History Talk: The British Monarchy

[PRgal]

6 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

I think it was. Marrying just out of HS/college. My parents married in 1981 and were just a couple years older then Diana(born in 1957 and 1958). A friend of my moms, same age as her, was already married and had a baby by the time of my parents marriage. In fact, an aunt of mine once told me she thought my parents weren’t going to have kids before I came along, based on how long (5 years) they were married before having me. People were just expected to settle down and have families sooner, I guess.

My parents are about a decade older than yours and married in ‘72, so they were turning 24 and 25 respectively.  That was pretty average in their circle (they were the second couple to marry but everyone was engaged or about to be), so I assumed that that was the age people were right up until the mid-80s or so.  Even 21 or 22 year olds are more socially mature and had more life experience than someone 19, going on 20.  Especially one who came from a sheltered background (even if her family was a bit messed up).  Of course, my parents had just spent a year studying abroad returning to Hong Kong for their wedding.  I think they stayed for a year or two before coming back to Canada.  

[Crs97]

I wonder if the Queen’s marriage would have held up if they had married during the tabloid age - rumors of his infidelity plastered on every page, phone calls recorded, leaks from “inside sources” about their fights.  I think they were lucky not to be the “it” couple during the 24 hour news cycle.

Again, I find it hard to be sympathetic that someone was cheated on in their marriage once I learn they certainly didn’t mind sleeping with married men and tormenting their wives.  Frankly, I am disgusted by the story that a young William had a photo of his mother’s lover’s wife on his dartboard???  Seriously, what kind of mother encourages that?

[Notwisconsin]

I'm not sure how season six will pan out, as 1997 was a quarter of a century ago. The Royal soap opera calmed down quite a bit after Di's demise, with no one caring about those further down the food chain past Andrew. Harry and Meghan (I take it that they will be featured near the end of next season), and the latter's wanting to be star of the show, might be a penultimate episode. But Margret's two kids (not to mention Anne's) were never mentioned, nor Prince Edward's wife. They may have all had interesting peccadilloes, (Anne's first marriage would have been interesting), but this is about the CROWN and anyone past the top three in line (Anne and Margret were both second in line for a long time) is just extrainious.

At this point it's William and his first two kids.

Between now and the premier of season six, there's the coronation. That should be fun.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

I'm not sure how season six will pan out, as 1997 was a quarter of a century ago. The Royal soap opera calmed down quite a bit after Di's demise, with no one caring about those further down the food chain past Andrew. Harry and Meghan (I take it that they will be featured near the end of next season), and the latter's wanting to be star of the show, might be a penultimate episode. 

Meghan wanting to be star of the show? 

[PRgal]

Meghan?  They aren't going past the beginning of the century.  I'd say the series will end with Charles and Camilla's wedding at the latest.  This means Season 6 will include Edward and Sophie's wedding.

[Salacious Kitty]

51 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Meghan?  They aren't going past the beginning of the century.  I'd say the series will end with Charles and Camilla's wedding at the latest.  This means Season 6 will include Edward and Sophie's wedding.

Agreed. I thought I read something a few years ago about the show's ending point not being much past Y2K.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Salacious Kitty

[truthful]

9 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

I'm not sure how season six will pan out, as 1997 was a quarter of a century ago. The Royal soap opera calmed down quite a bit after Di's demise, with no one caring about those further down the food chain past Andrew. Harry and Meghan (I take it that they will be featured near the end of next season), and the latter's wanting to be star of the show, might be a penultimate episode. But Margret's two kids (not to mention Anne's) were never mentioned, nor Prince Edward's wife. They may have all had interesting peccadilloes, (Anne's first marriage would have been interesting), but this is about the CROWN and anyone past the top three in line (Anne and Margret were both second in line for a long time) is just extrainious.

At this point it's William and his first two kids.

Between now and the premier of season six, there's the coronation. That should be fun.

Hmmm. Let's say there are ten episodes left. They'll probably have the first three episodes focused on Diana meeting Dodi, their deaths, and the funeral of hers. Is that too much or is that too little? I guess both pro or anti Diana supporters will not be best pleased, so really Peter Morgan will have a tricky task. Also he wrote a movie about the death of Diana and the reaction of the Queen so he'll need to find a fresh angle for that. Hmm, maybe two episodes would be better. I don't know.

Then there will be probably a focus on Blair for an episode. Not as strong as it was for Churchill or Thatcher, but decent enough. Like to show a contrast between the vibrant new Britain compared to the dour traditionalists of the Monarchy.

They'll need to do an episode focused on Prince Philip because you don't hire an actor like Pryce just to sit in the background.

Then there is the death of Margaret and the Queen Mother. Since they died around the same time I think that can be done in one episode. Use those deaths as the Queen reaffirming her faith against those troubled times. But will Margaret get an episode by herself?

