Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[merylinkid]

4 hours 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

Not really.   Diana always made sure she was photographed with the boys to show she was a good mother.   She still involved the boys in her personal life waaaaay toooo much.   They would shout out the windows from Kensington Palace where she resided "Leave our Mum alone."   there was also that summer.   She had the boys with her on Dodi's yacht.   They were photographed jet skiing and doing other things.   There were also rumors that she would schedule things with the boys and then when Charles would want time with them say "oh darn already scheduled and told the press the boys would be there."   So Charles would be at his events alone while Diana is with the boys, making him out to be an absentee father.

Also remember they separated in 1992 but were not divorced until  July 1996.    There was a LOT of arguing in those 4 years about what would happen with the boys after that.   Diana only had a little over 1 year of life post divorce.

[Dejana]

 

7 hours 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

Princess Diana Confessed That She Would Have Gone Back to Prince Charles "In a Heartbeat"

 

Quote

According to royal biographer Tina Brown, author of The Diana Chronicles, the late royal confessed to her during a meeting that summer that she would have gone back to Charles "in a heartbeat," if he had been interested.

In a recent interview with The Telegraph, Brown explained:

"At the end of Diana's life, she and Charles were on the best terms they'd been for a very long time. Charles got into the habit of dropping in on her at Kensington Palace and they would have tea and a sort of rueful exchange. They even had some laughs together.

It was definitely calming down, the boys were older. They talked about their philanthropies. And she had accepted Camilla [Parker Bowles]. One thing she had finally done was really understand that Camilla was the love of his life, and there was just nothing she could do about it. But she said to me at that lunch that she would go back to Charles in a heartbeat if he wanted her."

 

Princess Diana and Prince Charles Were Past the ‘Ugly Stage’ of Their Relationship at the Time of Her Death

 

Quote

 

“I think they were finally coming to find a common ground. It had been very difficult, very acrimonious,” CNN Royal Correspondent Victoria Arbiter tells Us Weekly in the September 3 episode of “Royally Us.” “I think just before she died she had really found her calling. She was excited for the future. She’d let go of the past.”

She adds, “Of course there were the still wobbles because it’s very difficult to coparent when you’re divorced and even more so on a public platform, but I think they had moved beyond the really ugly stage of that relationship and they were embracing what the future had in store for both of them."

 

[mledawn]

Those photos of Prince Phillip and Prince Harry are remarkable - I'd not seen those before. 

After the separation Diana did have a bit of a melt down about the new nanny and claimed the nanny was having an affair with Charles and had an abortion or some nonsense. It was embarrassingly bad on Diana's part but I can't remember if that was actually after the divorce itself. 

[Growsonwalls]

30 minutes ago, mledawn said:

Those photos of Prince Phillip and Prince Harry are remarkable - I'd not seen those before. 

After the separation Diana did have a bit of a melt down about the new nanny and claimed the nanny was having an affair with Charles and had an abortion or some nonsense. It was embarrassingly bad on Diana's part but I can't remember if that was actually after the divorce itself. 

The nanny was Tiggy Legg-Bourke and Diana became very jealous. Tiggy however remains close to both William and Harry.  She was at both William and Harry's weddings, Archie's christening, and is Archie's godmother:

[mledawn]

6 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

The nanny was Tiggy Legg-Bourke and Diana became very jealous. Tiggy however remains close to both William and Harry.  She was at both William and Harry's weddings, Archie's christening, and is Archie's godmother:

Embarrassingly enough for me, but those old white ladies look the same. I'm guessing Camilla is in front of Charles, but who are the other two (assuming one is Tiggy)?

[Growsonwalls]

18 minutes ago, mledawn said:

Embarrassingly enough for me, but those old white ladies look the same. I'm guessing Camilla is in front of Charles, but who are the other two (assuming one is Tiggy)?

I can't tell them apart but one is Tiggy and one is Diana's sister.

[bluphoenix451]

20 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I can't tell them apart but one is Tiggy and one is Diana's sister.

I think they are both Diana's sisters.

Edited November 29, 2020 by bluphoenix451

[Dejana]

18 minutes ago, bluphoenix451 said:

I think they are both Diana's sisters.

Yes, it's a family picture from Archie's christening that includes Diana's sisters Jane and Sarah. 

