Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[dubbel zout]

Diana died because a) the driver of her car was drunk, b) he was speeding, and c) she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

[Umbelina]

22 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Diana died because a) the driver of her car was drunk, b) he was speeding, and c) she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

I'm only pointing out that it appears the doubts about that are starting up again, probably partially due to this show.  I didn't say I believed them.

That Bashir thing is getting interesting though.

I don't give a fat fuck about Camilla's new found "charity work so I can be Queen" crap.  I can't stand her.  At all.  Frankly both Charles and Camilla make me ill.  It's not just about how they both treated Diana, it's about character, and don't think either has any.

 Ugh.  They are so pathetic, and pathetically obvious about every single step they take to remake Camilla into someone people will accept as Queen.  From the new teeth to the new charity work, to the fabulous jewels Charles is giving her.  You can dress up anyone, but their soul and their past behavior speaks louder than a new hat.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Umbelina

[qtpye]

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I'm only pointing out that it appears the doubts about that are starting up again, probably partially due to this show.  I didn't say I believed them.

That Bashir thing is getting interesting though.

I don't give a fat fuck about Camilla's new found "charity work so I can be Queen" crap.  I can't stand her.  At all.  Frankly both Charles and Camilla make me ill.  It's not just about how they both treated Diana, it's about character, and don't think either has any.

 Ugh.  They are so pathetic, and pathetically obvious about every single step they take to remake Camilla into someone people will accept as Queen.  From the new teeth to the new charity work, to the fabulous jewels Charles is giving her.  You can dress up anyone, but their soul and their past behavior speaks louder than a new hat.

I almost died the episode where Charles wished that Diana had just a tiny bit of Camilla's strength of character. It made me realize he had no idea what true character is. If Camilla had a happy marriage and Charles was not the Prince of Wales, she would never given him the time of day.

Edited November 24, 2020 by qtpye

[Growsonwalls]

@Umbelina you can feel the way you want about Charles and Camila but that doesn't mean Charles is not the rightful heir. That's how royalty works, and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you believe in things like rightful heirs. 

The Queen is a traditionalist and will honor the rightful heir. And at the end of the day she's Charles's mother. She's not going to betray her son.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

@Umbelina you can feel the way you want about Charles and Camila but that doesn't mean Charles is not the rightful heir. That's how royalty works, and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you believe in things like rightful heirs. 

The Queen is a traditionalist and will honor the rightful heir. And at the end of the day she's Charles's mother. She's not going to betray her son.

She will be dead.

We shall see what happens, it can't be long now.  Will the commonwealth continue with this monarchy when she dies?  Will Britain?  Do people even think it has a place anymore?  Even if they do, will they accept Charles and Camilla?

I think at best, it will be controversial, and yes, I do think abolishing it will be considered. 

[Ohiopirate02]

12 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Do you think this likely to happen? Because honestly, it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, that the monarchy may very well end when Elizabeth dies. Do you think the British public will really accept Charles and Camilla of all people as King and Queen? When this is the only monarch the vast majority of them have ever known?

I highly doubt that the British Crown is going to disappear after Elizabeth passes.  Mostly because of the expense headache it would cause.  Trying to untangle what is the property of the state and what is the property of the Windsor-Mountbatten would take years.  And I don't see any of the family making gifts to the state of their stuff.  It's easy to say get rid of the monarchy, but far harder to do.  The family would still land on their feet, but the country would suffer.

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

She will be dead.

We shall see what happens, it can't be long now.  Will the commonwealth continue with this monarchy when she dies?  Will Britain?  Do people even think it has a place anymore?  Even if they do, will they accept Charles and Camilla?

I think at best, it will be controversial, and yes, I do think abolishing it will be considered. 

She will name her heir in her will. They can either honor that will, or they can storm the Bastille like the French did in 1789.

I don't think the British will be storming the Bastille. Their tourism, media and fashion industry has such a symbiotic relationship with royalty. It would be really difficult.

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I highly doubt that the British Crown is going to disappear after Elizabeth passes.  Mostly because of the expense headache it would cause.  Trying to untangle what is the property of the state and what is the property of the Windsor-Mountbatten would take years.  And I don't see any of the family making gifts to the state of their stuff.  It's easy to say get rid of the monarchy, but far harder to do.  The family would still land on their feet, but the country would suffer.

I think good records have been kept all along.  I doubt it would be that difficult, and it would be a huge infusion of cash to the government which can probably use it. 

The biggest issue might be all those people thrown out of jobs AND homes at the same time.  Still, some might say "Bloodsuckers and useless anyway really. Good Riddance."