An episode focused on the young royals? I know they have hired people to play Kate and William so we'll probably have an episode with them at their university where they met.

Then there is all the terrorism/Iraq war stuff which I wasn't sure if Morgan would focus on or leave it at the periphery of the show. But then I read this article: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963522/Did-Queen-REALLY-beg-Blair-not-bomb-Saddam-nation-awaits-Chilcot-report-truth-Iraq-enacted-nightly-Broadway-stage.html

And that made me think he might use it? I don't know.

Maybe an episode with Mou Mou and his obsessive drive to look for a conspiracy theory regarding the death of Diana.

For me, and I am probably going to be wrong, there has to be an episode where Charles asks the Queen to marry Camilla (which reminds me there probably needs to be an episode dedicated to Charles and Camilla where the Queen sends her private secretary to break the couple up but the secretary realises that their love is too strong for that so helps sets in motion plans for Charles and Camilla to get married) and it could be a really effective two hander episode if done right. The Queen fighting for the Monarchy, Charles fighting for the love of his life. Is it possible to balance duty with love? Is the Queen more a figurehead than a mother? Can faith sometimes go too far? How long must the ghosts of our pasts haunt us? Can it be truly possible to forgive? Plus many other questions. But for me the whole show has been about the Queen vs Charles. The Queen fighting a future she is unsure of, Charles fighting a past that he respects yet fears.

And the finale should be the wedding between Charles and Camilla because it would be the biggest indicator of the Monarchy moving forward in the 21st century whilst still maintaining their traditional values.

I don't know how many episodes that would be all up though.

[secnarf]

1 hour ago, truthful said:

And the finale should be the wedding between Charles and Camilla because it would be the biggest indicator of the Monarchy moving forward in the 21st century whilst still maintaining their traditional values.

Not only that, but the series began with the wedding of Elizabeth and Philip. Having it end with Charles and Camilla's wedding would be a nice bit of symmetry, a bookend to the series.

[ruby24]

Would Charles and Camilla's wedding be considered a happy ending by anyone watching though? Ehhh....what a way to stick it to Diana even in death. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

19 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Would Charles and Camilla's wedding be considered a happy ending by anyone watching though? Ehhh....what a way to stick it to Diana even in death. 

I keep hearing and reading about how Camilla was/is the love of his life, yet, I saw him and heard him actually say "whatever in love means" when Diana said she was in love with him when they announced their engagement. So what was it? Was he lying or was he just in lust/obsessed with Camilla at the time? And years later, he's shown that Camilla was the one he loved? When by his own words, he didn't believe in that emotion?

Do I think Diana made mistakes? Yes. But I'm not on board with vilifying her and her being the person to stand in between the now King Charles and Camilla's 'twu wuuuv' that their relationship has been portrayed as. GAG me.

Aside from the disaster that was her marriage, Diana was well known for the many worthy and charitable causes; and how much empathy she showed those suffering. The show failed miserably in portraying that this season.

[truthful]

10 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I keep hearing and reading about how Camilla was/is the love of his life, yet, I saw him and heard him actually say "whatever in love means" when Diana said she was in love with him when they announced their engagement. So what was it? Was he lying or was he just in lust/obsessed with Camilla at the time? And years later, he's shown that Camilla was the one he loved? When by his own words, he didn't believe in that emotion?

Do I think Diana made mistakes? Yes. But I'm not on board with vilifying her and her being the person to stand in between the now King Charles and Camilla's 'twu wuuuv' that their relationship has been portrayed as. GAG me.

Aside from the disaster that was her marriage, Diana was well known for the many worthy and charitable causes; and how much empathy she showed those suffering. The show failed miserably in portraying that this season.

Meh, Saint Diana was shown in season four with her charity work. Which made her dull. This season she was much more human and complex. Having her shown focused on her charity work doesn't make for an interesting show unless you think the show should be renamed "The Diana".

41 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Would Charles and Camilla's wedding be considered a happy ending by anyone watching though? Ehhh....what a way to stick it to Diana even in death. 

Letting the heir to the throne marry a divorced woman considering what happened to her uncle would be the ultimate triumph between love over duty and traditionalism. It would show that it's possible to embrace modernization without totally disrespecting the past. 

I would definitely consider it a happy ending. Sure the journey wasn't pretty, but the fact that Charles and Camilla are still going strong truly proves that they are the loves of each other's lives. 

Also, did you want Charles to wear black for the rest of his life? Whatever his relationship to Diana he had to move on in his life. He couldn't be worrying about insulting her memory.

[dubbel zout]

A person can have different levels of feelings for different people. "Whatever 'in love' means" applied to Charles's feelings for Diana, not for Camilla.

I think the whole deal with Charles and Camilla is pretty tacky, but both of them deserve to be happy. And it's clear they make each other happy. A happy personal life makes the professional side easier, IMO.

