Speculation for Season Two of Feud: NOT Charles and Diana

[Mindthinkr]

2 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

So it wasn't her drunk driver?

I think at the time they also made a big deal of his having anti-depressants in his system as well. 

[sugarbaker design]

1 minute ago, Mindthinkr said:

I think at the time they also made a big deal of his having anti-depressants in his system as well. 

Definitely not a great mix when you're driving 80 mph on the streets of Paris, trying to elude people who want to take your picture.

[MadyGirl1987]

11 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

So it wasn't her drunk driver?

Oh, that definitely played a part as well.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Dear Abby and Ann Landers

I like that idea, and I like the idea of Tonya vs. Nancy too. The problem is neither pair really interacted with each other much. I supposed Esther and Pauline (Abby/Ann) did in the beginning, being sisters, but once they went separate ways their scenes would be apart from each other, like two concurrent stories rather than one. Nancy and Tonya only ever saw each other at skating competitions so their personal interaction was even more minimal.

Another one I'd be interested to see would be Elizabeth Arden vs. Helena Rubinstein.

Edited May 5, 2017 by iMonrey

[Spartan Girl]

I'm a little leery of them doing Charles and Diana. 

Look, I am well aware Diana was not a saint. I know she wasn't perfect and she had a dark side. But I cut her a lot of slack because of how young she was when she got married, and her needy insecurity would not have been helped by the fact that Charles was basically forced into marrying her. Can you imagine thinking you married Prince Charming and finding out he was really in love with someone else?  All that aside, Diana was a good mother and no matter what was going on in her personal life she helped a lot of people. She was the first member of the royal family to hug a child with AIDS.

As for Charles, I'm sure that he did care about her in his own way. At best, he was a spineless weenie and at worst he was a jerk. But while I don't know the man personally, it seems like he's grown up a little more now that he's with Camilla and being his own man.

So I hope the show doesn't go too over the top in portraying them. I can't imagine Will and Harry will like watching yet another portrayal of their parents' divorce. 

[qtpye]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:56 PM, Spartan Girl said:

I'm a little leery of them doing Charles and Diana. 

Look, I am well aware Diana was not a saint. I know she wasn't perfect and she had a dark side. But I cut her a lot of slack because of how young she was when she got married, and her needy insecurity would not have been helped by the fact that Charles was basically forced into marrying her. Can you imagine thinking you married Prince Charming and finding out he was really in love with someone else?  All that aside, Diana was a good mother and no matter what was going on in her personal life she helped a lot of people. She was the first member of the royal family to hug a child with AIDS.

As for Charles, I'm sure that he did care about her in his own way. At best, he was a spineless weenie and at worst he was a jerk. But while I don't know the man personally, it seems like he's grown up a little more now that he's with Camilla and being his own man.

So I hope the show doesn't go too over the top in portraying them. I can't imagine Will and Harry will like watching yet another portrayal of their parents' divorce. 

It really was a no win situation for both of them.  Charles seems happy and in a good place now...it is too bad that Diana never got the chance to move on from her marriage, but that was just a combination of bad judgement and luck.  She would have loved playing with her grandchildren.

[Mindthinkr]

4 minutes ago, qtpye said:

It really was a no win situation for both of them.  Charles seems happy and in a good place now...it is too bad that Diana never got the chance to move on from her marriage, but that was just a combination of bad judgement and luck.  She would have loved playing with her grandchildren.

While I would agree that she would have made a loving doting grandmother, I subscribe to the idea that the PTB were worried that if she remarried, she would have more children. I doubt the English throne would have liked their heirs sharing siblings with a different heritage, culture or religion (as in the case of Dodi who was a Muslim). 

[enoughcats]

This topic possibly could have stayed in Britain and done "All that Glitters" about the current horrific relationship between Anna Wintour (US Vogue) and  Tina Brown (who just got ousted from Vogue UK).  Bravo is bringing it on.

It will be interesting how they treat people who are still alive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4508354/Anna-Wintour-Tina-Brown-s-rivalry-Bravo-show.html

 

It will have to be kinder than the made for TV by BBC "Charles III" which some US PBS stations showed last night.  Hope there are a few actresses left who haven't played Diana or QEII yet.

[sugarbaker design]

16 hours ago, enoughcats said:

It will have to be kinder than the made for TV by BBC "Charles III"

I DVR'd it, watching it tonight, cannot wait!

[Sew Sumi]

CIII was rather disappointing.

[sugarbaker design]

Agreed, made it halfway through!  Ugh!

[rhys]

I didn't know Diana had an abortion. 

