on the fact that he is good with babies and toddlers.  

[j5cochran]

On 3/18/2019 at 5:36 PM, hendersonrocks said:

I will be unbelievably disappointed if they go the naive lamb route. My dream casting for Diana is Elizabeth Debicki, who I think has the look but with an edgy vibe that I'd really like to see portrayed.

She definitely has the look, but the woman is 6' 2 3/4"! Granted, Diana was 5' 10", but it will be tough to find a "Prince Charles" tall enough to go toe to toe with her!

(FYI - all heights are from IMDB. Both Diana and Charles are said to be 5' 10".)

[BitterApple]

On 3/19/2019 at 1:59 PM, MadyGirl1987 said:

Wow, she really does have the Diana look.

I totally agree with being disappointed at them going the naive lamb route as well. She did some good things, but I think she was pretty messed up by her home-life and had mental health issues as well. Seeing the whole thing as evil Charles/ poor Diana bugs me because I think the whole situation was messed up on both sides. They were pressured into the relationship by outside forces. Charles couldn't marry the women he really wanted. He was being pressured to settle down and produce heirs. Diana was way too young and inexperienced for the pressures of royal life, and I would argue had an unrealistic expectation of what royalty and marriage would mean. Honestly, the only good thing that came out of the whole thing were William and Harry.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but it's truly amazing the world bought them as some sort of Cinderella and Prince Charming. Even in their early interviews and photo ops, they looked awkward and uncomfortable with one another. Diana couldn't even make eye contact with Charles and he seemed lukewarm towards her at best. I understand it's hard to act naturally when you're under intense scrutiny, but looking back, the writing was on the wall from the start.

Edited March 30, 2019 by BitterApple

[MissLucas]

On 3/30/2019 at 5:43 AM, BitterApple said:

I know hindsight is 20/20, but it's truly amazing the world bought them as some sort of Cinderella and Prince Charming. 

The world didn't. That's just another narrative created around that marriage. I still remember watching the wedding as a young teenager on tv and the guy doing the live reporting - an old experienced hand who had done all the reports from the UK for decades - was delivering commentaries dripping with sarcasm. I remember thinking how sad it must be if old age turns you into a complete cynic. And hoping that he was wrong and I was seeing twu luv. Ah well, the follies of youth 😁

[PeterPirate]

On 3/31/2019 at 11:26 AM, MissLucas said:

And hoping that he was wrong and I was seeing twu luv. Ah well, the follies of youth 😁

Ah, well, "twu luv" often turns out to be "to bluff".  

On 2/2/2019 at 3:31 AM, Ame said:

Honestly part of me that is bitter kind of hoping they deliver a "surprising" portrayal of Diana so people can finally realize it's a drama and stop saying all Philip did was whine and bully the queen like it's a fact.

I've gone round and round in my head on this one, and now I'm also to the point where I hope they don't stay true to the real Diana (if that person can even be known).  They should tell whatever story they think is entertaining, and adopt whatever characterization of the people is necessary.  

[Umbelina]

On 1/10/2018 at 6:32 AM, Pallas said:

In the S2.E10 thread, a poster cited real-life coverage of the Kennedy assassination (vs. how itr was depicted in S2.E8); Anothermi replied, 
 

Thank you! And now I want to see a profile of elusive BBC newsreader John Roberts. I did find this. The website linked in the post is now defunct, but the post itself reveals that John Roberts came off the bench and on the air for the BBC at least one other time in 1963: to announce the suicide of Stephen Ward.

The show kind of dropped that story, and frankly, the story of Philip's other "gentlemen s club" as well.  When I listened to the commentary on The Queen, they seemed unsure about whether Philip was a philanderer as well, yet it this show, he certainly is.

Was the press ever on to Philip?  Did the Queen have to deal with that kind of fallout, or just knowing whispers from those in the know? 

On 1/16/2018 at 4:05 PM, secnarf said:

Can you post a link? I can only seem to find clips.

I'd like to see that Smithsonian coronation thing as well, so if anyone does find a link, please post it! 

On 3/29/2019 at 9:43 PM, BitterApple said:

I know hindsight is 20/20, but it's truly amazing the world bought them as some sort of Cinderella and Prince Charming. Even in their early interviews and photo ops, they looked awkward and uncomfortable with one another. Diana couldn't even make eye contact with Charles and he seemed lukewarm towards her at best. I understand it's hard to act naturally when you're under intense scrutiny, but looking back, the writing was on the wall from the start.