They already have to maintain all those buildings though, so that wouldn't change.  

2 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

She will name her heir in her will. They can either honor that will, or they can storm the Bastille like the French did in 1789.

I don't think the British will be storming the Bastille. Their tourism, media and fashion industry has such a symbiotic relationship with royalty. It would be really difficult.

Really?  I didn't think "naming her heir" was allowed anymore.  I had no idea that could even happen.  

[BitterApple]

I've always wondered how Kate felt about getting Diana's ring. I understand the sentimental value, but I wouldn't want a bauble linked to a miserable marriage (not to mention it's dated looking). I thought Meghan's ring was much prettier. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by BitterApple

[ravencroft]

37 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think good records have been kept all along.  I doubt it would be that difficult, and it would be a huge infusion of cash to the government which can probably use it. 

The biggest issue might be all those people thrown out of jobs AND homes at the same time.  Still, some might say "Bloodsuckers and useless anyway really. Good Riddance."

They already have to maintain all those buildings though, so that wouldn't change.  

Really?  I didn't think "naming her heir" was allowed anymore.  I had no idea that could even happen.  

As I understand it, regardless of the line of succession, its the House of Parliament that has the final say over whether someone gets to ascend the throne or not

[Athena]

A reminder to be civil to your fellow posters and do not engage in heated debates. If you see a problem, report and please do not engage. We highly recommend you use the option of Ignoring users by hovering over their username. Thank you.

[Scarlett45]

30 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I've always wondered how Kate felt about getting Diana's ring. I understand the sentimental value, but I wouldn't want a bauble linked to a miserable, marriage (not to mention it's dated looking). I thought Meghan's ring was much prettier. 

Yeah me too. 

[Growsonwalls]

I understand William wanting to keep his mother's ring as a memento, but I agree that it was weird of him to give the ring to Kate as THE ring. For one, there's like a lot of bad energy in that ring. Second of all, it's a bit creepy. I could SORT of understand it had Kate known Diana, and been very fond of her. 

With that being said I think Kate is one of those women who decided a long time ago that she'd do whatever her husband wanted. The tabloids called her "Waity Katie" for that reason. It's not a bad approach to a royal marriage. The public will never know how she feels about anything. She seems pretty happy with her life.

It's odd her mother Carole was/is a tough, independent businesswoman but both Pippa and Kate seem to have been groomed simply to be the wives of rich aristocrats. Kate even took lessons to have her accent sound more posh.

[dubbel zout]

9 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I understand William wanting to keep his mother's ring as a memento

Harry originally had the ring, and he gave it to William when William asked if he could give it to Kate. I wonder if they had an agreement that whoever got married first could use the ring to propose.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Harry originally had the ring, and he gave it to William when William asked if he could give it to Kate. I wonder if they had an agreement that whoever got married first could use the ring to propose.

Thanks, that's what I thought as well, but I wasn't sure enough to say it, and didn't want to google it.

I hope the brothers heal whatever rifts there are between them.  With all this ring talk, I did wonder if Harry had any regrets about handing it over to Kate via William.  I hope not.  

[swanpride]

...isn't it kind of "normal" to give the woman you love a ring with sentimental value to you? And regarding the pose: There are only so many ways how one can sit down in a pencil skirt. There is exactly one pose for the legs if you don't want to show off your undies and very little options where to leave your hands.

Also, if there was a murder attempt on Diana, it was the most chancy of all time, considering that it relied on the driver speeding through the tunnel and Diana being stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt.

Dito regarding the whole Saint Diana thing...it already annoyed me shortly after her dead. The Queen of Hearts nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Yeah, it was sad that she died so young, but I really didn't feel more invested than I would feel regarding anyone else dying so young.

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

She will name her heir in her will. They can either honor that will, or they can storm the Bastille like the French did in 1789.

She absolutely can't. Even if it weren't a constitutional monarchy, there are principles of primogeniture.  

As the sovereign's eldest son, Charles will inherit the crown and if he is dead, William as his eldest son will inherit and if also he is dead, George as his eldest child will inherit and if also he is dead without issue, Charlotte as William's second child will inherit (the rules changed with William's children) and so on.

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Really?  I didn't think "naming her heir" was allowed anymore.  I had no idea that could even happen.  

In the summer 1536 Henry VIII was allowed by the Parliament to name his heirs in his will when he had no legitimate heir living (both Mary and Elizabeth have been declared a bastard and Henry Fitzroy had always been a bastard). In third Succession Act accepted by Parliament in 1543, Mary and Elizabeth were added in the succession order, although still illegitimate, if Henry's only son Edward would die without issue.

