Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[qtpye]

14 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

William and Kate are avid hunters. So is Harry.

It seems being into blood sport goes hand in hand with being a Royal.

If people hunt to help animal populations or to put food on the table it is a different matter and usually not the case with Britain's upper classes. It seems hunting and particularly fox hunting is a privilege that most of the peerage and royal classes will not give up.

It helps the argument that this is an out of date archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

[Umbelina]

I think fox hunting is the issue.  The royals and their friends seem to actually eat the duck, pheasant, and venison they hunt.  It's not my thing, but I'm certainly not opposed to that.  In many ways it's much kinder to the animals than slaughterhouses and factory farms where the animals suffer their entire lives, not just at the moment of death.  My family were hunters (for food, not sport) and I live in an area now where that is still common.  

Fox hunting though?  I have no sympathy for that, or for trophy hunting.

What I'm very curious about is this uproar against The Crown all of a sudden.  I mean things like this have been around for a long time.  Maybe it is just drumming it all up again, after Charles mistakenly believed he'd escaped "all of that?"

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Umbelina

[Growsonwalls]

I think it also has to do with Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix for a production company. All of a sudden Harry is a traitor for inking a deal with the company that is making a fictional and not always flattering portrait of his relatives. 

But ... William is also an avid fox hunter. There are photos of him doing that as well.

Hunting just wasn't Diana's thing at all. And unlike Kate I think she was of a social class where you had the right to not be into those things. Kate basically had to say goodbye to whatever her interests were before meeting William. That's why you see her with hunting rifles.

[Umbelina]

24 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think it also has to do with Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix for a production company. All of a sudden Harry is a traitor for inking a deal with the company that is making a fictional and not always flattering portrait of his relatives. 

They love attacking Harry and especially Meghan, but nah.  I think this seemingly concerted attack on The Crown is all about...well, the CROWN, and making sure there will be a King Charles and Queen Camilla.

They've been busy burying all of it under every rug in every castle or fortress they own, but now it's back, full force, and contrary to these stories doing something to help Charles?  I think they are boomeranging back to hurt him more.  "Ok, so it's all a lie, hmmm, think I'd do some research of my own."  Then?  WHAM!  All of it floods back in.

I think that's why I think Charles and his hundreds of courtiers are behind it.  He's never had a good read on the public, he is just so out of touch.  Had this supposed "outrage" not happened?  I think many would have just enjoyed it for the show it is, and not felt compelled to go learn more about it all.  When they do?  There are quite provable and/or believable sex, lies, and videotapes everywhere.

If anything?  Demanding a "fiction" label be put on a web tv show by the "health department" is beyond absurd.  Sounds like just the kind of thing he would do.  (By the way, quite a few reports say that indeed, Camilla does watch this show.)

[PeterPirate]

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

PETERPIRATE nailed it, so I bow to his comment.  

Indeed.  Honestly, does a single person left in the UK and it's "commonwealth" seriously believe that GOD chooses the monarch, or that the monarch has a direct link to God?  Will they honestly believe that when God chooses Charles (of all the people in the commonwealth) as his anointed King and CEO of His church?

Thanks.  I'm actually not taking sides on this particular issue.  I don't have a dog in that fight, since I don't live inside the commonwealth.

5 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Well Tina Brown was considered a great royal writer and here's an old article about Diana's complex relationship with the press and BRF:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/books/review/Weber-t.html?searchResultPosition=13

Honestly I think a lot of the press were bowled over by Diana's looks and outward charm. Even her most ardent defenders (like her butler Paul Burrell) admitted that in private she was a difficult, complex person. 

Unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable. 

[meatball77]

Hunting is fine, it helps control wildlife, hunters typically eat what they shoot (or make sure it's eaten).  Fox hunting is something different.  That's essentially animal torture for sport.  Trap the poor fox and then let it go so you can hunt it.  That's far different than deer hunting (some of the bird hunting isn't much better but at least those birds aren't trapped before they hunt them).

[Umbelina]

15 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

Hunting is fine, it helps control wildlife, hunters typically eat what they shoot (or make sure it's eaten).  Fox hunting is something different.  That's essentially animal torture for sport.  Trap the poor fox and then let it go so you can hunt it.  That's far different than deer hunting (some of the bird hunting isn't much better but at least those birds aren't trapped before they hunt them).

Exactly.

I remember listening to horror stories about rich English fox hunters in Ireland was back in the day, trampling over precious crops, and "kitchen gardens" of the Irish peasants who depended on those crops.

