Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Full trailer drops for The Crown Season 4

We get to see lots of Emma Corrin as Diana, as we hear her wedding day service from 1981 delivered in the creepy nasal voice of the officiant, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Robert Runcie), interspersed with shots of her happily dancing with Charles but also with him screaming at her.

Also lots of shots of Gillian Anderson as Margeret Thatcher (curtsying embarrassingly deeply to the queen, as Thatcher was said to always do)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13416 hours ago

yeah that voice sounds nasal and creepy alright, and probably stank of halitosis

by Anonymousreply 110/13/2020

Excellent! Looks like that old cunt Thatcher and Princess Margaret's deaths are in there. Diana's children, divorce and death must be next season. Diana and Charles look entirely believable.

Really looking forward to this. As much as love Olivia Colman - she's badly cast as the Queen. She looks/sounds nothing like Elizabeth. Claire Foy was perfect casting for the younger Elizabeth.

by Anonymousreply 210/13/2020

Posting the trailer would be good OP. It looks so good. I have chills. It looks like Diana and Charles will be epic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 310/13/2020

I did post it, r3. It's at the link. You just have to scroll down a little.

by Anonymousreply 410/13/2020

It's all good. I didn't see it, but I'm glad you posted it. I am so excited for this season. Last season was good, but this looks fantastic. She actress for Diana might be one of the best castings.

by Anonymousreply 510/13/2020

At first I thought that was supposed to be Fergie at the family gathering at Balmoral at :52 into it (at the right foregound), but I think that woman with the long red hair is instead playing Diana's sister Lady Jane Fellowes. Lady Jane married the queen's private secretary at the time, Sir Robin Fellowes, and Diana stayed with the two of them for her first visit Balmoral to meet the BRF since they got a grace-and-favor cottage on the estate.

by Anonymousreply 610/13/2020

Do many people still have that accent today? And what is it?

by Anonymousreply 710/13/2020

What we really want to know is if we get to see Josh O’Connor’s dong?

by Anonymousreply 810/13/2020

Is it me, or did the costumes look very cheap?

by Anonymousreply 910/13/2020

Just to tide you over in case The Crown doesn't deliver. He has such a nice dick.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1010/13/2020

[quote] Do many people still have that accent today?

No.

[quote] And what is it?

Pure pretentiousness.

by Anonymousreply 1110/13/2020

[quote] Excellent! Looks like that old cunt Thatcher and Princess Margaret's deaths are in there.

This season goes from 1979-1990. The funeral depicted is very probably Lord Mountbatten's (he was killed by IRA terrorists when they bombed his boat in 1979).

Princess Margaret died in 2002; seasons 5 & 6 will feature Lesley Manville as Princess Margaret in her final years.

Margaret Thatcher died only back in 2013. The series is not going up to Thatcher's death: the showrunner Peter Morgan has promised it will not go even as far up as William and Kate's wedding in 2011.

He has said explicitly he does not want to show Kate, Meghan, or Prince Andrew's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, so none of that is going to be depicted.

by Anonymousreply 1210/13/2020

Another problem with the casting is that Elizabeth was always prettier and more beautiful than Margaret. Yet the two Margarets in this series have been prettier and better looking than the two Elizabeths.

by Anonymousreply 1310/13/2020

[quote] Another problem with the casting is that Elizabeth was always prettier and more beautiful than Margaret.

Oh, good heavens no. The reverse is true.

The young Margaret (L) was always considered much prettier than Elizabeth (R).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1410/13/2020

Elizabeth and Margaret in the 1950s

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1510/13/2020

[quote] As much as love Olivia Colman - she's badly cast as the Queen. She looks/sounds nothing like Elizabeth. Claire Foy was perfect casting for the younger Elizabeth.

I also found this to be true. Love Olivia. But surprisingly found her ill-suited for this role. Claire was fantastic.

Thanks OP for the trailer. Something to look forward to in a year that’s been.....challenging.

by Anonymousreply 1610/13/2020

Yeah Margaret had softer features than her sister. Much prettier.

by Anonymousreply 1710/13/2020

It looks like they will be focusing much less on Margaret and Philip, which is a good thing. Margaret had great episodes last season, but she wasn't very interesting after she divorced Snowdon; and I thought the episode that focused on Philip and the moon landing was the dullest episode all last season. I wanted an entire episode devoted instead to Anne.

I'm not sure if there will be much for Anne to do this season: my guess is that it will be primarily about Diana and Charles, and the Queen and Margaret thatcher. I wonder if they'll even show Andrew's marriage to Fergie.

by Anonymousreply 1810/13/2020

I love Anne and the actress playing her.

by Anonymousreply 1910/13/2020

Dickie dies!

Diana ascends!

Margaret begins her reign of terror!

The show finally has the perfect cast AND juicy content...I hope it doesn't fuck things up.

by Anonymousreply 2010/13/2020

Olivia inherited the role after Clare had defined it, and in seasons in which the queen has settled into her position so they’re more about other people than Elizabeth.

Don’t get me wrong, I adore Clare’s performance.

by Anonymousreply 2110/13/2020

I actually like Olivia Coleman's world weary, jaded and over it all take on the Queen. Makes her seem much more human

by Anonymousreply 22Last Wednesday at 12:05 AM

I was in London when Thatcher died. "Ding dong the witch is dead" was graffitied all over Westminster area...Lol

by Anonymousreply 23Last Wednesday at 1:16 AM

I thought there were some odd choices made in season 3. It was much slower-paced than the previous two. There was no mention whatsoever of Captain Phillips, nor of the attempt to kidnap Princess Anne, yet there was an entire episode about Charles going to Cardiff to learn Welsh? Why?

by Anonymousreply 24Last Wednesday at 4:29 AM

I think both Coleman and HBC are miscast. HBC is so miscast that when I saw her in this trailer, I forgot for a moment who she was supposed to be playing.