[PeterPirate]

On 11/24/2022 at 6:25 PM, secnarf said:

Not only that, but the series began with the wedding of Elizabeth and Philip. Having it end with Charles and Camilla's wedding would be a nice bit of symmetry, a bookend to the series.

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

Would Charles and Camilla's wedding be considered a happy ending by anyone watching though? Ehhh....what a way to stick it to Diana even in death. 

I guess it depends on how one looks at things.  One could make the argument that Diana brought down three traditions--that the royal consort had to be from the nobility, had to be a virgin, and could not be a divorcee.  Diana was all three of those things and she ended up leaving the marriage.  

While I'm here I will also add that I will be royally PO'ed if Peter Morgan messes around with Earl Spencer's eulogy to Diana.  And after this season, I wouldn't put it past him to write his own.  

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Would Charles and Camilla's wedding be considered a happy ending by anyone watching though? Ehhh....what a way to stick it to Diana even in death. 

I don't think it would. Not because I think there's anything about their marriage. IRL I absolutely thought it was good that they could get married and obviously the crown meddling in marriages has proved to be a disaster time and time again (though it's not like there aren't marriages by choice that ended just as badly--and in Edward VIII's case him having to abdicate for love was a good thing for the country).

But I just don't think that wedding would particularly read as important enough to be considered a happy ending. Sure it's righting a wrong, but it's not like the two of them had to suffer through some great hardship to finally be together or anything. They're fine and have always been fine.

[truthful]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't think it would. Not because I think there's anything about their marriage. IRL I absolutely thought it was good that they could get married and obviously the crown meddling in marriages has proved to be a disaster time and time again (though it's not like there aren't marriages by choice that ended just as badly--and in Edward VIII's case him having to abdicate for love was a good thing for the country).

But I just don't think that wedding would particularly read as important enough to be considered a happy ending. Sure it's righting a wrong, but it's not like the two of them had to suffer through some great hardship to finally be together or anything. They're fine and have always been fine.

I used to think like you, that the wedding of Charles and Camilla wasn't that important. I still remember the bigger story around that time was the death of the Pope. But the more I've watched the crown, the more I've come to realise the significance of their wedding. Would it be a happy ending? I don't know. But I think it would be an interesting ending. 

I don't get your comment about hardship though and how it relates to a happy ending. What would constitute as hardship in the context of the royal family to you?

[ruby24]

I just don't think anyone roots for Charles and Camilla as a couple, even to this day. Sorry.

[Crs97]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Aside from the disaster that was her marriage, Diana was well known for the many worthy and charitable causes; and how much empathy she showed those suffering. The show failed miserably in portraying that this season.

The show has failed miserably in portraying most of the royal family; that’s been the reason so many have said there should be a disclaimer.  Just for some reason people don’t mind until Diana isn’t given the Mary Sue treatment.  Then it’s an outrage.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, truthful said:

I used to think like you, that the wedding of Charles and Camilla wasn't that important. I still remember the bigger story around that time was the death of the Pope. But the more I've watched the crown, the more I've come to realise the significance of their wedding. Would it be a happy ending? I don't know. But I think it would be an interesting ending. 

I don't get your comment about hardship though and how it relates to a happy ending. What would constitute as hardship in the context of the royal family to you?

I mean that happy ending comes after something else, and for Charles and Camilla their marriage is just more the same. It's not like Margaret and Peter where they can't marry and she's heartbroken and they're separated. They're already together, everyone knows it. Charles has won the important part of the battle already. Getting permission to marry isn't so much a "You know what? These rules ARE wrong and we should change them--I give you my blessing to marry Camilla!" and more like, "Whatever, marry that woman that fascinates you but doesn't interest the public. Doesn't seem like it'll harm us." It's a bit like Margaret complaining about how it's unfair how Anne gets to live by the rules of the society she was born into while Margaret had to live in the society she was born into.

Sure, in 1952 it would have seemed interesting/shocking to find out he got to marry her, but when it happened it just wasn't a big deal. No children of Camilla's are going to inherit the crown so it doesn't hook into that central story either.

49 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I just don't think anyone roots for Charles and Camilla as a couple, even to this day. Sorry.

Yeah, sort of like that.  It just doesn't arouse any emotion in me at all, so it seems like an odd ending. Seems like their marriage would be more accurate if they just got married between episodes.

Edited November 27, 2022 by sistermagpie

[Camera One]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

While I'm here I will also add that I will be royally PO'ed if Peter Morgan messes around with Earl Spencer's eulogy to Diana.  And after this season, I wouldn't put it past him to write his own.  

What do you mean?  Showrunners are a rare breed.  Some can improve upon classic literature or iconic source material, while Peter Morgan knows better and can improve upon history.