Fox hunting is disgusting.  

[Growsonwalls]

39 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Exactly.

I remember listening to horror stories about rich English fox hunters in Ireland was back in the day, trampling over precious crops, and "kitchen gardens" of the Irish peasants who depended on those crops.

Fox hunting is disgusting.  

It is, but the whole entire BRF does it. William is an avid fox hunter. So if you're going to brand Charles with that angle, you also have to take the entire BRF to task for this. They all love it.

ETA: there are exceptions. Sophie doesn't hunt. But she was older when she met Edward, and i think is one of those women who has a solid self-image and doesn't need to adopt her husband's hobbies. Kate certainly fox hunts.

Here is Harry trophy hunting:

Edited December 4, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, meatball77 said:

hunters typically eat what they shoot

I just read that Charles doesn't eat meat. So it's hypocritical to hunt.

[Growsonwalls]

So I mentioned this in an episode thread but I hope the fifth season will explore more how Elizabeth's attitude of treating her children like cordial acquaintances actually hurt the crown. Would Charles and Andrew have made better decisions if their mum had been around to guide them towards better decisions? Maybe not but I tend to think they would have.

Also for all of Elizabeth's admirable duty towards her country (and I believe it's genuine), she failed in one of her most important duties: making sure her heirs would be ready for the crown at a moment's notice. It just so happens she has lived to a ripe old age and appears to be in good health. But she knows better than anyone how fragile life is as her father and sister all had early, preventable deaths. Is Charles really ready to be king? Not sure. 

[emmawoodhouse]

If Charles isn't ready now, he never will be. How much can he change at 72 years old (and closer to 80 when/if he ascends the throne).

Edited December 5, 2020 by emmawoodhouse

[merrick715]

15 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

ETA: there are exceptions. Sophie doesn't hunt. But she was older when she met Edward, and i think is one of those women who has a solid self-image and doesn't need to adopt her husband's hobbies. Kate certainly fox hunts.

 

Per Town and Country, Kate isn't big on riding horses, so I doubt she participates in fox hunts.

[swanpride]

...has Kate any personality outside fitting the needs of her husband?

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

...has Kate any personality outside fitting the needs of her husband?

Yes, but her years if princess school has taught her how to hide it publicly.   You have to read the gossip critically in order to find it.  My favorite way to do it is to read the pro-cambridges fluff pieces to see how well she fits in with the petty, dysfunctional family.  

[merrick715]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

...has Kate any personality outside fitting the needs of her husband?

All I know about her is that she gives good sport face. 

 

[Umbelina]

It's hard to decide where to put this article.  It's not exactly a tabloid, but I'm not sure it's exactly a media article about the show either.  Oh well, I'll try it here.  It's a fairly balanced article, looking at all sides of the current battle against The Crown.

How The Crown Undid Charles and Camilla's Decade-Long Rehabilitation--Jezebel

The Crown is a problem for the Crown. Now in its fourth season the show, which takes as its subject the intertwined stories of Queen Elizabeth II’s life and the course of the 20th-century monarchy, is finally tackling the destructive public scandals of the 1990s—particularly the implosion of her heir’s first marriage. Peter Morgan and his lavishly gloomy drama have now enthusiastically begun to depict the failed fairy tale that was the marriage of Charles and Diana, Prince and Princess of Wales, and in the process, the wildly popular series threatens to jeopardize years and years of careful Palace work to rehabilitate the reputations of Charles, Camilla, and the institution itself. They’ve done their best to put the past behind them—but Netflix is beaming that past right back into homes around the world.

----

There is quite a bit about the Diana/Charles/Camilla mess, showing all sides, and also says that Camilla's father insisted he marry Camilla when Charles was dithering about that (!)

--

What’s more, it’s coming at the worst possible time. Queen Elizabeth II is 94 years old, in the middle of a global pandemic that’s especially hard on the elderly. The Windsors are famously long-lived, but it’s clear to everyone that Charles is finally in the end game, closing in on the period when he will finally take over the job he’s been awaiting his entire life. And the royals in the 21st century rely more than ever on continuing public goodwill. And too, the family has already been rocked by the departure of Harry and Meghan and the very public downfall of Prince Andrew. It’s a terrible time for the ghost of Diana to come knocking, and yet she haunts the Windsors. The Palace is attempting to manage the problem: Prince Charles’s friends have launched a “blistering attack” on The Crown’s depiction of his infamous first marriage, and his office, Clarence House, has turned off replies on Twitter. That won’t be enough to make this problem go away, though.