[psychoticstate]

On 4/30/2017 at 0:47 PM, SmithW6079 said:

I'm in agreement with a lot of folks here -- I think Diana has been deified without merit. I don't think Charles and the Royal Family are entirely the villains Diana supporters have made them out to be.

When people talk about how great William and Harry turned out -- well, that's their father's work. Diana may have set the path, but it was Charles who moved them through it. They were children when she died.

 

I don't think the Royal Family were villains but they had zero idea how to deal with Diana.  They didn't do a whole lot to help her acclimate (although she was certainly no walk in the park.)   They were born into the lifestyle and simply did not understand how a commoner, even a "Lady," could not just do her duty and accept the status quo, even if that meant her husband continued to do what he wanted after marriage and children or that her in-laws had zero sympathy with an eating disorder, PPD, etc.   

William and Harry were minors, yes, but William was 15 and Harry 13 when Diana died.  So she certainly did more than simply setting a path. 

On 4/30/2017 at 1:00 PM, Mindthinkr said:

@SmithW6079 I politely disagree. I think that it's because of the nurturing and love that Diana gave her boys when they were little that made them into the compassionate men they are today. Most royals were raised by nannys and rarely given an audience by their parents for hours on end. I can still see the photographs of William and Harry on a roller coaster with her in my mind. She changed the way that heirs were raised and defied certain traditions. In a lot of ways that's why William and Kate have also changed up things and become more hands on parents with their children George and Charlotte. I'll give you that Charles made sure that they had a proper upbringing but warmth would not have been his strong point. He was aloof as a parent. He would have taught them skills, protocol and duty. Also good on him for not standing in the ways of his son's continuing to honor their mother's memory and still working on her favorite charities. I am by no means trying to disparage Prince Charles but I am sure that Diana had a bigger impact on those boys than you might have supposed. 

To be fair to Charles, he was far more tactile and involved than royal father up to that time. He reportedly joined in on bath time with William and helped to change diapers.  I think his relatively cold and formal upbringing had a large effect on him and he wanted to spare his children that.  

I don't think he was as "ride or die" as Diana could be but I also don't think he was the unfeeling monster the press at the time liked to paint him as when they were choosing sides between Charles and Diana.

I think Diana was a warm, affectionate mother who did her sons a huge service by being so and by insisting they be treated like other children (i.e., making them stand in line, giving them money to buy candy at the store, taking them to water parks and McDonald's, etc.).  I also think she did right by them in her efforts to show them that the majority of people did not live like they did.  

On the other side of that coin, Diana could be petty and childish herself and she was very unfair to William when she talked to him about her marriage issues as if he were her contemporary. 

It's ironic that the best parts of Charles and the best parts of Diana would have made them a wonderful team, as well as wonderful parents acting together  if both could have gotten out of their own way. 

On 5/2/2017 at 7:22 AM, SunnyBeBe said:

I really never did understand her being with Dodi though.  That totally escapes me and I just can barely fathom them together.  I'd like some perspective on that.  

Dodi was nothing more, or less, than a summer fling. I believe she was trying to make Hasnat Khan jealous while also soothing her wounded ego.  Dodi heaped a lot of attention on her and spoiled her.  Also, unlike Dr. Khan, he was thrilled to be seen with her and courted the attention.  

If the accident had not happened, I don't doubt that it would have fizzled out once the summer ended.  It was no great romance, despite what the media was pushing at the time. 

[SunnyBeBe]

17 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I don't think the Royal Family were villains but they had zero idea how to deal with Diana.  They didn't do a whole lot to help her acclimate (although she was certainly no walk in the park.)   They were born into the lifestyle and simply did not understand how a commoner, even a "Lady," could not just do her duty and accept the status quo, even if that meant her husband continued to do what he wanted after marriage and children or that her in-laws had zero sympathy with an eating disorder, PPD, etc.   

William and Harry were minors, yes, but William was 15 and Harry 13 when Diana died.  So she certainly did more than simply setting a path. 

To be fair to Charles, he was far more tactile and involved than royal father up to that time. He reportedly joined in on bath time with William and helped to change diapers.  I think his relatively cold and formal upbringing had a large effect on him and he wanted to spare his children that.  

I don't think he was as "ride or die" as Diana could be but I also don't think he was the unfeeling monster the press at the time liked to paint him as when they were choosing sides between Charles and Diana.

I think Diana was a warm, affectionate mother who did her sons a huge service by being so and by insisting they be treated like other children (i.e., making them stand in line, giving them money to buy candy at the store, taking them to water parks and McDonald's, etc.).  I also think she did right by them in her efforts to show them that the majority of people did not live like they did.  