[truthful]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I just don't think anyone roots for Charles and Camilla as a couple, even to this day. Sorry.

I root for them.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I mean that happy ending comes after something else, and for Charles and Camilla their marriage is just more the same. It's not like Margaret and Peter where they can't marry and she's heartbroken and they're separated. They're already together, everyone knows it. Charles has won the important part of the battle already. Getting permission to marry isn't so much a "You know what? These rules ARE wrong and we should change them--I give you my blessing to marry Camilla!" and more like, "Whatever, marry that woman that fascinates you but doesn't interest the public. Doesn't seem like it'll harm us." It's a bit like Margaret complaining about how it's unfair how Anne gets to live by the rules of the society she was born into while Margaret had to live in the society she was born into.

Sure, in 1952 it would have seemed interesting/shocking to find out he got to marry her, but when it happened it just wasn't a big deal. No children of Camilla's are going to inherit the crown so it doesn't hook into that central story either.

Yeah, sort of like that.  It just doesn't arouse any emotion in me at all, so it seems like an odd ending. Seems like their marriage would be more accurate if they just got married between episodes.

Yeah but to have the Queen go from "you will never marry Camilla" to "yeah ok, you can marry Camilla" represents a massive change in the thinking of a Queen that has ruled with the ghosts of her past looming over her shoulder. It represented a small yet really significant change in her thinking.

And Charles and Camilla is a way better love story than Peter and Margaret. But I guess with the performance of Vanessa Kirby and the early romanticism of the early seasons it's easy to get fooled into a love story that wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, truthful said:

Yeah but to have the Queen go from "you will never marry Camilla" to "yeah ok, you can marry Camilla" represents a massive change in the thinking of a Queen that has ruled with the ghosts of her past looming over her shoulder. It represented a small yet really significant change in her thinking.

Charles and Camilla were at the fireworks at the Guy Fawkes festival and so was the Queen, and we didn't get to see them interact.  I guess we won't get anything until an actual episode next season that focuses on the elephant in the room. 

[andromeda331]

I'd rather it not end with Charles's and Camilla's wedding but the Queen's Jubilee would make a better ending celebrating the Queen, the Crown and the family while also showing how much has changed showing Charles and Camilla married, Anne and Tim and William and Kate. Remarriages, Charles finally married to the woman he wanted all along and William who got to marry the woman he wanted to in the first go around. All these changes for the better which didn't destroy the monarchy. The stupid rules were what almost destroyed it. Margaret forced to give up Peter. Charles forced to give up Camilla and the Crown's insistence on him marrying a virgin being more important then personality, likes, dislikes, temperment and age. It's finally learned from it's past mistakes.

[truthful]

22 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I'd rather it not end with Charles's and Camilla's wedding but the Queen's Jubilee would make a better ending celebrating the Queen, the Crown and the family while also showing how much has changed showing Charles and Camilla married, Anne and Tim and William and Kate. Remarriages, Charles finally married to the woman he wanted all along and William who got to marry the woman he wanted to in the first go around. All these changes for the better which didn't destroy the monarchy. The stupid rules were what almost destroyed it. Margaret forced to give up Peter. Charles forced to give up Camilla and the Crown's insistence on him marrying a virgin being more important then personality, likes, dislikes, temperment and age. It's finally learned from it's past mistakes.

I just think they've spent so much time focused on the Charles, Camilla, and Diana triangle that to not make the wedding between Charles and Camilla a big part of the last season would be poor writing.

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, Camera One said:

15 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

While I'm here I will also add that I will be royally PO'ed if Peter Morgan messes around with Earl Spencer's eulogy to Diana.  And after this season, I wouldn't put it past him to write his own.  

What do you mean?  Showrunners are a rare breed.  Some can improve upon classic literature or iconic source material, while Peter Morgan knows better and can improve upon history.

You are right, of course.  Peter Morgan obviously possesses the same casual and cavalier sense of fidelity to source material as other showrunners who make shows that reflect the world we live in today.  

(For those of you who are wondering, CameraOne and I are frequent posters at the forum for Rings of Power.)  

Fwiw, here is the text of the actual Annus Horribilis speech:

Quote

My Lord Mayor,

Could I say, first, how delighted I am that the Lady Mayoress is here today.

This great hall has provided me with some of the most memorable events of my life. The hospitality of the City of London is famous around the world, but nowhere is it more appreciated than among the members of my family. I am deeply grateful that you, my Lord Mayor, and the Corporation, have seen fit to mark the fortieth anniversary of my Accession with this splendid lunch, and by giving me a picture which I will greatly cherish.

Thank you also for inviting representatives of so many organisations with which I and my family have special connections, in some cases stretching back over several generations. To use an expression more common north of the Border, this is a real 'gathering of the clans'.