Honestly, the show is getting an awful lot of free publicity with all of this.  When it comes back in 2022 (whenever) it may end up having quite a few more viewers.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Umbelina
clarified

[Ellaria]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The Crown is a problem for the Crown. Now in its fourth season the show, which takes as its subject the intertwined stories of Queen Elizabeth II’s life and the course of the 20th-century monarchy, is finally tackling the destructive public scandals of the 1990s—particularly the implosion of her heir’s first marriage. Peter Morgan and his lavishly gloomy drama have now enthusiastically begun to depict the failed fairy tale that was the marriage of Charles and Diana, Prince and Princess of Wales, and in the process, the wildly popular series threatens to jeopardize years and years of careful Palace work to rehabilitate the reputations of Charles, Camilla, and the institution itself. They’ve done their best to put the past behind them—but Netflix is beaming that past right back into homes around the world.

What’s more, it’s coming at the worst possible time. Queen Elizabeth II is 94 years old, in the middle of a global pandemic that’s especially hard on the elderly. The Windsors are famously long-lived, but it’s clear to everyone that Charles is finally in the end game, closing in on the period when he will finally take over the job he’s been awaiting his entire life. And the royals in the 21st century rely more than ever on continuing public goodwill. And too, the family has already been rocked by the departure of Harry and Meghan and the very public downfall of Prince Andrew. It’s a terrible time for the ghost of Diana to come knocking, and yet she haunts the Windsors. The Palace is attempting to manage the problem: Prince Charles’s friends have launched a “blistering attack” on The Crown’s depiction of his infamous first marriage, and his office, Clarence House, has turned off replies on Twitter. That won’t be enough to make this problem go away, though.

Honestly, the show is getting an awful lot of free publicity with all of this.  When it comes back in 2022 (whenever) it may end up having quite a few more viewers. 

This is becoming rather silly. If a few hours of a TV drama can "jeopardize" the supposedly rehabilitated reputations of C&C then perhaps their reputations weren't truly rehabilitated in the first place. The Windsors - like all families, royal and not royal - have issues. This media campaign (for lack of a better term) to discredit the show and offer a "woe is me" aspect does more harm than good to their position. The family and their public voices need to stop talking about it.

I know quite a few people who are now watching The Crown - having never watched it before - because of all of the talk about how Charles is portrayed.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[cambridgeguy]

What this really means is that in the future we'll have The Crown: TNG.  It will cover whatever shenanigans William/Kate have been up to, the Harry/Meghan stuff, the supposed Harry/William feud, Andrew's problems, Charles ascending to the throne, etc.  Plenty of drama for a TV show there.

[Dejana]

5 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This is becoming rather silly. If a few hours of a TV drama can "jeopardize" the supposedly rehabilitated reputations of C&C then perhaps their reputations weren't truly rehabilitated in the first place. The Windsors - like all families, royal and not royal - have issues. This media campaign (for lack of a better term) to discredit the show and offer a "woe is me" aspect does more harm than good to their position. The family and their public voices need to stop talking about it.

I know quite a few people who are now watching The Crown - having never watched it before - because of all of the talk about how Charles is portrayed.

The tabloids moralizing about The Crown now were the ones who gleefully spilled all the sordid royal gossip back in the day. The papers are probably worried about being depicted poorly in upcoming seasons and how that may affect their own bottom line. More and more British celebrities are speaking out about how awful and unethical the tabloids are over there, and any examination of the shady press in the 1990s will remind people that little has changed, and the reasons why Harry and Meghan bolted.

The show is fictional but all the bellyaching only makes viewers want to seek out books and documentaries, and people on Twitter who lived through this era are more than happy to fill in the gaps of things the show didn't mention. In the past three weeks, so many sweet, summer children just learned about what was delicately called Camillagate (which actually occurred during the S4 timeframe). Yes, Diana had her affairs and her own leaked embarrassing phone call, too, but she’s not here now, and it's not so much her side trying to convince everyone that the show is exaggerating everything.

Monarchy is an old-fashioned institution by nature, but even within its framework, some people are better than others at adapting to the times. A savvy PR person would tell Charles and Camilla and their defense brigade to shut up and take the L about Season 4. Let social media vent for a few weeks and then people will be preoccupied by the next outrage. Some people will never forgive Charles and Camilla or like them very much, but complaining about a TV show being unfair to them isn't going to help with that.

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Dejana

[ruby24]

Season 5 is likely to be even worse for them, I would think.