Before his death in 1553 Edward IV made a testament where he named as his heir Lady Jane Grey, the granddaughter of Henry's younger sister Mary and Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk, and a strict Protestant like he. Although she was backed by the Protestant Council, especially her husband's father John Dudley duke of Northumberland, Henry's daughter elder Mary made made successful rebellion and won the throne.

 

[Minivanessa]

7 hours ago, swanpride said:

Also, if there was a murder attempt on Diana, it was the most chancy of all time, considering that it relied on the driver speeding through the tunnel and Diana being stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt.

This, this, a million times this. I have read that she would have survived the crash if she'd been belted into her seat. IIRC one doctor said she might have had a broken arm, bruises, etc., but she wouldn't have been at risk of death. 

So the BRF could have dispatched a battalion of undercover agents to infiltrate Mr. Fayed's crew of employees and join the paps in pursuit of the car, in order to create that crash - but if the woman had buckled up? She would have foiled the dastardly plot.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I hope the brothers heal whatever rifts there are between them. 

I guess I'm really...naive? ignorant? Because I don't see any tension or "hate" between the brothers. In fact, when I watched the documentary about celebrating Queen Elizabeth's 90th Birthday, I think it was, they seemed to get along. They sat together as they went through pictures and memories of when they were children; I mean, they looked natural. Body language gives away a lot. And I just didn't see anything that would make me look up and say: Wow, these brothers really don't get along/have issues. 

Guess I'm just stupid.

[AZChristian]

17 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I guess I'm really...naive? ignorant? Because I don't see any tension or "hate" between the brothers. In fact, when I watched the documentary about celebrating Queen Elizabeth's 90th Birthday, I think it was, they seemed to get along. They sat together as they went through pictures and memories of when they were children; I mean, they looked natural. Body language gives away a lot. And I just didn't see anything that would make me look up and say: Wow, these brothers really don't get along/have issues. 

Guess I'm just stupid.

I don't think you're stupid . . . but the 90th birthday video was made 4 years ago.  There's been a lot of water under London Bridge since then.

In the last video of Harry and Meghan making an official appearance (at a church service honoring the commonwealth games earlier this year), William barely nodded at them, and Kate made NO eye contact at all, after smiling broadly while greeting Prince Edward and his wife.

There's tension.  

[Ohiopirate02]

44 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

This, this, a million times this. I have read that she would have survived the crash if she'd been belted into her seat. IIRC one doctor said she might have had a broken arm, bruises, etc., but she wouldn't have been at risk of death. 

So the BRF could have dispatched a battalion of undercover agents to infiltrate Mr. Fayed's crew of employees and join the paps in pursuit of the car, in order to create that crash - but if the woman had buckled up? She would have foiled the dastardly plot.

If the BRF engineered Diana's death that night in Paris in 1997 to help clear the way for Charles and Camilla to wed according to the precepts of the Anglican Church, then why is Andrew Parker-Bowles still alive?  Twenty three years later and he has yet to succumb to an "accident."

[Growsonwalls]

Back when Meghan and Harry still had an instagram account, it was a big deal when @sussexroyal and @kensingtonroyal unfollowed each other.

[AZChristian]

News came out this morning the Meghan had a miscarriage in July.

[swanpride]

Yeah, and I am already shuddering what the likes of the Sun will make out of it.

[BradandJanet]

When Diana lost her HRH, she also lost her security detail. Well, apparently she was offered it, but chose not to accept. She was using security from Mohamed Al-Fayed, including her bodyguard and driver. The bodyguard should have insisted on seatbelts, but didn't. The driver was off duty and drinking at the Ritz bar. Dodi insisted they go back to his apartment, which resulted in a confrontation with the waiting paparazzi no one could handle. The accident was a tragic outcome of some bad decision making. 

[Umbelina]

On 11/24/2020 at 2:44 PM, Growsonwalls said:

She will name her heir in her will. They can either honor that will, or they can storm the Bastille like the French did in 1789.

I don't think the British will be storming the Bastille. Their tourism, media and fashion industry has such a symbiotic relationship with royalty. It would be really difficult.

A bunch of these coming up, but I'll just comment as I go here.  Ha.  

So, basically Tommy Lascelles lied to the young princesses when they wanted to switch and have Margaret be the heir?  Their father could have allowed that?

On 11/24/2020 at 3:22 PM, BitterApple said:

I've always wondered how Kate felt about getting Diana's ring. I understand the sentimental value, but I wouldn't want a bauble linked to a miserable marriage (not to mention it's dated looking). I thought Meghan's ring was much prettier. 