I have a hard time with both Diana bashing and Diana worship, so let's hope the show manages to avoid both or at least balance it.

In my heart though, I go back to Diana's age, twenty is young, and full of emotion and hope and a lot of other messy and fascinating things.  She very well may have dreamed of marrying the Prince, many girls and women did.   I also can't help but think of her being a virgin, that's pretty huge and a milestone, stress and hope of it's own.   In those early interviews I thought she looked at Charles with love and shyness.

When Charles said "whatever love is..." I believe I may have actually said out loud, "RUN!" 

Charles, on the other hand?  At the time I thought of him as old and dowdy, and kind of a wimp and a ditherer, only attractive because he would be King, but really, not beyond that.  After "whatever love is..." my feeling was that there was a hell of a lot "we" didn't know about this whole thing, and I kind of hoped for the best, that he wasn't just marrying a pretty, innocent, acceptable brood mare for future Kings. 

Now we know that he never meant a single word of his vows, and had been carrying on an adulterous affair, which would continue during his marriage, as both he and Camilla planned. 

Can I feel pity for him because apparently Camilla didn't fit the bill for being a Queen, and his family turned that down?  Or was it the other story, that Camilla got tired of him not making up his mind and married a handsomer dude?  Maybe, if done correctly I will.   Although the whole "star crossed lovers" thing doesn't really work for me with the two of them, it may work well for others though.

I don't think Diana ever stood a chance, and I wish she'd been just a bit older, old enough to call off that sham wedding when she found out Charles was still fucking Camilla.  She became stronger later, and more able to fight, but at the time, she was barely an adult, and blinded by both the machine of Buckingham Palace and the press who became, and never stopped, being obsessed with her.

For the show?  Yes, I hope it can be entertaining, and not just about Charles' jealousy of how loved Diana was, and the press, and all of the sexual obsessions on both sides, his condoned and winked at, and hers "scandals." 

Maybe they can show them both spinning out of control, both caught in a bizarre system, both victims?

As for Camilla and Charles?  I think I will always dislike them both, if I am truthful about it.  He can be her tampon forever, and if they are both crowned, that is what I will be thinking about.  That, and roping a very young woman into their deliberate web of lies, and pretensions.  An admitted serial adulterer as head of the church?  OK, sure.

QEII will be missed when she does die.  I do wonder if Charles will be acceptable to very many as King, or if after the Queen dies, Britain finally decides to bag that whole charade?  I think William could ascend with overwhelming support, but Charles?  We shall see.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Umbelina
oops, accidentally called Charles Philip!

[kassygreene]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

...

In my heart though, I go back to Diana's age, twenty is young, and full of emotion and hope and a lot of other messy and fascinating things.  She very well may have dreamed of marrying the Prince, many girls and women did.   I also can't help but think of her being a virgin, that's pretty huge and a milestone, stress and hope of it's own.   In those early interviews I thought she looked at Philip with love and shyness.

 When Philip said "whatever love is..." I believe I may have actually said out loud, "RUN!" 

Philip, on the other hand?  At the time I thought of him as old and dowdy, and kind of a wimp and a ditherer, only attractive because he would be King, but really, not beyond that.  After "whatever love is..." my feeling was that there was a hell of a lot "we" didn't know about this whole thing, and I kind of hoped for the best, that he wasn't just marrying a pretty, innocent, acceptable brood mare for future Kings. 

...

Charles, not Philip.

[VCRTracking]

I heard rumors about this a month ago and was disappointed, especially considering what his mother went through.

Well, Kate doesn't strike me as someone to leave a marriage with three kids(and a future Queenship) over this, so enjoy your living hell Will.

[Umbelina]

12 hours ago, kassygreene said:

Charles, not Philip.

Holy cow! 

Thank you.

I was even thinking of the entwined C's cuff-links Camilla gave him right before his wedding to Diana too. 

This was interesting, considering the earlier discussion about Charles planning on cutting back on royal duties for the extended family if and when he is King.  It's part 5 of a series called "The Royal Family at Work."  This section focuses on the that group (that will be out of a job) and accounting for engagements (Princess Ann does the most) as well as showing quite a bit of Charles, Harry, and William doing their thing.  There is also a comment from (I think) Edward, talking about how their is no real "training" to do all of this.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Umbelina