This is Tiggy nowadays:

 

In her younger days:

 

[PeterPirate]

On 11/27/2020 at 4:23 PM, 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.

 

On 11/27/2020 at 5:42 PM, Dejana said:

 

 

 

 

I think the explanation is this:  Diana had a fling with Hewitt because he looked like Philip.  

After all, whom did she "take" at her own wedding?  

Edited November 29, 2020 by PeterPirate

[Growsonwalls]

Princess Margaret also looks so much like Claire Foy (young Elizabeth):

[dubbel zout]

14 hours ago, bluphoenix451 said:

I think they are both Diana's sisters.

They are Diana's sisters, Jane and Sarah.

I don't think there is a public picture of Archie with all of his godparents, and that was one of the things Harry and Meghan got blasted by the press for. I'm not sure they even released who his godparents are.

[Growsonwalls]

One year when William was at boarding school he invited Tiggy to visit him for a weekend instead of Charles and Diana because they were fighting so much about who would get to visit. Heh. 

[Umbelina]

On 11/17/2020 at 5:40 PM, ruby24 said:

How exactly would William know what went on between his parents though? 

I've often wondered what the boys thought of all that, since so much of it played out in public. Has Charles ever insisted to his sons that he did love their mother at any point? They certainly know about his endless affair with Camilla. To marry the woman he spent his entire marriage to their mother cheating with is something else- I could not have ever forgiven that if I was them.

But is that how Charles explains royal marriages to them, that it's okay to have a mistress and it doesn't have to affect your marriage if the wife understands it (like what goes on with Kate and William, apparently?) 

I really do wonder about all that.

It always amazes me that people think children are too young to know, or to understand, or to feel chaos and fighting between their parents.

Kids almost ALWAYS know.  

[Growsonwalls]

I remember seeing the HBO special where Harry and William talked about that last summer. They were careful in how they chose their words but you could sense that they weren't that thrilled that Diana was spending so much time with Dodi. Harry said that his last convo with Diana was rather short. It seems he still feels guilt to this day.

Honestly, Dodi sounded like bad news from the word go. He was actually engaged to another woman and seemed to be a rich playboy. Don't think that relationship would have been long for the world had they lived.

[cambridgeguy]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

But is that how Charles explains royal marriages to them, that it's okay to have a mistress and it doesn't have to affect your marriage if the wife understands it (like what goes on with Kate and William, apparently?) 

I really do wonder about all that.

Well, according to the show isn't having an affair standard operating procedure?  I suppose if you raise your kids the traditional way and have your nannies do the heavy lifting it's easier to fake domestic bliss for 30 minutes a day

[Growsonwalls]

55 minutes ago, cambridgeguy said:

Well, according to the show isn't having an affair standard operating procedure?  I suppose if you raise your kids the traditional way and have your nannies do the heavy lifting it's easier to fake domestic bliss for 30 minutes a day

I don't think monogamy is the goal in royal marriages. As Elizabeth said in the second season, divorce isn't an option (or wasn't back then) so they have to find some way to make it work. 

Neither Charles nor Diana were monogamous. The marriage  could have still worked had they been compatible on any other level, but they weren't. The issue wasn't that Charles had a mistress and Diana had boyfriends, it was that they had NOTHING in common. They didn't even like the same music. 

[Roseanna]

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It always amazes me that people think children are too young to know, or to understand, or to feel chaos and fighting between their parents.

Kids almost ALWAYS know.  

Kids feel the atmosphere at home, but they can't know what happened what led to it (especially before they weren't even born).

Almost everyone who have researched his/her family have been surprised how much they did *not* know. 

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Kids feel the atmosphere at home, but they can't know what happened what led to it (especially before they weren't even born).

Almost everyone who have researched his/her family have been surprised how much they did *not* know. 

They know where there is tension between parents.  They know when there is fighting.  The most certainly know when a parent is upset.

[Roseanna]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They know where there is tension between parents.  They know when there is fighting.  The most certainly know when a parent is upset.

Yes, but they don't know *why*.

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, but they don't know *why*.

You would be surprised.  I've counselled many kids over the years, and had personal experience.  Kids know.

They may not know specifics such as "daddy has a small penis" but they know the feelings, and the discord.  