[swanpride]

What rehabilitation? People just found more important things to worry about, but hasn't the general mood been "let's skip Charles in favour of William" for years? The topic didn't sell papers anymore, that was all.

[Trillian]

18 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This is becoming rather silly. If a few hours of a TV drama can "jeopardize" the supposedly rehabilitated reputations of C&C then perhaps their reputations weren't truly rehabilitated in the first place. The Windsors - like all families, royal and not royal - have issues. This media campaign (for lack of a better term) to discredit the show and offer a "woe is me" aspect does more harm than good to their position. The family and their public voices need to stop talking about it.

I know quite a few people who are now watching The Crown - having never watched it before - because of all of the talk about how Charles is portrayed.

Ok, it’s The Tattler, but the poll cited was from the Times:

“According to a survey of 1,023 people by FocalData published in The Sunday Times this weekend, more than a third of people said that their opinion of Prince Charles had improved during this series, while 42 per cent said their view of the Royal Family had not changed at all. Only 23 per cent said that their view had worsened - 18 per cent by 'a bit' and 5 per cent by 'a lot'. “

https://www.tatler.com/article/a-third-of-viewers-say-the-crown-made-them-think-better-of-the-royal-family?utm_medium=applenews&utm_source=applenews  

(Sorry, I couldn’t get a non-AppleNews link”) before going back to work.)

[blackwing]

Netflix won't put a disclaimer before the show:  https://ew.com/tv/netflix-the-crown-fiction-disclaimer/

There have been plenty of movie biopics in the theaters in recent years, and I don't think all of them have a "fictionalized" disclaimer. I would like to think that those who are interested in what they see onscreen on the show or movie would be inspired to go and learn more about the events and people. I think the fact that the powers in charge are concerned about people accepting the show as fact is a testament to how good the show is this year.

I agree with others that all of this flap about needing a disclaimer is because the show really paints Charles and Camilla as awful people.  I thought I read somewhere that most of the royal family doesn't watch the show but that Camilla is really interested in how she was portrayed.  Wonder if their portrayals are prompting the complaints.

Charles definitely comes across as unsympathetic this season, almost as if he is the villain of the season if there was one.  (Although the show seems to hate Margaret Thatcher too.)  But I've never thought Charles was a very much loved figure in real life, although that may have changed in recent years.  I swear at one point he gave an interview in the media in which he admitted he is "anxious to rule", meaning "when is the old lady going to kick the bucket so I can get my crown" and Mum wasn't too happy about it.  I recall all the talk of skipping Charles III and going straight to William V (assuming they don't adopt George as a regnal name) but again, I'm not sure what the current feelings on him are now.

On another note, there's a UK Cabinet secretary position that is a basically a position that deals with movies, TV and sports?  That's awesome.  I would consider it the position in the cabinet that seems like it would be the most fun.  I don't think there's an equivalent U.S. position that has this much power, is there?

[Umbelina]

Good for Netflix.  It's ridiculous in my opinion.  I think Morton is probably loving all of this, and Netflix as well.  Nothing like free publicity all over the place. 

“We have always presented The Crown as a drama — and we have every confidence our members understand it's a work of fiction that's broadly based on historical events," a Netflix spokesperson confirmed to EW. "As a result we have no plans — and see no need — to add a disclaimer."

16 hours ago, Dejana said:

The tabloids moralizing about The Crown now were the ones who gleefully spilled all the sordid royal gossip back in the day. The papers are probably worried about being depicted poorly in upcoming seasons and how that may affect their own bottom line. More and more British celebrities are speaking out about how awful and unethical the tabloids are over there, and any examination of the shady press in the 1990s will remind people that little has changed, and the reasons why Harry and Meghan bolted.

Yes, very good point about the tabloids pushing all of these stories back in the day, and now the hypocrisy of a TV show portraying some of what they, and many others printed in the past.  

I don't think the papers care about their own bad publicity.  "Just spell our names right."

With Harry and Meghan, you are right (and so is he) about it all continuing to happen again, this time to his wife, not his mother, and it's unbelievably vicious.  I was down a rabbit hole with that yesterday, and maybe I'm shocked because I've honestly not paid attention to it, other than reading a few headlines.  Harry's statements, and leaving, of course made national news so I've seen those, and heard a few of the racist comments, but that's about it.