Honestly, I would be very touched (were I the marrying kind) to get a ring from a beloved mother.  Especially one as beautiful as that.

On 11/24/2020 at 3:28 PM, ravencroft said:

As I understand it, regardless of the line of succession, its the House of Parliament that has the final say over whether someone gets to ascend the throne or not

I had NO IDEA!  (still not sure I do, I thought if anyone, it would be the church.)

14 hours ago, Roseanna said:

She absolutely can't. Even if it weren't a constitutional monarchy, there are principles of primogeniture.  

As the sovereign's eldest son, Charles will inherit the crown and if he is dead, William as his eldest son will inherit and if also he is dead, George as his eldest child will inherit and if also he is dead without issue, Charlotte as William's second child will inherit (the rules changed with William's children) and so on.

In the summer 1536 Henry VIII was allowed by the Parliament to name his heirs in his will when he had no legitimate heir living (both Mary and Elizabeth have been declared a bastard and Henry Fitzroy had always been a bastard). In third Succession Act accepted by Parliament in 1543, Mary and Elizabeth were added in the succession order, although still illegitimate, if Henry's only son Edward would die without issue.

Before his death in 1553 Edward IV made a testament where he named as his heir Lady Jane Grey, the granddaughter of Henry's younger sister Mary and Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk, and a strict Protestant like he. Although she was backed by the Protestant Council, especially her husband's father John Dudley duke of Northumberland, Henry's daughter elder Mary made made successful rebellion and won the throne.

 

Thank you Roseanna, if anyone knows royalty rules it's you!

9 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I guess I'm really...naive? ignorant? Because I don't see any tension or "hate" between the brothers. In fact, when I watched the documentary about celebrating Queen Elizabeth's 90th Birthday, I think it was, they seemed to get along. They sat together as they went through pictures and memories of when they were children; I mean, they looked natural. Body language gives away a lot. And I just didn't see anything that would make me look up and say: Wow, these brothers really don't get along/have issues. 

Guess I'm just stupid.

Sadly, even though I don't follow royals or their gossip much (except during The Crown airings) even I have heard a bunch of rumors and seen some photos.

The top that I remember:

1. Harry is disgusted that William cheats on Kate.
2. Kate and Meghan don't get along.
3. William is unhappy Harry bailed.
4. Various photos, as below of coldness.

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I don't think you're stupid . . . but the 90th birthday video was made 4 years ago.  There's been a lot of water under London Bridge since then.

In the last video of Harry and Meghan making an official appearance (at a church service honoring the commonwealth games earlier this year), William barely nodded at them, and Kate made NO eye contact at all, after smiling broadly while greeting Prince Edward and his wife.

There's tension.  

Hopefully both will get over it.  I know I've had tension with my siblings at various times, but eventually we work things out.

9 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

If the BRF engineered Diana's death that night in Paris in 1997 to help clear the way for Charles and Camilla to wed according to the precepts of the Anglican Church, then why is Andrew Parker-Bowles still alive?  Twenty three years later and he has yet to succumb to an "accident."

The latest thing I heard is that Diana was very vocal about saying she would work against Charles being King, in favor of William.  (just passing it on, not agreeing)  There are tapes.

7 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Back when Meghan and Harry still had an instagram account, it was a big deal when @sussexroyal and @kensingtonroyal unfollowed each other.

Yeah, I remember seeing that as well.

7 hours ago, AZChristian said:

News came out this morning the Meghan had a miscarriage in July.

Oh, that is very sad.  

4 hours ago, BradandJanet said:

When Diana lost her HRH, she also lost her security detail. Well, apparently she was offered it, but chose not to accept. She was using security from Mohamed Al-Fayed, including her bodyguard and driver. The bodyguard should have insisted on seatbelts, but didn't. The driver was off duty and drinking at the Ritz bar. Dodi insisted they go back to his apartment, which resulted in a confrontation with the waiting paparazzi no one could handle. The accident was a tragic outcome of some bad decision making. 

Sadly, I live by the cold ocean, several huge lakes, and fast rivers.  Every single year we lose several people in all three of those because they won't wear life jackets (it's not "cool.")  Drinking is often involved.

I think the same factors may have been in Diana's situation.   

[BradandJanet]

The story is that Dodi had bought a ring for Diana in Paris, but it was at his apartment, so he wanted to go back to get it. Diana was scheduled to leave the next day, so he insisted on leaving the Ritz to give her the ring; hence, the fateful drive. There's no reputable information about the ring or Dodi's intentions; however, I'm not sure Diana would have married him if that was the purpose. She was in love with Dr. Hasnat Khan, but he decided against the relationship because of his religion. Personally, I think Diana would have cycled through many relationships if she had lived. In a way, she was Princess Margaret, without the drinking and partying, but forever searching and not finding. Diana's devotion to her children was a wonderful gift to them, however. 