1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an 'Annus Horribilis'. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking it so. Indeed, I suspect that there are very few people or institutions unaffected by these last months of worldwide turmoil and uncertainty. This generosity and whole-hearted kindness of the Corporation of the City to Prince Philip and me would be welcome at any time, but at this particular moment, in the aftermath of Friday's tragic fire at Windsor, it is especially so.

And, after this last weekend, we appreciate all the more what has been set before us today. Years of experience, however, have made us a bit more canny than the lady, less well versed than us in the splendours of City hospitality, who, when she was offered a balloon glass for her brandy, asked for 'only half a glass, please'.

It is possible to have too much of a good thing. A well-meaning Bishop was obviously doing his best when he told Queen Victoria, "Ma'am, we cannot pray too often, nor too fervently, for the Royal Family". The Queen's reply was: "Too fervently, no; too often, yes". I, like Queen Victoria, have always been a believer in that old maxim "moderation in all things".

I sometimes wonder how future generations will judge the events of this tumultuous year. I dare say that history will take a slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary commentators. Distance is well-known to lend enchantment, even to the less attractive views. After all, it has the inestimable advantage of hindsight.

But it can also lend an extra dimension to judgement, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion - even of wisdom - that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small.

No section of the community has all the virtues, neither does any have all the vices. I am quite sure that most people try to do their jobs as best they can, even if the result is not always entirely successful. He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic.

There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution - City, Monarchy, whatever - should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't.

But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of gentleness, good humour and understanding.

This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change. The City is a good example of the way the process of change can be incorporated into the stability and continuity of a great institution. I particularly admire, my Lord Mayor, the way in which the City has adapted so nimbly to what the Prayer Book calls "The changes and chances of this mortal life".

You have set an example of how it is possible to remain effective and dynamic without losing those indefinable qualities, style and character. We only have to look around this great hall to see the truth of that.

Forty years is quite a long time. I am glad to have had the chance to witness, and to take part in, many dramatic changes in life in this country. But I am glad to say that the magnificent standard of hospitality given on so many occasions to the Sovereign by the Lord Mayor of London has not changed at all. It is an outward symbol of one other unchanging factor which I value above all - the loyalty given to me and to my family by so many people in this country, and the Commonwealth, throughout my reign.

You, my Lord Mayor, and all those whose prayers - fervent, I hope, but not too frequent - have sustained me through all these years, are friends indeed. Prince Philip and I give you all, wherever you may be, our most humble thanks.

And now I ask you to rise and drink the health of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London.

And here is the speech from the show:

Quote

1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. It has turned out to be an annus horribilis.No institution is beyond reproach. And no member of it either. The high standards we in the monarchy are held to by the public must be the same benchmark to which we hold ourselves personally. If we can't admit the errors of our past, what hope for reconciliation can there be? Today, I'd like to pay tribute, if I may, to my family. Throughout the four decades I have been on the throne, they have quite literally been my sun and water. For all the sacrifices they have made... indeed, to all of you here, whose prayers and well wishes have been a source of strength to me these last 40 years, I say thank you.  

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, truthful said:

I root for them.

Yeah but to have the Queen go from "you will never marry Camilla" to "yeah ok, you can marry Camilla" represents a massive change in the thinking of a Queen that has ruled with the ghosts of her past looming over her shoulder. It represented a small yet really significant change in her thinking.

But it's a change that's already happened and they don't make it a big deal every time. 

10 hours ago, truthful said:

And Charles and Camilla is a way better love story than Peter and Margaret. But I guess with the performance of Vanessa Kirby and the early romanticism of the early seasons it's easy to get fooled into a love story that wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

I wasn't saying Peter and Margaret was a great love story, I was just saying that something actually happened in it regarding marriage. Because they couldn't marry, they were separated--and in terms of the characters on the show it *is* big in the scheme of things because Margaret never got over it.

Here we've got two people who were together despite both of them being married (and Camilla being married because she wanted to marry somebody else)--Camilla's walking away from her family to talk dirty on the phone to Charles when he calls--Charles got his divorce that was the bigger change on the queen's part and now they're together and everyone knows it.  Sure it's nice that now they can get married, but it's not like the story's building up to some big sigh of relief or joy that they can finally be together. The obstacles to them getting married mostly played out through them doing things that got other people hurt. Even if it represents another change of thinking on the queen's part, the change is still just recognizing that nobody cares. Which I guess could be important in itself, but doesn't seem to be the take you're looking for on it.

[truthful]

34 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But it's a change that's already happened and they don't make it a big deal every time. 

I wasn't saying Peter and Margaret was a great love story, I was just saying that something actually happened in it regarding marriage. Because they couldn't marry, they were separated--and in terms of the characters on the show it *is* big in the scheme of things because Margaret never got over it.