Yesterday one of the shocking things I heard was that, after Charles and Camilla shut down comments on their official site (most of the comments were not mean, just people typing Diana's name with hearts, etc.)  So some sleuth went back to see what comments were still there, buried beneath the Diana "Crown" posts before.  Several called Archie a "monkey" and worse, some said he should have been killed at birth, some called for him to be put in a cage like other kids of color, where he belonged, etc.  Seriously shocking things, but no one even deleted them, let alone stopped comments.  Then I made the mistake of listening to a couple of Lady Colin Campbell's horrific youtube attacks on both Mehgan and Diana.  Wow.

 

10 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Season 5 is likely to be even worse for them, I would think.

I do wonder what Morgan's reaction to all of this is, as far as the story going forward.  Has any of this changed his mind either way about his future plans for the show?  

Edited December 7, 2020 by Umbelina
Morgan not Morton!

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I think Morton is probably loving all of this,

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I do wonder what Morton's reaction to all of this is, as far as the story going forward.  Has any of this changed his mind either way about his future plans for the show?  

Do you mean Morgan? Morton is Andrew Morton, the author, yes?

 

[Umbelina]

13 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Do you mean Morgan? Morton is Andrew Morton, the author, yes?

 

Yes, sorry, I'll go fix it!  I meant Peter Morgan (I think I've been getting that last name wrong for a while, yikes.)

[Growsonwalls]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yesterday one of the shocking things I heard was that, after Charles and Camilla shut down comments on their official site (most of the comments were not mean, just people typing Diana's name with hearts, etc.)  So some sleuth went back to see what comments were still there, buried beneath the Diana "Crown" posts before.  Several called Archie a "monkey" and worse, some said he should have been killed at birth, some called for him to be put in a cage like other kids of color, where he belonged, etc.  Seriously shocking things, but no one even deleted them, let alone stopped comments.  Then I made the mistake of listening to a couple of Lady Colin Campbell's horrific youtube attacks on both Mehgan and Diana.  Wow.

Europe is going through a right wing populist movement. It's driven a lot of Brexit and it's part of the reason why the attacks on Meghan have been so racist.

I hope The Crown kind of peels away Elizabeth's saintly reputation as well. Not that I don't admire long-term her duty and service to country. I do. I also think she's been a shit mother whose neglect of one child (Charles) and coddling of another (Andrew) has led to disastrous results. Elizabeth is still protecting Andrew from owning up to his actions. Are they just going to hide him away in some cottage forever? 

[Roseanna]

On 12/5/2020 at 2:55 AM, emmawoodhouse said:

If Charles isn't ready now, he never will be. How much can he change at 72 years old (and closer to 80 when/if he ascends the throne).

Well, Winston Churchill was in 1939 a failed politician. 

[cambridgeguy]

21 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I hope The Crown kind of peels away Elizabeth's saintly reputation as well.

Isn't that what the show has already done?  The saintly reputation has been reserved for George VI, who according to the show was a hero and good father who deserves elevation to sainthood.  Elizabeth is portrayed as someone who has done her best be a symbol, but (unlike her dad) lost touch with her kids, is at least partially responsible for their issues, and is unable to help them deal with their problems.  She's also been portrayed as kind of oblivious to her role in all of this.  She's not evil, but she has some pretty big flaws.  It's just that she comes off better than Philip, who (apparently) was an emotionally abusive, whiny man child.

 

[SailorGirl]

I'm not throwing out an opinion one way or the other re: the addition of a disclaimer, but it does seem to be common industry practice for shows and movies to add something either to the intro or outro along the lines of, "while this movie/program features real-life characters/is based on historical events, persons and events have been fictionalized and some characters/events blended for dramatic purposes."

Something I just watched (I want to say Queen's Gambit?) had something similar  -- indicating it was based on a novel but fictionalized? I can't remember -- like most of us, binge watching is the hobby of the year.

My point is that adding a disclaimer is not an uncommon thing to do.

[blackwing]

3 hours ago, SailorGirl said:

I'm not throwing out an opinion one way or the other re: the addition of a disclaimer, but it does seem to be common industry practice for shows and movies to add something either to the intro or outro along the lines of, "while this movie/program features real-life characters/is based on historical events, persons and events have been fictionalized and some characters/events blended for dramatic purposes."

Something I just watched (I want to say Queen's Gambit?) had something similar  -- indicating it was based on a novel but fictionalized? I can't remember -- like most of us, binge watching is the hobby of the year.

My point is that adding a disclaimer is not an uncommon thing to do.

I understand the point, but I would have just assumed that unless the show/movie is a documentary using actual footage of the actual person, that it's just an artistic interpretation.  Any time there are actors involved, there would have to be a script, and I would just think it's common sense that there is going to be artistic license and liberties taken.