[Growsonwalls]

From what I understand Diana thought of Dodi as a summer fling -- in fact she didn't expect to stay on his yacht for so long. Dodi was at that time engaged to another woman and Diana still in love with the Pakistani doctor. But they had been spotted by the paparazzi and so the whole thing blew up. 

The bodyguard who was wearing a seat belt actually survived while the drunk driver, Dodi and Diana (all not wearing seat belts) died. Of course what happened was a terrible tragedy but I don't think it was a murder plot. For one, I feel like a murder plot wouldn't have involved a dude Diana just met a few weeks prior and a driver not under royal employ. 

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, BradandJanet said:

She was in love with Dr. Hasnat Khan, but he decided against the relationship because of his religion. 

He also didn't like all the press crap. It's not as if it would have died down if Diana remarried. She was never going to be able to lead any sort of quiet life, and I doubt she'd have moved to another country while the boys were still in school.

[cambridgeguy]

20 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

If the BRF engineered Diana's death that night in Paris in 1997 to help clear the way for Charles and Camilla to wed according to the precepts of the Anglican Church, then why is Andrew Parker-Bowles still alive?  Twenty three years later and he has yet to succumb to an "accident."

Well obviously they're being more subtle - no doubt his food his being spiked with some extra fat and salt.  Those masterminds!

As for Diana and a seatbelt, I'd expect most who are used to motorcades to be lax with seatbelts.  For us normals it's a habit but I can see someone who is used to the bubble not bothering with it.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

As for Diana and a seatbelt, I'd expect most who are used to motorcades to be lax with seatbelts.  For us normals it's a habit but I can see someone who is used to the bubble not bothering with it.

But most motorcades aren't comprised of one car being driven by a drunk at 60 miles an hour through a tunnel, being chased by cars and motorcycles.  

As a mother, one would think she'd do all she could to keep herself safe so she could be there for her sons.  She and Dodi made a really bad choice that night by not wearing seat belts.  And there most certainly should have been a designated sober driver available.  Henri Paul was 3 times the French limit for drunk driving and had other drugs in his system.  

Paparazzi take pictures . . . they don't want to kill their targets when they "shoot" them.  That's biting the hand that feeds them.

[Growsonwalls]

Another thing is the driver Henri Paul certainly would have known he was driving drunk as Paris has very strict drunk driving laws -- the legal limit is 0.5 , lower than the 0.8 in the UK and US. Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was 1.75.

[mledawn]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

Another thing is the driver Henri Paul certainly would have known he was driving drunk as Paris has very strict drunk driving laws -- the legal limit is 0.5 , lower than the 0.8 in the UK and US. Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was 1.75.

Henri Paul also wasn't a chauffeur and was apparently usually very particular about making sure a trained driver was assigned. Dodi and Diana were not planning on leaving the hotel, so he was off duty, drinking. Absolutely he should not have been driving - likely the rich guest said jump, and he said how high.

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Paparazzi take pictures . . . they don't want to kill their targets when they "shoot" them.  That's biting the hand that feeds them.

As you have said, the paparazzi were chasing the car on motorcycles and in cars, It was dangerous and reckless behaviour. They weren't thinking about consequences or biting the hand that feeds them - they were thinking dollar signs. Stopping and taking photos before rendering first aid is abhorrent behaviour.

I absolutely sympathise with Harry on the role he feels the paparazzi took in the death of his mother.

[swanpride]

There is a difference between Journalists and Paparazzi. Sure, Paparazzi partly have a role in actually ensuring that people stay famous (often the pictures they get are the results of well-placed leaks), but there is a line, and they constantly cross it. Especially in the UK.

[Minivanessa]

11 hours ago, mledawn said:

Henri Paul also wasn't a chauffeur and was apparently usually very particular about making sure a trained driver was assigned. Dodi and Diana were not planning on leaving the hotel, so he was off duty, drinking. Absolutely he should not have been driving - likely the rich guest son of the hotel's owner said jump, and he said how high.

 Dodi's father owned the Ritz.  And all those guys worked for Mr. Fayed's company, so you bet they did what Dodi wanted. 

[Umbelina]

So the latest rumors the Daily Mail and their ilk are trying to start are:

1. Harry made it a condition of his employment with Netflix that THE CROWN would not continue into Harry/William adult years.
2. Netflix will continue THE CROWN into the adult lives and marriages of William and Harry.