[Anothermi]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They know where there is tension between parents.  They know when there is fighting.  The most certainly know when a parent is upset.

And it's not infrequent that they process it as something they caused and carry a sense of guilt, responsibility and failure because of it.  It can also lead to responses that the adults just. don't. understand.

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

And it's not infrequent that they process it as something they caused and carry a sense of guilt, responsibility and failure because of it.  It can also lead to responses that the adults just. don't. understand.

Indeed.  They generally know when a parent is cheating as well.  Big ears overhear much more than parents realize.

[kwnyc]

Well, whatever you think of Meghan (and I'm seeing a certain amount of unconscious bias), she had the sense to marry the royal who had been to therapy. Thinking about the trauma of losing his mother at a young age, AND being a combat veteran, I'm glad he did something about it, rather than stiff-upper-lipping it like so many of his relatives.

And I think he will protect his wife and child with everything in him...and that includes getting away from the British tabs. As someone pointed out above, in Hollywood, they are solid B-list celebs.

Also, for the "gold digger" theorists, Markle didn't need to marry for money. As the regular on a long-running TV show (with residuals), if she managed her money well, she wouldn't have to do anything else, unless she wanted to. And she was raised to be a feminist, which is not really something the royals are familiar with! 

 

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, kwnyc said:

Well, whatever you think of Meghan (and I'm seeing a certain amount of unconscious bias), she had the sense to marry the royal who had been to therapy. Thinking about the trauma of losing his mother at a young age, AND being a combat veteran, I'm glad he did something about it, rather than stiff-upper-lipping it like so many of his relatives.

And I think he will protect his wife and child with everything in him...and that includes getting away from the British tabs. As someone pointed out above, in Hollywood, they are solid B-list celebs.

Also, for the "gold digger" theorists, Markle didn't need to marry for money. As the regular on a long-running TV show (with residuals), if she managed her money well, she wouldn't have to do anything else, unless she wanted to. And she was raised to be a feminist, which is not really something the royals are familiar with! 

 

That, and a feminist who has a long history of working with charities, something I'm sure Harry respects and it also fits in with his future wishes to continue with that.

I didn't watch her show (at all) and have never heard of her before, but I've since seen a few things about her before she met Harry, and afterwards, and I think she's the real deal.

Sad about the miscarriage, and I saw that people are even criticizing her for admitting that.  She, like Diana, can't win with those people.

[qtpye]

On 11/28/2020 at 1:23 PM, Dejana said:

 

Princess Diana Confessed That She Would Have Gone Back to Prince Charles "In a Heartbeat"

 

 

Princess Diana and Prince Charles Were Past the ‘Ugly Stage’ of Their Relationship at the Time of Her Death

 

 

The thing is that Charles could have had Diana as his wife and Camilla as his mistress if he handled it a little better (not that I am condoning that sort of thing). If he had given her some respect and love, instead of jealousy and harshness.

I am not surprised that she would go back to him. Her tragedy is that all the world love her but her husband. She was always in love with him or what she "thought" he was. If Charles had been more savvy with this 19 year old he could have had his cake and eaten it, too.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, qtpye said:

The thing is that Charles could have had Diana as his wife and Camilla as his mistress if he handled it a little better (not that I am condoning that sort of thing). If he had given her some respect and love, instead of jealousy and harshness.

I am not surprised that she would go back to him. Her tragedy is that all the world love her but her husband. She was always in love with him or what she "thought" he was. If Charles had been more savvy with this 19 year old he could have had his cake and eaten it, too.

You forget Diana's part: she had presented herself as a sweet and jolly girl who liked the country. When they married, none of this was true: she hated the country, Charles' hobbies and friends and behaved unpredictably. If Diana had concealed her jealousy or better still, had self-confidence enough not to feel it and instead think that what is past is past and continued to act like when they were dating, that would be the best tactics to win and keep Charles' love. But of course she couldn't because of her physical and mental problems.

That's not to say that Charles had his faults, too. But Diana's problems were so severe that no husband could heal them.

 

[qtpye]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

You forget Diana's part: she had presented herself as a sweet and jolly girl who liked the country. When they married, none of this was true: she hated the country, Charles' hobbies and friends and behaved unpredictably. If Diana had concealed her jealousy or better still, had self-confidence enough not to feel it and instead think that what is past is past and continued to act like when they were dating, that would be the best tactics to win and keep Charles' love. But of course she couldn't because of her physical and mental problems.