I'm wondering they there is such flap about the lack of a disclaimer on "The Crown", when I'm pretty sure that there was none for a show like, say, "The Tudors".  Is it because the persons depicted in "The Crown" are all mostly still alive?  I would think that in today's internet age, it would be very easy for someone to google "did Charles really give Camilla a bracelet with their nicknames on it" and determine whether it was fact or not. 

[Roseanna]

On 12/8/2020 at 9:09 PM, cambridgeguy said:

 The saintly reputation has been reserved for George VI, who according to the show was a hero and good father who deserves elevation to sainthood.

How was George VI are a hero or a saint? He did his duty (as many Britons did), but he didn't make anything that influenced on matters, only worried endlessly which perhaps shortened his life. And if there really had been an invasion, the royal family would have sent to safety abroad (perhaps to Canada?), just as other European royal houses became emigrants when Germany attacked.

And he wasn't a good father: he spoiled Margaret so that she began to believe that she had only rights but no duties. Although his daughters no doubt had different characters, calling them his pride and joy probably made the Elizabeth even more serious and dutiful, and Margaret even more egoistical and superficial.

[SailorGirl]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

 I would just think it's common sense that there is going to be artistic license and liberties taken.

Me too, but unfortunately we live in a world where common sense has gone out the window and critical thinking is on the wane. In a world where a vast amount of people rely on headlines in social media scrolls to get "news" and consider themselves well-informed, and who believe reality shows are, well, real, its not a surprise that we have people who believe this fiction show is a true and accurate retelling of the facts, even down to the conversations. I'm not saying its right, far from it. I'm saying its not surprising.

[Growsonwalls]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

How was George VI are a hero or a saint? He did his duty (as many Britons did), but he didn't make anything that influenced on matters, only worried endlessly which perhaps shortened his life. And if there really had been an invasion, the royal family would have sent to safety abroad (perhaps to Canada?), just as other European royal houses became emigrants when Germany attacked.

And he wasn't a good father: he spoiled Margaret so that she began to believe that she had only rights but no duties. Although his daughters no doubt had different characters, calling them his pride and joy probably made the Elizabeth even more serious and dutiful, and Margaret even more egoistical and superficial.

This isn't based on anything but observation and hypothesis, but I think many monarchs have very ambivalent feelings towards their direct heirs. There is so much pressure to have a healthy (and in the old days, male) heir that I think many monarchs look at their heirs and think "I HAD to have him/her." That wasn't really procreation by choice. And the heirs tend to be born very early into the marriage, maybe before their parents are ready to be parents? The relationship starts off on a note of duty and it colors the relationship from birth. Victoria had her heir exactly 9 months after her marriage. She was still besotted with Albert and wanted to just lie in bed with him all day. She wasn't ready for motherhood.

In contrast I think many monarchs think they are allowed to have a more affectionate, open relationship with their "spare." The spare ends up being spoiled and hard-headed. 

You can even see this dynamic with William and Harry. Diana didn't make a secret that she liked Harry more. She loved both children but she liked Harry more. 

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

This isn't based on anything but observation and hypothesis, but I think many monarchs have very ambivalent feelings towards their direct heirs. There is so much pressure to have a healthy (and in the old days, male) heir that I think many monarchs look at their heirs and think "I HAD to have him/her." That wasn't really procreation by choice. And the heirs tend to be born very early into the marriage, maybe before their parents are ready to be parents? The relationship starts off on a note of duty and it colors the relationship from birth. Victoria had her heir exactly 9 months after her marriage. She was still besotted with Albert and wanted to just lie in bed with him all day. She wasn't ready for motherhood.

When there was no contraception, people couldn't decide if and when they will get children. (However, the French peasants evidently used some method, because they had far fewer children after Napoleon's law that all sons will inherit equally.) Also, when child mortality was great, people had to get many children so that some of them would survive.

Victoria and Albert' marriage was a novelty according to the new bourgeois habits and morality. Royal couples had traditionally their separate households and also children had their own households in some healthier place than the court.

[seewillrun]

18 hours ago, SailorGirl said:

Me too, but unfortunately we live in a world where common sense has gone out the window and critical thinking is on the wane. In a world where a vast amount of people rely on headlines in social media scrolls to get "news" and consider themselves well-informed, and who believe reality shows are, well, real, its not a surprise that we have people who believe this fiction show is a true and accurate retelling of the facts, even down to the conversations. I'm not saying its right, far from it. I'm saying its not surprising.