Honestly.  Peter Morgan has repeatedly said, from the beginning of this series until this very year that he has no intention of continuing the show to William or Harry's adult years, OR of even featuring them as teens.

These tabloids are exasperating, trying to stir up trouble every single way possible, especially with Harry.  It's pathetic.

ETA

Just saw something yesterday that said more people have watched The Crown wedding episodes than actually watched the real Diana/Charles wedding when it happened (on TV.)  The Crown has now also eclipsed THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT in total viewers as well, and is currently in the number 1 spot.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Umbelina

[Zella]

I posted this in The Royals thread over in the Everything Else forum and was encouraged to post it here too.

~~~~~

I don't find it surprising at all that the royal family didn't say anything about previous seasons of The Crown, but that they are almost desperate to register their complains about this one. I think several factors are at play. 

Disclaimer: I've only watched the first two seasons but have followed discussion of the last 2. 

I think The Firm is most vested in protecting the people on the throne or in direct line to be, so Elizabeth, Charles, and William. The seasons I watched, the most villainized characters were Margaret, Phillip, and The Mustaches. I don't think The Firm is going to complain about that because it deflects criticism from the people they want to protect. 

Also, the events covered were more history than recent events for most viewers. I watched the first season with my grandparents, and my grandpa (who is most decidedly not a fan of the royal family or monarchy--he's very proud of his ancestors kicking the British's ass at Kings Mountain LOL) brightened up a bit when he told me, "I remember when they made her queen! I was a little boy." Nobody else in the house remembered that. Now, they're delving into much more recent events that way more people are going to remember--and it's not just stuff like the coronation, where the focus is on the pomp and circumstance. The focus is on really ugly scandals that people are going to have definite opinions about. 

And the scandals involve the people The Firm is going to care about protecting. With season 3, I don't remember anyone saying they hated Charles. I remember most people saying they were surprised they felt sorry for him. Well, now with season 4, nobody's feeling sorry for Charles, and it's revived all the talk about Diana and Camilla and the shitshow that was. I mentioned this earlier, but I think The Firm is undoubtedly pleased that the media focus since Charles's remarriage has veered away from the scandals of the past, but that's not happening anymore. And if anything, we seem to be on a wave of more Diana in pop culture, so they know this isn't going away for them. 

And on top of all this, when the last season of The Crown dropped, Harry and Meghan were still members of the royal family. Meghan's interview where she confessed she was struggling dropped about a month before season 3 did, but I don't think season 3 directly dealt with things that were so pertinent to her situation, so I don't think a lot of chatter was centered around that. But when season 4 drops about Diana's struggles inside the family, people who otherwise may not have followed any of this are now looking at the Harry and Meghan exit like 👀. The comparisons to Diana are inevitable, and the royal family doesn't emerge looking good from that--and they can't even blame it on the likes of Margaret or Phillip.

I think the royal family is making the whole situation worse by reacting the way they are, but I totally get why this is enraging them in a way the other seasons didn't. I think they're, quite frankly, frightened about the potential for public opinion to really sour on them over the whole thing, right when they were thinking that maybe the vast majority of people had if not accepted Charles and Camilla were willing to tolerate them. And as a result, they're lashing out because they know they can't really defend Charles. He was a complete dick! 

[Guest]

On 11/25/2020 at 7:54 AM, Growsonwalls said:

Back when Meghan and Harry still had an instagram account, it was a big deal when @sussexroyal and @kensingtonroyal unfollowed each other.

The media try to spin this as a Kate vs Meghan thing but @sussexroyal unfollowed everyone monthly. They were using their account to spotlight a different causes every month and only followed accounts that fit the cause. @kensingtonroyal never unfollowed the Sussex account. 

[Umbelina]

Camilla and Charles have shut down comments on their website (and twitter.)  Apparently it's been vicious.  

[AZChristian]

To be honest, I had never heard of Captain James Hewitt (one of Diana's confirmed lovers) until Season 4.  So I went Googling.  Here's a picture . . . next to a picture of Harry at about the same age.  All I'm going to say is that my jaw dropped.

[Dejana]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

I posted this in The Royals thread over in the Everything Else forum and was encouraged to post it here too.

~~~~~

I don't find it surprising at all that the royal family didn't say anything about previous seasons of The Crown, but that they are almost desperate to register their complains about this one. I think several factors are at play. 

Disclaimer: I've only watched the first two seasons but have followed discussion of the last 2. 

I think The Firm is most vested in protecting the people on the throne or in direct line to be, so Elizabeth, Charles, and William. The seasons I watched, the most villainized characters were Margaret, Phillip, and The Mustaches. I don't think The Firm is going to complain about that because it deflects criticism from the people they want to protect. 