Here we've got two people who were together despite both of them being married (and Camilla being married because she wanted to marry somebody else)--Camilla's walking away from her family to talk dirty on the phone to Charles when he calls--Charles got his divorce that was the bigger change on the queen's part and now they're together and everyone knows it.  Sure it's nice that now they can get married, but it's not like the story's building up to some big sigh of relief or joy that they can finally be together. The obstacles to them getting married mostly played out through them doing things that got other people hurt. Even if it represents another change of thinking on the queen's part, the change is still just recognizing that nobody cares. Which I guess could be important in itself, but doesn't seem to be the take you're looking for on it.

But it's the change in the Queen's thinking that is important. I mean she literally sends her secretary to try and break Charles and Camilla up. She refers to Camilla as that wicked woman. She deliberately made it so that she didn't have to be in the same room as her. So how did she go from that to giving consent for her son, the heir to the throne and church of England, to marry a divorced woman. I mean even if her reasons come down to realising that no one cares about those antiquated morals it still represents a significant shift in her thinking and that is something that is worth exploring. Because in season after season the show has shown us how duty over love can cause great pain to people. By having the Queen realise that love and duty can co-exist without the whole system crashing down would be a grand way to end the show.

[sistermagpie]

53 minutes ago, truthful said:

But it's the change in the Queen's thinking that is important. I mean she literally sends her secretary to try and break Charles and Camilla up. She refers to Camilla as that wicked woman. She deliberately made it so that she didn't have to be in the same room as her.

Is that in the show?

[ruby24]

Yeah, when did that happen? 

[truthful]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Is that in the show?

I was referring to what happened in real life to indicate why the marriage of Charles and Camilla was important in terms of how it changed the thinking of the Queen. If at least the bit where the Queen doesn't send her secretary to try and break up Charles and Camilla doesn't appear in season six I shall be very disappointed.

[PeterPirate]

It is what it is.  

Also, William and Kate are coming to the US.  I wonder if he will have a comment about his portrayal in season 5.  

[Razzberry]

If Charles wants to modernize, those powdered wigs worn in courtrooms might be a good place to start.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Inquisitionist said:

Where the heck was her family in all of this??? I think Diana was very ill-served by her father and sisters, who should have prepared her better for the "business" side of the marriage she was entering.  She was 19 chronologically, but as Anne put it, Diana was really younger than 19 and Charles was really older than 32. 

Diana was not that close to her siblings.  Her father was a piece of work who married an 18 year old when he was 30.  John was an Earl who needed a male heir to continue the family line, but Frances's first 4 pregnancies resulted in 3 daughters and one son who died as an infant.  John blamed Frances for this and was an abusive drunk.  She finally did give John a son when Charles was born in 1964, but by that point their marriage was virtually over.  Frances left John in 1967 for another man.  John used this to get full custody of Diana and Charles who he promptly left with nannies.  He realized he needed help and found Wife #2 in 1976.  To say Diana and Raine did not get on is an understatement.   When you grow up with such dysfunction, you either bond deeply with your siblings because they are in the same foxhole as you or they are just people you grew up with.  The Spencers were the latter.  Diana's sisters both married young and had more pressing concerns than their little sister.  And Charles Spencer was busy making his own mistakes in South Africa to be of any real use to his sister.   

[graybrown bird]

Given the importance of Diana's family background  in shaping her character, I am surprised that her family has received no attention in The Crown while tangential figures like Dodi Fayed and his father are a focus.  HOW exactly are the Fayeds important to telling the story of The Crown?

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, graybrown bird said:

Given the importance of Diana's family background  in shaping her character, I am surprised that her family has received no attention in The Crown while tangential figures like Dodi Fayed and his father are a focus.  HOW exactly are the Fayeds important to telling the story of The Crown?

I feel the same.  I did not need to see Dodi being the playboy.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, graybrown bird said:

Given the importance of Diana's family background  in shaping her character, I am surprised that her family has received no attention in The Crown while tangential figures like Dodi Fayed and his father are a focus.  HOW exactly are the Fayeds important to telling the story of The Crown?

By ignoring Diana's family background, they simplify the narrative.  They're good at doing that.

[truthful]

2 hours ago, graybrown bird said:

Given the importance of Diana's family background  in shaping her character, I am surprised that her family has received no attention in The Crown while tangential figures like Dodi Fayed and his father are a focus.  HOW exactly are the Fayeds important to telling the story of The Crown?

The only thing I can think of is that they wanted to represent how truly alone Diana was when she married in to the firm. 

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, graybrown bird said:

Given the importance of Diana's family background  in shaping her character, I am surprised that her family has received no attention in The Crown while tangential figures like Dodi Fayed and his father are a focus.  HOW exactly are the Fayeds important to telling the story of The Crown?

The show has included a number of flashback scenes.  It would be good to see them portray some of Diana's formative years.  