Even within these forums, I have seen comments with the words "disgusting", "evil", "whiny" and "pathetic" regarding members of the Royal Family after an episode which had a scene showing a private conversation between characters.  I suppose they could be talking about the characters, but it seems clear that they are relaying their feelings about the real people being portrayed.  Obviously anyone here in the forums knows that this is fictional and knows that private conversations could not possibly have any corroboration as truth and yet they now consider someone evil or will never accept them as king or thinks they should step down.  A disclaimer for these people would do no good at all as they would ignore it OR it would prove to them that the Royal Family had somehow made it be added.     

[qtpye]

10 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

This isn't based on anything but observation and hypothesis, but I think many monarchs have very ambivalent feelings towards their direct heirs. There is so much pressure to have a healthy (and in the old days, male) heir that I think many monarchs look at their heirs and think "I HAD to have him/her." That wasn't really procreation by choice. And the heirs tend to be born very early into the marriage, maybe before their parents are ready to be parents? The relationship starts off on a note of duty and it colors the relationship from birth. Victoria had her heir exactly 9 months after her marriage. She was still besotted with Albert and wanted to just lie in bed with him all day. She wasn't ready for motherhood.

In contrast I think many monarchs think they are allowed to have a more affectionate, open relationship with their "spare." The spare ends up being spoiled and hard-headed. 

You can even see this dynamic with William and Harry. Diana didn't make a secret that she liked Harry more. She loved both children but she liked Harry more. 

 

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

When there was no contraception, people couldn't decide if and when they will get children. (However, the French peasants evidently used some method, because they had far fewer children after Napoleon's law that all sons will inherit equally.) Also, when child mortality was great, people had to get many children so that some of them would survive.

Victoria and Albert' marriage was a novelty according to the new bourgeois habits and morality. Royal couples had traditionally their separate households and also children had their own households in some healthier place than the court.

I do think back in the day having children was an obligation, not a choice. There was also assumption that all women were naturally maternal.

I do not think Elizabeth was particularly in a maternal mindset with her first two. She probably was more than happy to hand them off to what she considered the excellent care of nannies, particularly since she became queen at such a young age and had a lot on her plate.

It is not surprising to me now that parenthood is more of a choice, women (and men) from Japan, Korea, United States, and parts of Europe are opting out, causing low birth rates in some of these countries.

Edited December 10, 2020 by qtpye

[cambridgeguy]

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

I do not think Elizabeth was particularly in a maternal mindset with her first two. She probably was more than happy to hand them off to what she considered the excellent care of nannies, particularly since she became queen at such a young age and had a lot on her plate.

Diana did some of that too - I was reading an article and apparently she and Charles preferred to leave the discipline to the nannies and bodyguards.  If someone as maternal as her was willing to leave the unpleasant stuff to others then I'd expect almost everyone else to do it too.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, seewillrun said:

Even within these forums, I have seen comments with the words "disgusting", "evil", "whiny" and "pathetic" regarding members of the Royal Family after an episode which had a scene showing a private conversation between characters.  I suppose they could be talking about the characters, but it seems clear that they are relaying their feelings about the real people being portrayed.  Obviously anyone here in the forums knows that this is fictional and knows that private conversations could not possibly have any corroboration as truth and yet they now consider someone evil or will never accept them as king or thinks they should step down.  A disclaimer for these people would do no good at all as they would ignore it OR it would prove to them that the Royal Family had somehow made it be added.     

It's a tricky thing I agree.

I've pretty much always thought of Charles very much as the show is portraying him.  He's whined about the miserable prep school forever, long before the show for example, but the show fleshed out the school, I think in a pretty realistic way.  It was fairly easy to research that school, and then, mostly from Charles' comments over the years, but also from various other sources, to "imagine" and flesh out cinematic reasons why he hated it so much.

This may be an age thing too, those of us who were around and old enough to watch this all unfold in real time may have already formed the same ideas.  (Or other ideas.)  For me personally, the show isn't far from what I already "knew" mostly from Charles himself, either watching him, or hearing him, or reading things he said.

Frankly, the show could, and might, portray him in an even worse light in the future.

[Cirien]

It's not about how the Royal Family is portrayed. It's about Thatcher, primarily. Peter Morgan wrote "The Queen" after all. 

However, Peter is clearly hesitant to take on those people who see Diana as a saint, but I really don't think the Royals care that much. 

 

(And it most definitely is not about Harry and Meghan)

[qtpye]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/josh-oconnor-crowns-prince-charles-160001023.html

Josh's point of view if anyone is interested.