On the other side of that coin, Diana could be petty and childish herself and she was very unfair to William when she talked to him about her marriage issues as if he were her contemporary. 

It's ironic that the best parts of Charles and the best parts of Diana would have made them a wonderful team, as well as wonderful parents acting together  if both could have gotten out of their own way. 

Dodi was nothing more, or less, than a summer fling. I believe she was trying to make Hasnat Khan jealous while also soothing her wounded ego.  Dodi heaped a lot of attention on her and spoiled her.  Also, unlike Dr. Khan, he was thrilled to be seen with her and courted the attention.  

If the accident had not happened, I don't doubt that it would have fizzled out once the summer ended.  It was no great romance, despite what the media was pushing at the time. 

Ref. Boldface

I can't even fathom a fling, a date or even a phone call.  I just never did get it at all.  Maybe, I'm totally out of the loop on this, but, they seemed so completely different.  I guess that she and I thought very differently.  He always seemed like a father figure to me.

Was the photo of Diana taken after the accident, but, before she died, ever released, other than in that documentary? 

Edited May 25, 2017 by SunnyBeBe

[Arynm]

7 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Was the photo of Diana taken after the accident, but, before she died, ever released, other than in that documentary? 

I remember watching a show back then that said they were going to show the picture. I want to say it was Maury or Arsenio or something like that. Anyway, the host said he was going to show the picture and his panel of people walked out because they were morally against seeing the picture. Then the host turned to the TV and yelled at us for watching the show expecting to see the picture. I remember being so pissed that they turned on their audience to shame them. The whole stunt seemed so petty that I still remember it vividly.

I have no idea if they have ever shown the picture, but I have a morbid wish to see it, if only because that ass tried to shame me.

[SunnyBeBe]

7 hours ago, Arynm said:

I remember watching a show back then that said they were going to show the picture. I want to say it was Maury or Arsenio or something like that. Anyway, the host said he was going to show the picture and his panel of people walked out because they were morally against seeing the picture. Then the host turned to the TV and yelled at us for watching the show expecting to see the picture. I remember being so pissed that they turned on their audience to shame them. The whole stunt seemed so petty that I still remember it vividly.

I have no idea if they have ever shown the picture, but I have a morbid wish to see it, if only because that ass tried to shame me.

OMG. That sounds really bizarre.  I never heard of that.  

I read an article about it being in a documentary that played at the Cannes film festival, but, that was back in 2011, I think.  I wasn't sure if it is only available by seeing that movie.  Not that I want to see it. I'm like you and just have a curiosity.  It likely doesn't reveal much.  I do wonder how much of her death this series will cover, if any.  

[enoughcats]

Andrew Morton is re-releasing his Diana book based on many, many hours of her recording her life as she saw it.

The Daily Mail has a large excerpt here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4589960/How-Diana-secretly-recorded-hours-tapes.html

[mbutterfly]

On 5/25/2017 at 3:26 PM, psychoticstate said:

I don't think the Royal Family were villains but they had zero idea how to deal with Diana.  They didn't do a whole lot to help her acclimate (although she was certainly no walk in the park.)   They were born into the lifestyle and simply did not understand how a commoner, even a "Lady," could not just do her duty and accept the status quo, even if that meant her husband continued to do what he wanted after marriage and children or that her in-laws had zero sympathy with an eating disorder, PPD, etc.   

William and Harry were minors, yes, but William was 15 and Harry 13 when Diana died.  So she certainly did more than simply setting a path. 

To be fair to Charles, he was far more tactile and involved than royal father up to that time. He reportedly joined in on bath time with William and helped to change diapers.  I think his relatively cold and formal upbringing had a large effect on him and he wanted to spare his children that.  

I don't think he was as "ride or die" as Diana could be but I also don't think he was the unfeeling monster the press at the time liked to paint him as when they were choosing sides between Charles and Diana.

I think Diana was a warm, affectionate mother who did her sons a huge service by being so and by insisting they be treated like other children (i.e., making them stand in line, giving them money to buy candy at the store, taking them to water parks and McDonald's, etc.).  I also think she did right by them in her efforts to show them that the majority of people did not live like they did.  

On the other side of that coin, Diana could be petty and childish herself and she was very unfair to William when she talked to him about her marriage issues as if he were her contemporary. 

It's ironic that the best parts of Charles and the best parts of Diana would have made them a wonderful team, as well as wonderful parents acting together  if both could have gotten out of their own way. 

Dodi was nothing more, or less, than a summer fling. I believe she was trying to make Hasnat Khan jealous while also soothing her wounded ego.  Dodi heaped a lot of attention on her and spoiled her.  Also, unlike Dr. Khan, he was thrilled to be seen with her and courted the attention.  