That's not to say that Charles had his faults, too. But Diana's problems were so severe that no husband could heal them.

 

I think the difference is that she genuinely wanted the marriage to work and she loved him. He felt she was thrust upon him because of duty and always resented that. If he had his way, he would have never married her in the first place...which ironically might have been better for both of them.

[merylinkid]

BOTH of them could have handled things much better.   If they had treated each other with just a modicum of respect, they could have managed a working partnership.  But BOTH of them were to self-centered and focused on what HE/SHE wanted to try to give a little to the other to make it work.   If they had, Diana might be alive today and enjoying her grandchildren.

[swanpride]

Who knows...the press always got crazy over Diana, the same accident might have happen anyway, but over another story hunting issue.

[qtpye]

3 hours ago, merylinkid said:

BOTH of them could have handled things much better.   If they had treated each other with just a modicum of respect, they could have managed a working partnership.  But BOTH of them were to self-centered and focused on what HE/SHE wanted to try to give a little to the other to make it work.   If they had, Diana might be alive today and enjoying her grandchildren.

Fair enough. There are always two people in a marriage (or maybe three) and both sides do have some blame for what happened. I do think she loved him (maybe more as the prince than for himself) and he never loved her.

She probably would have taken him back but I doubt if that sentiment was returned on his part.

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, qtpye said:

she genuinely wanted the marriage to work and she loved him.

Jealous scenes seldom make the marriage work. And love isn't a school-girl's fantasy.  

13 hours ago, merylinkid said:

BOTH of them could have handled things much better.   If they had treated each other with just a modicum of respect, they could have managed a working partnership.  But BOTH of them were to self-centered and focused on what HE/SHE wanted to try to give a little to the other to make it work. 

I agree, except there must not be just "a modicum of respect", but there must be much respect for respect means, inter alia, that one recognizes that the other is different than oneself and has a right to be such.

But there are also other aspects of lobe. Here is one way to present it:

First, passion (in latin "Eros") which in the worst case grows to mania. Second, love that helps and gives away (in Latin ”pragma”) and that in the best case grows to ”agape”. Third, friendship: it begins in play (in Latin”ludus”) and grows to friendship (”filia”). Fourth, esteem which begins in tolerance and an open attitude and grows to esteem and respect (in Greek ”timee”).

Edited December 1, 2020 by Roseanna
correcting grammar

[Growsonwalls]

I do think however that the BRF's expectation that everyone share their rugged outdoorsy hunting interests is annoying. Recently Prince George was taken on a hunting trip and to "toughen him up" he was apparently smeared with blood. Why? If he takes to hunting, fine. If he doesn't ... that's also fine. 

I think the extremely rigid rules about what are "proper" interests and what aren't might have led to some BRF members acting out in destructive ways. There's NO EXCUSE for Prince Andrew but during that interview his joyless recollection of endless "shooting parties" does make me get why many royal marriages failed and why Andrew developed a craving for cosmopolitan friends who could give him a different experience.

[Umbelina]

Has anyone else been seeing the endless UK Tabloids insisting that the show put warning labels on each episode?

It started small, but it's growing, and so ridiculous.  The general idea of it is that the British people are demanding warning labels on each episode that this show is FICTION, and to not take it as history, because it's insulting to the Royal Family, and specifically to Philip and Camilla.  They are treating it as if it's a growing movement by the people.

I am on Facebook, and if you've ever "liked" anything, or clicked on something about one of The Crown actors, or costumes, etc. your feed will fill up with this "story" they are trying to make happen.

Of course, no mention is made of the endless "historical dramas" about other notable families, or historical events.  How many movies have been made about the Kennedy family, or JFK's death, or astronauts, or countless other still living people?  I don't recall seeing "warning labels" on any of them, but apparently the British are such marshmallows that they NEED them?  Oh please, anything for headlines.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Umbelina

[PeterPirate]

25 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Has anyone else been seeing the endless UK Tabloids insisting that the show put warning labels on each episode?