But I also see the value of including the story of the Fayeds.  "The Crown must win" is the central theme of the show.  Diana, imo, had a profound impact on the monarchy, in both life and death.  The Fayeds, like it or not, were an integral part of that story. 

[qtpye]

14 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

The show has included a number of flashback scenes.  It would be good to see them portray some of Diana's formative years.  

But I also see the value of including the story of the Fayeds.  "The Crown must win" is the central theme of the show.  Diana, imo, had a profound impact on the monarchy, in both life and death.  The Fayeds, like it or not, were an integral part of that story. 

Absolutely.

Putting attention on Diana's sad family history would garner sympathy for Diana which would go against the "The Crown must always win." narrative.

[jeansheridan]

I root for Charles and Camilla, kind of. They're a less toxic Edward and Wallace (and not Nazi-sympathizers). And I just sort of like her. For her confidence, humor, plainess.  This is all based on the show of course. I think it helps they hired two very charming actresses to play her. 

I think the show should end with William and Kate's engagement. They are the future after all. If they get eps, you get an Ep 5 wedding of Charles and Camilla and then 4 eps of the sons finding themselves. The military service especially.  Their military service sets them apart in many ways. Those are truly real world, on the ground experiences. Being able to pilot a helicopter is impressive.  Serving in Afghanistan too, even in a limited way. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by jeansheridan

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I root for Charles and Camilla, kind of. They're a less toxic Edward and Wallace (and not Nazi-sympathizers). And I just sort of like her. For her confidence, humor, plainess.  This is all based on the show of course. I think it helps they hired two very charming actresses to play her. 

I root for them in the sense that obviously they should have just gotten married all along. Although, tbf, if they'd gotten married young it might have been a disaster. They were able to play out a lot of their relationship over time. There's no reason to *not* want them to get married. It's just not, for me, something that seems necessary to root for personally since they've been basically taking what they wanted all along anway. 

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I root for them in the sense that obviously they should have just gotten married all along. Although, tbf, if they'd gotten married young it might have been a disaster. They were able to play out a lot of their relationship over time. There's no reason to *not* want them to get married. It's just not, for me, something that seems necessary to root for personally since they've been basically taking what they wanted all along anway. 

Whereas Edward VIII wanted to marry his mistress (which nobody in Establishment couldn't at the time understand), it seems that in his early thirties Charles was perfectly contented as a bachelor. Camilla wasn't even his only mistress. Lady Tryon ("Kanga") seems to have been as close to him as Camilla.

Peter Morgan chose the easiest way instead of exploring when and how just Camilla became the most important person to Charles and she began to love him instead of Andrew.

[andromeda331]

13 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Whereas Edward VIII wanted to marry his mistress (which nobody in Establishment couldn't at the time understand), it seems that in his early thirties Charles was perfectly contented as a bachelor. Camilla wasn't even his only mistress. Lady Tryon ("Kanga") seems to have been as close to him as Camilla.

Peter Morgan chose the easiest way instead of exploring when and how just Camilla became the most important person to Charles and she began to love him instead of Andrew.

He really did. I expected some time of soulmates or love that finally was allowed to be together. But that's not what we got. We got Camilla dating Andrew and Charles at the same time in fact she only started dating Charles to get back at Andrew. I don't get why by the end of season three Charles would want anything to do with her. This season and last their together. When did they get back together? Charles always seems more interested in Camilla then she is in him. Why? Because she let's him be the center of attention? Let him get his way in everything. If we saw the relationship grow and why she's with him it would have been much better. But that's not what they did and I don't know why. That would have been a more interesting story when what Peter Morgan gave us.  

[Inquisitionist]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:53 PM, truthful said:

The only thing I can think of is that they wanted to represent how truly alone Diana was when she married in to the firm. 

But she wasn't alone, unless she chose to be.  According to this article:

Quote

Sarah and Diana remained close after Diana married Charles and became part of the royal family. Diana biographer Andrew Morton wrote that Sarah was one of the few people Diana trusted during those complicated years. Sarah was often seen with her nephews, Princes William and Harry, out and about in London, and the two sisters often brought their children on vacation together.

Water under the bridge, I guess.  

[Ohiopirate02]

On 12/5/2022 at 4:36 AM, andromeda331 said:

He really did. I expected some time of soulmates or love that finally was allowed to be together. But that's not what we got. We got Camilla dating Andrew and Charles at the same time in fact she only started dating Charles to get back at Andrew. I don't get why by the end of season three Charles would want anything to do with her. This season and last their together. When did they get back together? Charles always seems more interested in Camilla then she is in him. Why? Because she let's him be the center of attention? Let him get his way in everything. If we saw the relationship grow and why she's with him it would have been much better. But that's not what they did and I don't know why. That would have been a more interesting story when what Peter Morgan gave us.  