Also, the events covered were more history than recent events for most viewers. I watched the first season with my grandparents, and my grandpa (who is most decidedly not a fan of the royal family or monarchy--he's very proud of his ancestors kicking the British's ass at Kings Mountain LOL) brightened up a bit when he told me, "I remember when they made her queen! I was a little boy." Nobody else in the house remembered that. Now, they're delving into much more recent events that way more people are going to remember--and it's not just stuff like the coronation, where the focus is on the pomp and circumstance. The focus is on really ugly scandals that people are going to have definite opinions about. 

And the scandals involve the people The Firm is going to care about protecting. With season 3, I don't remember anyone saying they hated Charles. I remember most people saying they were surprised they felt sorry for him. Well, now with season 4, nobody's feeling sorry for Charles, and it's revived all the talk about Diana and Camilla and the shitshow that was. I mentioned this earlier, but I think The Firm is undoubtedly pleased that the media focus since Charles's remarriage has veered away from the scandals of the past, but that's not happening anymore. And if anything, we seem to be on a wave of more Diana in pop culture, so they know this isn't going away for them. 

And on top of all this, when the last season of The Crown dropped, Harry and Meghan were still members of the royal family. Meghan's interview where she confessed she was struggling dropped about a month before season 3 did, but I don't think season 3 directly dealt with things that were so pertinent to her situation, so I don't think a lot of chatter was centered around that. But when season 4 drops about Diana's struggles inside the family, people who otherwise may not have followed any of this are now looking at the Harry and Meghan exit like 👀. The comparisons to Diana are inevitable, and the royal family doesn't emerge looking good from that--and they can't even blame it on the likes of Margaret or Phillip.

I think the royal family is making the whole situation worse by reacting the way they are, but I totally get why this is enraging them in a way the other seasons didn't. I think they're, quite frankly, frightened about the potential for public opinion to really sour on them over the whole thing, right when they were thinking that maybe the vast majority of people had if not accepted Charles and Camilla were willing to tolerate them. And as a result, they're lashing out because they know they can't really defend Charles. He was a complete dick! 

Definitely, seeing the 1980s rehashed dredges up a lot of fresh anger for people who watched it unfold the first time. I also think a not-small share of the social media outrage happening now is from people too young to remember Charles/Diana when it happened, or they started paying attention to the Royals when Kate or Meghan married into the family. They might know that Charles was in love with Camilla but married Diana, there was a public, bitter divorce and Diana died when William and Harry were young. Seeing it play out, how 32-year-old Charles was still emotionally involved with Camilla and wanted her to be friends with his 19-year-old fiancée...this is a generation that cares about age gaps and power dynamics in relationships, so the particulars of Diana/Charles/Camilla are going to go over especially badly with the younger set.

I cannot count how many tweets I've seen from people who cannot believe Charles really said, "Whatever in love means," during his engagement interview, and thought the writers had to have made that part up. They are probably familiar with the William/Kate, Harry/Meghan engagement interviews and the notion of either prince: 1) being in his early 30s but engaged to a 19 year old, and 2) openly noncommittal about actually being in love with their future wife, on camera... To contemporary eyes, it would not only be an unfathomable PR disaster, but a terrible way to treat someone. It would get the guy "cancelled", at least temporarily. 

It's one thing to read about what really happened on a season in an article but another for viewers to see the real Charles saying, "Whatever in love means," or hearing Diana in her own voice, talking about this period of her life. It greatly undercuts all the protests that the show is fiction. It is, but no more than any previous season and before, it felt like we could go five minutes without being constantly reminded that what we are watching isn't real.

I bet Season 5 will show a less flattering side to Diana, but to some, whatever she did later is a result of how Charles (and Camilla) treated her first. Is that the entire truth? Is it fair to Charles and Camilla? Maybe not, but the people looking at the Charles/Diana marriage from a fresh perspective in the 2020s might not be in the mood to handwave how it played out as things being different then, and let's let bygone be bygones.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Dejana

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Definitely, seeing the 1980s rehashed dredging up a lot of fresh anger for people who watched it unfold the first time. I also think a not-small share of the social media outrage happening now is from people too young to remember Charles/Diana when it happened, or they started paying attention to the Royals when Kate or Meghan married into the family. They might know that Charles was in love with Camilla but married Diana, there was a public, bitter divorce and Diana died when William and Harry were young. Seeing it play out, how 32-year-old Charles was still emotionally involved with Camilla and wanted her to be friends with his 19-year-old fiancée...this is a generation that cares about age gaps and power dynamics in relationships, so the particulars of Diana/Charles/Camilla are going to go over especially badly with the younger set.