It started small, but it's growing, and so ridiculous.  The general idea of it is that the British people are demanding warning labels on each episode that this show is FICTION, and to not take it as history, because it's insulting to the Royal Family, and specifically to Philip and Camilla.  They are treating it as if it's a growing movement by the people.

I am on Facebook, and if you've ever "liked" anything, or clicked on something about one of The Crown actors, or costumes, etc. your feed will fill up with this "story" they are trying to make happen.

Of course, no mention is made of the endless "historical dramas" about other notable families, or historical events.  How many movies have been made about the Kennedy family, or JFK's death, or astronauts, or countless other still living people?  I don't recall seeing "warning labels" on any of them, but apparently the British are such marshmallows that they NEED them?  Oh please, anything for headlines.

I really want to laugh at those Brits who think that way.  But then I have to remember that in my country we have half the population yelling at retail workers for telling them to wear face masks.  I think I'll just roll my eyes at both groups.  

[Ellaria]

20 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Has anyone else been seeing the endless UK Tabloids insisting that the show put warning labels on each episode?

It started small, but it's growing, and so ridiculous.  The general idea of it is that the British people are demanding warning labels on each episode that this show is FICTION, and to not take it as history, because it's insulting to the Royal Family, and specifically to Philip and Camilla.  They are treating it as if it's a growing movement by the people.

I am on Facebook, and if you've ever "liked" anything, or clicked on something about one of The Crown actors, or costumes, etc. your feed will fill up with this "story" they are trying to make happen.

Of course, no mention is made of the endless "historical dramas" about other notable families, or historical events.  How many movies have been made about the Kennedy family, or JFK's death, or astronauts, or countless other still living people?  I don't recall seeing "warning labels" on any of them, but apparently the British are such marshmallows that they NEED them?  Oh please, anything for headlines.

Completely agree. For that matter, no one needed to hold up a sign at the start of "Hamilton" to remind us that it wasn't a documentary.

Now, HBC is complaining. too. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/helena-bonham-carter-says-the-crown-has-moral-responsibility-to-tell-viewers-its-a-drama?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

A "moral responsibility!" Come on! How come she didn't say anything similar about "The Kings Speech?" Or about the contrasting portrayals of the Duke of Windsor in S2 vs S3? 

I'm not arguing about the authenticity of what we saw on screen. I am stating that The Crown is an elaborately produced TV show that dramatizes the life of the Royal Family. It isn't a documentary and never claimed to be one. I've watched actual documentaries on the Royal Family and some of them are quite damning. 

I'm not sure why they think that we are idiots and don't understand that what we are watching is entertainment. 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

28 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Has anyone else been seeing the endless UK Tabloids insisting that the show put warning labels on each episode?

It started small, but it's growing, and so ridiculous.  The general idea of it is that the British people are demanding warning labels on each episode that this show is FICTION, and to not take it as history, because it's insulting to the Royal Family, and specifically to Philip and Camilla.  They are treating it as if it's a growing movement by the people.

I am on Facebook, and if you've ever "liked" anything, or clicked on something about one of The Crown actors, or costumes, etc. your feed will fill up with this "story" they are trying to make happen.

Of course, no mention is made of the endless "historical dramas" about other notable families, or historical events.  How many movies have been made about the Kennedy family, or JFK's death, or astronauts, or countless other still living people?  I don't recall seeing "warning labels" on any of them, but apparently the British are such marshmallows that they NEED them?  Oh please, anything for headlines.

I have not ventured into the UK tabloid area of the internet, but I have seen where "people" are upset about season 4 and the show's portrayals of Chaz and Cam.  I personally find this ridiculous that somehow the first 3 seasons were okay enough for BP or Clarence House to stay silent, but now they must say something.  Also, it's 2020 where the vast majority of the English-speaking world is either quarantining or sheltering in place.  Every time a big new show drops on Netflix, social media is obsessed.  People are obsessed until the next big show drops.  We went from Tiger King in March, to Umbrella Academy in August, to Emily in Paris and The Haunting of Bly Manor in September, to The Queen's Gambit in October.  November belongs to The Crown before Bridgerton drops on 12/25.  They just need to shut up and ride this out.

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I really want to laugh at those Brits who think that way. 

Do they think that way?

I think this is just a made up "story" or possibly being promoted by those who desperately need the monarchy to continue.