I am a bit miffed that Peter Morgan chose to sweep all of Andrew Parker-Bowles's indiscretions under the rug and make him the poor put-upon husband who's wife was having an affair with the Prince of Wales.  I do think the Charles and Camilla relationship is rooted in Charles needing Camilla and Camilla needing to be needed.  But, we didn't get to see that.  

[truthful]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

But she wasn't alone, unless she chose to be.  According to this article:

Water under the bridge, I guess.  

I meant in the show, like simplify her life for the narrative and themes that they want to choose to convey.

[Roseanna]

On 12/5/2022 at 11:36 AM, andromeda331 said:

We got Camilla dating Andrew and Charles at the same time in fact she only started dating Charles to get back at Andrew. I don't get why by the end of season three Charles would want anything to do with her. This season and last their together. When did they get back together? Charles always seems more interested in Camilla then she is in him. Why? Because she let's him be the center of attention? Let him get his way in everything. If we saw the relationship grow and why she's with him it would have been much better. But that's not what they did and I don't know why. That would have been a more interesting story when what Peter Morgan gave us.  

Irl Camilla and Andrew's relationship was on and out for several years and she dated Charles when Andrew was abroad on duty. Before Charles began his naval service, he didn't make a declaration of love to Camilla. So when she married Andrew when he was away, he was crushed but couldn't feel betrayed by her (unlike in the show). They stayed friends and he was a godfather of either of her children. She and Andrew were a part of Charles's circle and participated in parties. He even visited their home so often that her children didn't suspect anything when they became lovers again. It's not certain when it happened (after her children were born?), but it's likely that Andrew's constant unfaithfulness was her chief reason.

As for Charles, Mountbatten's murder made him more dependent on Camilla - and in the same time receptive to Diana's empathy.

On 12/6/2022 at 7:03 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I am a bit miffed that Peter Morgan chose to sweep all of Andrew Parker-Bowles's indiscretions under the rug and make him the poor put-upon husband who's wife was having an affair with the Prince of Wales.  I do think the Charles and Camilla relationship is rooted in Charles needing Camilla and Camilla needing to be needed.  But, we didn't get to see that.  

Exactly!

[CountryGirl]

I'm not one to root for Charles and Camilla getting their happily ever after.

Them being torn-apart lovers is a complete myth as Camilla was besotted with Andrew Parker-Bowles and wanted to marry him, not Charles. So it doesn't matter that she wasn't a virgin. She liked Charles and had fun with him, but it was always Andrew for her.

It was only after Andrew began cheating on her, with among others, Charles' own sister, Anne (whom he had slept with before her marriage to Mark and his Camilla) that her physical affair with Charles resumed, their emotional affair having never ended.

Charles wasn't faithful to Diana for even one day as emotional cheating is still cheating and Camilla was his very willing accomplice in that. Diana cheated later and I don't condone that, but it was after years of being the third wheel in her own marriage. 

My father's affair with my now-stepmother was the proverbial straw that broke my parents' marriage up, once and for all, and I would no more applaud them for getting their HEA than I would Charles and Camilla. To do that is to ignore the pain that was inflicted on me and my sibling as a result of their very selfish, destructive actions as it was inflicted on William and Harry and Camilla's children (who all got it twice over with both parents cheating). As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a statute of limitations on the pain and suffering inflicted at the hands of those who choose to cheat and didn't care that their children were treated like collateral damage. 

[Razzberry]

After 25 years the BBC finally apologizes to Patrick Jephson for the Martin Bashir interview and sweetens it with a substantial monetary settlement, which he donated to a children's charity.  Nice!

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a39475545/patrick-jephson-princess-diana-private-secretary-martin-bashir-interview/

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/18/2022 at 11:21 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

If there was a master plan, it would have been either Sarah or Jane and Charles, and Diana and Andrew (it pains me to type this).  Charles did date Sarah briefly in the 70s until Sarah failed to live up to Charles's expectations.  If Lady Fermoy was dead set on getting one of her granddaughters married into the Royal Family, she would have reigned in Sarah.  

Yes, the family joke was that Diana would marry Andrew, hence her nickname "Duch" (for Duchess of York). They knew each other as children.

 

On 11/26/2022 at 7:20 PM, PeterPirate said:

One could make the argument that Diana brought down three traditions--that the royal consort had to be from the nobility, had to be a virgin, and could not be a divorcee.  Diana was all three of those things and she ended up leaving the marriage.  

Both Margaret and Anne married commoners--Anne twice. Also the virgin thing, will distasteful, was more practical than anything. They didn't want some lowlife running to the press with the headline I SLEPT WITH THE FUTURE QUEEN.

[andromeda331]

On 1/11/2023 at 10:19 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

Yes, the family joke was that Diana would marry Andrew, hence her nickname "Duch" (for Duchess of York). They knew each other as children.

Diana dodged a bullet there.