I cannot count how many tweets I've seen from people who cannot believe Charles really said, "Whatever in love means," during his engagement interview, and thought the writers had to have made that part up. They are probably familiar with the William/Kate, Harry/Meghan engagement interviews and the notion of either prince: 1) being in his early 30s but engaged to a 19 year old, and 2) openly noncommittal about actually being in love with their future wife, on camer... To contemporary eyes, it would not only be a unfathomable PR disaster, but a terrible way to treat someone. It would get the guy "cancelled", at least temporarily. 

It's one thing to read about what really happened on a season in an article but another for viewers to see the real Charles saying, "Whatever in love means," or hearing Diana in her own voice, talking about this period of her life. It greatly undercuts all the protests that the show is fiction. It is, but no more than any previous season and before, it felt like we could go five minutes without being constantly reminded that what we are watching isn't real.

I bet Season 5 will show a less flattering side to Diana, but to some, whatever she did later is a result of how Charles (and Camilla) treated her first. Is that the entire truth? Is it fair to Charles and Camilla? Maybe not, but the people looking at the Charles/Diana marriage from a fresh perspective in the 2020s might not be in the mood to handwave how it played out as things being different then, and let's let bygone be bygones.

Yes, I am actually sort of part of that group. I'm 31, so as a child in the 90s when this was all going down, I was vaguely aware that Charles and Diana had a nasty divorce, that there was an other woman, that Diana died, and that a lot of people disliked Charles, but that was all I had. Mainly, I just remember feeling very sorry for Harry and William because they were bit older than me, and as the child of a nasty parental divorce, I related to the general idea that it is an unpleasant thing to live through as a kid.

I like reading about history/current events, so I picked up enough details as a teen/young woman in the early 2000s to know basic details on how savage the whole thing, but it's nowhere near the same as being an adult at that time and watching it unravel in real time. 

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

To be honest, I had never heard of Captain James Hewitt (one of Diana's confirmed lovers) until Season 4.  So I went Googling.  Here's a picture . . . next to a picture of Harry at about the same age.  All I'm going to say is that my jaw dropped.

 

 

 

Conspiracy theories are scandalous and exciting (not to the people implicated, obviously), so they persist. I'm mildly surprised the theories haven't evolved to Philip somehow being Hewitt's father...

On the Squidgy tapes (recorded circa 1990), Diana worries about getting pregnant and references a soap opera where a woman has a baby resultung from an extramarital affair. I know people aren't always careful about these things, but I always thought that if she'd been down that road already and "gotten away with it," so to speak, she'd be on industrial/triple strength contraception going forward. There wasn't social media back then but the old-school press was plenty pervasive, and the risk of being caught was very high. The same people who insist the Firm murdered Diana don't seem to think they would have bumped off Harry Hewitt one way or another (obviously not advocating this!), and have arranged it in a way that made the Windsors sympathetic in the eyes in the public. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Dejana

[Conotocarious]

Young Prince Philip with a beard looks exactly like Harry.

Young James Hewitt has red hair and happens to be photographed at the same angle with the same expression as Prince Harry.

I’ve drawn many portraits and I have something of a knack for facial features. Harry is a Windsor. 

[Growsonwalls]

Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until 1986 and Harry was born in 1984 so ... no. Harry looks very Spencer with the red hair. 

In fact, he looks a lot like Diana's sister:

Edited November 28, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Umbelina]

19 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until 1986 and Harry was born in 1984 so ... no. Harry looks very Spencer with the red hair. 

In fact, he looks a lot like Diana's sister:

and very Charles with the early balding, in the same spot.

[swanpride]

I don't think that it matters. Harry will never take the throne anyway, so even if there is something to the rumor, who cares? He is the son of Charles and Diana in every sense which truly matters for a child.

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, Dejana said:

It's one thing to read about what really happened on a season in an article but another for viewers to see the real Charles saying, "Whatever in love means," or hearing Diana in her own voice, talking about this period of her life. It greatly undercuts all the protests that the show is fiction.

Then those people doesn't understand the nature of fiction at all. Nor how unreliable memory and memoirs are.

 

[Mellowyellow]

Anyone have goss on what happened after the divorce? Did their relationship calm down? Were they just civil? I assume they would still need to discuss the children etc

[Roseanna]

47 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

Anyone have goss on what happened after the divorce? Did their relationship calm down? Were they just civil? I assume they would still need to discuss the children etc

Diana repented at least one thing; she had presented Charles as a bad father which she knew was a lie. 

They had always agreed about their sons' upbringing and education.