If this is a real thing?  It's even more irritating.  I'm not going to link these stupid stories, but it's the usual suspects, Daily Mail, etc.  Google will bring up many of them, apparently they a posting new "demands" each day, so it must be selling papers.

5 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Completely agree. For that matter, no one needed to hold up a sign at the start of "Hamilton" to remind us that it wasn't a documentary.

Now, HBC is complaining. too. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/

news/helena-bonham-carter-says-the-crown-has-moral-responsibility-to-tell-viewers-its-a-drama?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

A "moral responsibility!" Come on! How come she didn't say anything similar about "The Kings Speech?" Or about the contrasting portrayals of the Duke of Windsor in S2 vs S3? 

I'm not arguing about the authenticity of what we saw on screen. I am stating that The Crown is an elaborately produced TV show that dramatizes the life of the Royal Family. It isn't a documentary and never claimed to be one. I've watched actual documentaries on the Royal Family and some of them are quite damning. 

I'm not sure why they think that we are idiots and don't understand that what we are watching is entertainment. 

 

Seriously!  

Oh shut up HBC.  Also this?  

Over the weekend, U.K. culture secretary Oliver Dowden called on Netflix to add a "health warning" making it clear that it was a drama.
"I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact," he told The Mail on Sunday.

from that same article.  Get a grip people.

Good lord, there are actual DOCUMENTARIES that have been out there for years, and no one bitched.  

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I have not ventured into the UK tabloid area of the internet, but I have seen where "people" are upset about season 4 and the show's portrayals of Chaz and Cam.  I personally find this ridiculous that somehow the first 3 seasons were okay enough for BP or Clarence House to stay silent, but now they must say something.  Also, it's 2020 where the vast majority of the English-speaking world is either quarantining or sheltering in place.  Every time a big new show drops on Netflix, social media is obsessed.  People are obsessed until the next big show drops.  We went from Tiger King in March, to Umbrella Academy in August, to Emily in Paris and The Haunting of Bly Manor in September, to The Queen's Gambit in October.  November belongs to The Crown before Bridgerton drops on 12/25.  They just need to shut up and ride this out.

I think it's the "firm" as Diana, Philip, and Fergie called them.  

QEII is bound to die relatively soon, and support for Charles is essential for the whole machine to continue.  Exposing Charles for the sniveling adulterer he is, after most of the furor has finally, carefully been tamped down by making Camilla more palatable or rather "sellable" is probably very frustrating.  There are after all, subjects who were too young to hear the tapes, and watch this whole sad deliberate farce by Charles take place.

Oh dang!  They are bringing it all up again!  Sending people to youtube and other documentaries to expose their meal tickets.  Everyone scramble!  

IMO, when she dies, Australia bolts right away.  The rest, especially the UK?  We shall see if they really want their quaint little Royal customs, when the option is Charles and his former partner in adultery, Camilla.  

[Ellaria]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

Seriously!  

Oh shut up HBC.  Also this?  

Over the weekend, U.K. culture secretary Oliver Dowden called on Netflix to add a "health warning" making it clear that it was a drama.

"I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact," he told The Mail on Sunday.

from that same article.  Get a grip people.

Good lord, there are actual DOCUMENTARIES that have been out there for years, and no one bitched.  

Yes, they need to get a grip. Or perhaps they should be thankful that The Crown presented Lord Mountbatten as a dignified elder statesman and ignored much of the "unsavory" (I'm being polite here) aspects of his life. No comments about the "Uncle Nazi" depiction of the Duke of Windsor in S2 who suddenly morphed into a misunderstood old man in S3. 

And then there is Andrew...

Let the official Royal biographers gild the lily. I don't need to be told that a TV show is a drama.

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Yes, they need to get a grip. Or perhaps they should be thankful that The Crown presented Lord Mountbatten as a dignified elder statesman and ignored much of the "unsavory" (I'm being polite here) aspects of his life. No comments about the "Uncle Nazi" depiction of the Duke of Windsor in S2 who suddenly morphed into a misunderstood old man in S3. 

And then there is Andrew...

Let the official Royal biographers gild the lily. I don't need to be told that a TV show is a drama.

Honestly, I hope this makes Peter Morgan double down, and stop pulling his punches.