[Badger]

I've been watching a 5 part miniseries I bought called "The Queen" which aired on Channel 4 in the UK several years ago.  Basically it's 5 incidents that happened during her reign ranging from the Princess Margaret/Group Captain Peter Townsend situation to her decision to finally meet Camilla formally.  Each episode was a combination of documentary footage plus interviews with different people  and reporters plus dramatizations of what happened.

Before each episode they had a disclaimer that the documentary stuff was based on the most recent information available.  "The drama is imagined."

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, qtpye said:

There was also assumption that all women were naturally maternal.

Not all. That is only a modern conception.

Aristocratic women had a duty to bear heirs, but children were taken care by wetters, nannies and governesses. And if you are a poor women, you have to work and babies were taking care by grandmothers and older siblings. 

[qtpye]

35 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Not all. That is only a modern conception.

Aristocratic women had a duty to bear heirs, but children were taken care by wetters, nannies and governesses. And if you are a poor women, you have to work and babies were taking care by grandmothers and older siblings. 

Yes, but there was an assumption that you will be having babies no matter what. It was seen as one of the main reasons for getting married. Also, what if you were an orphan, as a poor woman,  (many people lost much of their families to wars, disease etc.) you might not have a large family group to help take care of children. It also takes a while for older siblings to be in a position where they can help take care of babies.

[dubbel zout]

Having babies /=/ being maternal. One is a physical trait, the other is emotional.

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/josh-oconnor-crowns-prince-charles-160001023.html

Josh's point of view if anyone is interested.

I agree with him, and the idea of a health minister getting involved is beyond ridiculous and concerning on a few levels.

I wouldn't call it "pure fiction" though, as it's obviously based on real events, real people, and generally real situations.  Of course they condense and take shortcuts and must use imagination for specific conversations, but I don't think they have made anything up out of whole cloth.

 

O'Connor, an avowed republican "in the British sense of the word," also echoed Netflix's own rejection of the proposed disclaimer: "My personal view is that audiences understand," he said. "You have to show them the respect and understand that they're intelligent enough to see it for what it is, which is pure fiction."

[Razzberry]

I'm not a fan of disclaimers and doubt they would make a difference, but Netflix knows all too well how easy it is to influence people. Even their so-called documentaries should probably carry a disclaimer. It's interesting that they twice put up "warnings" about seeing an actress cough into a toilet.

 

"Television is altering the meaning of 'being informed' by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.

TV serves us most usefully when presenting junk-entertainment; it serves us most ill when it co-opts serious modes of discourse - news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion."
Neil Postman   “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business”

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Having babies /=/ being maternal. One is a physical trait, the other is emotional.

I am aware but it was not a choice that many woman had in the past. You were expected or required to have babies and people who are not maternal usually do not want them. There was not a lot of sympathy that this was simply something that you did not want.

[swanpride]

A lot of women still get pregnant simply because it is expected of them. Plus, "maternal" is a broad definition. There are parents who aren't particularly maternal, but still do a pretty good job raising their children. Children survive not being constantly fawned over just fine as long as they know that they can trust their parents to have their back when needed.

[qtpye]

13 hours ago, swanpride said:

A lot of women still get pregnant simply because it is expected of them. Plus, "maternal" is a broad definition. There are parents who aren't particularly maternal, but still do a pretty good job raising their children. Children survive not being constantly fawned over just fine as long as they know that they can trust their parents to have their back when needed.

Yes, but there is an idea that it is okay not to have children if you do not want to... at least in many first world countries.

Getting back to topic, it does not feel like the queen's children are fine and Charles has spoken openly about how the lack of maternal love as a child has had a negative impact on him.

Yes, some people are not maternal and do just fine but it does not seem to be the case for this family.

“In private Charles has often accused his mother of being cold, distant, or unavailable (the Queen spent a large amount of his early childhood travelling abroad).”

Charles inflamed this stinging criticism of his mother being a remote figure in a 1994 authorised biography of the prince by Jonathan Dimbleby.

He bitterly recalled a childhood during which the nursery staff, not his “emotionally reserved” parents, were the people who “taught him to play, witnessed his first steps, punished and rewarded him, helped him put his first thoughts into words”.

These thoughts were echoed by a lady-in-waiting in a 2002 biography marking the Queen’s Golden Jubilee. 

The anonymous staff member remarked of the monarch: “It has always been dogs and horses first, even before the children.”

Edited December 11, 2020 by qtpye