If the accident had not happened, I don't doubt that it would have fizzled out once the summer ended.  It was no great romance, despite what the media was pushing at the time. 

I believe it can be done well if the focus is upon the difficult situations of both Diana and Charles. Both seemed to be very good parents. Charles was with his boys also before Diana died though he had his royal responsibility and his naturalist stuff. I would like to see the show be sympathetic to both while still showing the bad or awkward decisions that often drove them into deeper trouble. 

[sugarbaker design]

On 5/25/2017 at 3:43 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

Maybe, I'm totally out of the loop on this, but, they seemed so completely different.  I guess that she and I thought very differently.  He always seemed like a father figure to me.

I thought they were the same age, so I looked it up, DF was 6 years her senior.

[enoughcats]

No mention of the Charles and Diana Feud being in production or even existing in this article on 
Ryan Murphy's new contract with Netflix.

 

http://deadline.com/2018/02/ryan-murphy-giant-overall-deal-with-netflix-1202287851/

[SmithW6079]

On 5/25/2017 at 3:26 PM, psychoticstate said:

I don't think the Royal Family were villains but they had zero idea how to deal with Diana.  They didn't do a whole lot to help her acclimate (although she was certainly no walk in the park.)   They were born into the lifestyle and simply did not understand how a commoner, even a "Lady," could not just do her duty and accept the status quo, even if that meant her husband continued to do what he wanted after marriage and children or that her in-laws had zero sympathy with an eating disorder, PPD, etc.   

 

Diana was a member of the nobility, not a "commoner." The earldom of Spencer was created in 1765, making the Spencers more "English" than the current royal family.

[TheGreenKnight]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:30 PM, enoughcats said:

No mention of the Charles and Diana Feud being in production or even existing in this article on 
Ryan Murphy's new contract with Netflix.

 

http://deadline.com/2018/02/ryan-murphy-giant-overall-deal-with-netflix-1202287851/

I wonder how this news will affect American Horror Story and Feud. Honestly, I wouldn't feel too bad if AHS ended since it hasn't been good for 2 seasons straight now (longer in other fans' opinions, I'm sure), but I'd have liked Feud to get a couple more seasons.

[enoughcats]

3 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

but I'd have liked Feud to get a couple more seasons.

In agreement.  There are many, many storied that could be told.  I wonder who owns the intellectual property "Feud" . 

How about Wallace Warfield Simpson and Elizabeth the Queen Mother? 

Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

The family Cullen (Texas oil money and really convoluted kinships)

Napoleons family (including the brother who married an American girl from ? Baltimore who ....read the books and whoever got to costume her...)

[Robert Lynch]

How about band feuds? Kiss, Jefferson Airplane, and Fleetwood Mac? I seen Duran Duran more than once with the original lineup back in 2004, plus having all the original Fab Five signature on the Astronaut CD before Andy Taylor broke up again with the band in 2006. Band feuds will be nice to include.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Robert Lynch

[movingtargetgal]

How about Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert?  They were rival film critics at two rival newspapers in Chicago.  The two were thrown together to star in a tv show where they talked about the movies.  Both behind the scenes and in front of the camera they argued about everything.  Their show became a major hit and remained on the air until Gene's death and Roger's illness.  Over the years they stopped being enemies and became friends.  They grew to love each other, however, they never stopped arguing about their true love, the movies.  

[Arynm]

So, this looks dead for now. I am not too upset, there are much better feuds to explore, maybe Ryan Murphy will get back to it eventually.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/feud-charles-diana-season-no-longer-active-at-fx-1132117

[MsTree]

I think Martin vs Lewis could be interesting.

[annzeepark914]

I can't believe they were going to cast Matthew Goode as Prince Charles (ol' jug ears).

[Mindthinkr]

1 hour ago, annzeepark914 said:

I can't believe they were going to cast Matthew Goode as Prince Charles (ol' jug ears).

I have to agree with you this. Was he going to wear elf ears? Sadly we will never know now that they aren’t going to go there.

I hope they do choose another feud. I’ve seen so many good suggestions on this thread. 

[TheGreenKnight]

Wow, I wouldn't have expected this to disappear while AHS gets 3 more seasons. Disappointing.

[methodwriter85]

I think with the lawsuit, FX/Netflix whatever doesn't want to deal with this show. The ratings weren't exactly stellar.

On 8/5/2018 at 2:45 PM, annzeepark914 said:

I can't believe they were going to cast Matthew Goode as Prince Charles (ol' jug ears).

I love Matthew Goode, but yeah. I would have loved Rosamund Pike, though.