[Arynm]

I agree this whole thing is getting out of hand, although I did get a chuckle out of one article I saw that had the title that went something like 'Everyone remembers that they hate Charles and Camilla."

If there are people out there that think this show is a documentary then they have bigger problems with reality other than this show.

I think when the Queen dies, everyone would have remembered that Charles is a piece of shit and Camilla isn't much better. The show has just shined that light a bit earlier on them.

Can't we just skip to Wills and Kate? They are much more palatable.

 

[ruby24]

Everyone knows it's fiction because watching it sends them to google/wiki/youtube to find more info on the real thing, lol.

And guess what? That stuff is basically confirming what they saw on the show. The Diana Netflix doc In Her Own Words? All the rest of them? Come on. 

They just don't like that this is reminding everyone and teaching a new generation how much they hate Charles and Camilla. Well, screw them. They deserve it, imo. Charles is an asshole. He was never personally popular, so the best thing he could have done to ensure the survival of the monarchy after Elizabeth died was to marry a woman the public adored and wanted to see as Queen. That was his best case scenario, and amazingly enough, that's exactly what he wound up with!

He should have embraced her popularity and used it to his own advantage instead of being the sniveling, spoiled, resentful little prick he was. Diana would have done anything for him, all he had to do was be nice to her- he probably could have even kept Camilla as mistress if he'd just shown her some love/affection and not rubbed it in her face. But he couldn't even do that! 

[qtpye]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Jealous scenes seldom make the marriage work. And love isn't a school-girl's fantasy.   

A 31 year old man can not meet the demands of a system he was literally born into...why should we expect a 19 year old girl to be so pragmatic?

And finding out that your fiancé is talking to a another woman and designing jewelry for her when he has ignored you for weeks is not a "jealous scene". I would have called off the marriage and that is what she should have done as well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Seriously!  

Oh shut up HBC.  Also this?  

Over the weekend, U.K. culture secretary Oliver Dowden called on Netflix to add a "health warning" making it clear that it was a drama.

"I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact," he told The Mail on Sunday.

from that same article.  Get a grip people.

Good lord, there are actual DOCUMENTARIES that have been out there for years, and no one bitched.  

I think it's the "firm" as Diana, Philip, and Fergie called them.  

QEII is bound to die relatively soon, and support for Charles is essential for the whole machine to continue.  Exposing Charles for the sniveling adulterer he is, after most of the furor has finally, carefully been tamped down by making Camilla more palatable or rather "sellable" is probably very frustrating.  There are after all, subjects who were too young to hear the tapes, and watch this whole sad deliberate farce by Charles take place.

Oh dang!  They are bringing it all up again!  Sending people to youtube and other documentaries to expose their meal tickets.  Everyone scramble!  

IMO, when she dies, Australia bolts right away.  The rest, especially the UK?  We shall see if they really want their quaint little Royal customs, when the option is Charles and his former partner in adultery, Camilla.  

Oh give me a foocking break! I actually thought the episodes that featured Diana's acts of bulimia didn't need that warning. As if I'm some weak-stomached pansy who can't handle such subjects.

And just to segue, and posting this here because I can't recall if you posted it here @Umbelina that you watched Diana: In her Own Words, that I also watched it last week some time, or maybe it was the weekend before Thanksgiving, but...[putting on flak helmet/vest], TeamDIANA here.

Yes, I was a tween when she married Charles, but I have a very good memory and I remember the announcement, wedding, births, the marriage imploding, etc. I wasn't obsessed with her; yes, she had flaws; she was human. But, TEAMDIANA.

I'll see myself out.

Edited December 2, 2020 by GHScorpiosRule

[qtpye]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Do they think that way?

I think this is just a made up "story" or possibly being promoted by those who desperately need the monarchy to continue.

If this is a real thing?  It's even more irritating.  I'm not going to link these stupid stories, but it's the usual suspects, Daily Mail, etc.  Google will bring up many of them, apparently they a posting new "demands" each day, so it must be selling papers.

Seriously!  

Oh shut up HBC.  Also this?  

Over the weekend, U.K. culture secretary Oliver Dowden called on Netflix to add a "health warning" making it clear that it was a drama.
"I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact," he told The Mail on Sunday.

from that same article.  Get a grip people.

Good lord, there are actual DOCUMENTARIES that have been out there for years, and no one bitched.  

I think it's the "firm" as Diana, Philip, and Fergie called them.  

QEII is bound to die relatively soon, and support for Charles is essential for the whole machine to continue.  Exposing Charles for the sniveling adulterer he is, after most of the furor has finally, carefully been tamped down by making Camilla more palatable or rather "sellable" is probably very frustrating.  There are after all, subjects who were too young to hear the tapes, and watch this whole sad deliberate farce by Charles take place.

Oh dang!  They are bringing it all up again!  Sending people to youtube and other documentaries to expose their meal tickets.  Everyone scramble!  

IMO, when she dies, Australia bolts right away.  The rest, especially the UK?  We shall see if they really want their quaint little Royal customs, when the option is Charles and his former partner in adultery, Camilla.  

I remember last season when they made Prince Charles look so sympathetic...I wonder why there was no outcry of  "this is all fiction" then.🙄

Edited December 2, 2020 by qtpye

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I remember last season when they made Prince Charles look so sympathetic...I wonder why there was no outcry of  "this is all fiction" then.🙄

Exactly.

This so-called uproar is all about Charles and Camilla, and that he is supposed to be King.

I really think the monarchy only lasted so long because of Elizabeth.  I've read the arguments about why people think it will survive the idea of Charles as King.  I think it's about fifty fifty odds frankly.

[Growsonwalls]

19 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Exactly.

This so-called uproar is all about Charles and Camilla, and that he is supposed to be King.

I really think the monarchy only lasted so long because of Elizabeth.  I've read the arguments about why people think it will survive the idea of Charles as King.  I think it's about fifty fifty odds frankly.

It's not about Charles being king. It's about the CROWN as this show reminds us. And British people are extremely attached to the idea of the CROWN, no matter who wears it. The British journalism/tabloid, tourism, and fashion industries also have a symbiotic relationship with royalty. 

I don't think they'll ever let go of the Crown. I think 100 years from now the Crown will still be there. Maybe by then they'll be allowed to eat shellfish and the women can go bare-legged. That's the only change I see happening.

[suomi]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I've read the arguments about why people think it will survive the idea of Charles as King.  I think it's about fifty fifty odds frankly.

Plus, add the factor of an incoming monarch at his advanced age. In the olden days the populace accepted what was served to them. I don't see that happening now. 

An old man who aspired to be his hag of a mistress's tampon while his young wife was binging and purging until she resembled a pipe cleaner, largely because of him/them? Nah.

Edited December 2, 2020 by suomi
typo

[Growsonwalls]

17 minutes ago, suomi said:

Plus, add the factor of an incoming monarch at his advanced age. In the olden days the populace accepted what was served to them. I don't see that happening now. 

An old man who aspired to be his hag of a mistress's tampon while his young wife was bringing and purging until she resembled a pipe cleaner, largely because of him/them? Nah.

By the time Charles becomes King, Diana will probably have been gone at least 25 years and counting. There's a whole generation of people that only know Diana from books and movies. 

As for Diana's bulimia, I think that all royal women basically can't eat. For one, they are never to be seen eating in public. They can't be seen chewing, and they HAVE to stay thin. I doubt Kate actually eats anything. That's why she's thinner than when she got married. And that's after three kids. 

[swanpride]

I don't hate Charles and Camilla. I am not invested enough in the royal family to hate everyone. I do hate the notion of privilege though.... 

[suomi]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

By the time Charles becomes King, Diana will probably have been gone at least 25 years and counting. There's a whole generation of people that only know Diana from books and movies.  

If not for the widely watched television series under discussion the part about only knowing Diana from books and movies would be true.

But The Crown is sending great numbers of today's youngest generation to the internet for background information. It's no longer necessary to read books like it previously was. These days an hour or even 30 minutes down a rabbit hole concisely  lays out the unfortunate set of incidents.  

Realistically, how much longer does QE Ii have? Another year or two, three? It's not like the next generation after this one will be the one deciding whether to retain the BRF. It will be up to the generation that is currently watching The Crown.

It says a lot that the pertinent social media accounts have disabled comments within a week of the series dropping. That speaks volumes about how delicately balanced this issue is and how easily the efforts of the PR machine over the last twenty years can be undone.