That said, it still looks fantastic and the Diana actress looks amazing.

by Anonymousreply 25Last Wednesday at 4:33 AM

Agreed R25. I also had to think to remember who HBC was supposed to be. Both of them are superb actresses but they are woefully miscast in their roles in The Crown. Part of it is Elizabeth and Margaret had stunning HUGE blue eyes and HBC and OC both have very, very brown eyes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26Last Wednesday at 4:59 AM

I didn't realise Margaret's health problems started while she was still middle-aged. Not surprising, I suppose, given what a heavy smoker and drinker she was.

The moment at 0:52 when everyone, including the corgi on the Queen's lap, turns their heads cracked me up for some reason.

by Anonymousreply 27Last Wednesday at 5:00 AM

I loved that trailer; I'm eager to see how they portray Diana. Until I watched the trailer, I forgot how fierce the Diana-mania was.

by Anonymousreply 28Last Wednesday at 6:01 AM

I agree that the Philip moon landing episode last season was boring and pointless. It's ridiculous that Princess Anne didn't get an episode devoted to her, given the interesting things that happened to her in the 70s.

by Anonymousreply 29Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM

If they aren't going to show Kate, that probably means the show will end around the year 2000.

by Anonymousreply 30Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM

If they are going to end it around 2000, then Season 4 is going too fast. They should have had it cover 1977-1984, ending with the birth of Harry and the true breakdown in the Charles/Diana marriage (according to Diana). There's plenty of juicy stuff to cover there. Then, the next season could cover 1985-1992, ending with the fire at Windsor and the real tabloid storm over the Windsor marriages. The final season could cover 1993-2000.

Though really, the show should end in 2002 with the deaths of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mum, and the 50th anniversary of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne. William and Kate didn't become an item until that same year, so the show could ignore that OR show just a glimpse of William and Kate (that famous fashion show where he first noticed her). providing a brief window into the future of the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 31Last Wednesday at 7:16 AM

r18 I still don't understand their thought process behind skipping over Anne kidnapping attempt. That's high drama that would have been a great way to show off her character and it fits into the time frame of last season. Feels like the showrunner is more concerned about kissing the Royal Family's ass than actually telling a compelling story. Started so strong, but last season was a slog.

by Anonymousreply 32Last Wednesday at 7:49 AM

This is r32 again. I realize that I actually don't know the purpose of The Crown. What is the story that the show is trying to tell? Can anyone help me understand because they aren't going for the easy layups so I'm trying to understand the purpose of this wonderful show?

by Anonymousreply 33Last Wednesday at 8:01 AM

I’m not convinced by the Diana actress. Her face is like a kewpie doll. Hoping her acting carries it.

by Anonymousreply 34Last Wednesday at 8:14 AM

[quote]r14 Oh, good heavens no. The reverse is true. The young Margaret (L) was always considered much prettier than Elizabeth (R).

I disagree. I think Elizabeth has always been more beautiful. I'd be confounded to hear it if the consensus was that Margaret was deemed prettier.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35Last Wednesday at 8:17 AM

Margaret grew into her looks. She was not an attractive young woman until her 20s.

by Anonymousreply 36Last Wednesday at 8:20 AM

R31, I thought exactly the same thing. The Golden Jubilee is the natural endpoint, given that Margaret and the Queen Mum died shortly beforehand. Plus, although the producers have said Kate won't appear, they could reference the girl he's met at university in the final episode, which would give a sense of coming full-circle.

by Anonymousreply 37Last Wednesday at 8:28 AM

R33, the only reason I can see for skipping Anne's kidnapping is that they wanted to give Tobias Menzies another episode that centered on his character. Menzies is a very well known character actor, so he might have insisted on it in exchange for taking the part. The actress playing Anne, though fantastic in the role, is an unknown with little clout.

by Anonymousreply 38Last Wednesday at 8:28 AM

Margaret looks Mediterranean in those earlier photos. Was Cookie fooling around with the help?

by Anonymousreply 39Last Wednesday at 9:09 AM

Olivia Colman was terrible casting--they went for buzz over realism. Emily Watson would have been a much better choice. Also, Emily Watson looks like she could be Imelda Staunton's daughter, so the transition from Season 4 to 5 would have been seamless.

I don't know who would have been the right choice for middle-aged Margaret, but HBC was one of the worst choices they could have made. She was fine as the Queen Mum in the King's Speech, but she's no Margaret.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40Last Wednesday at 9:13 AM

R10 - Thank you so very much for that. Thirst quenched.

by Anonymousreply 41Last Wednesday at 9:14 AM

Can’t wait! But that narrator’s voice was hilariously horrible.

by Anonymousreply 42Last Wednesday at 9:21 AM

Minnie Driver would have been an interesting older Margaret. She doesn't look a lot like her, but I think she could have captured the character well. Better than HBC.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43Last Wednesday at 9:23 AM

I wonder if they’ll include the queen from YouTube who screamed when Di died. That was undoubtedly the scream heard around the world.

by Anonymousreply 44Last Wednesday at 9:26 AM

[quote] There was no mention whatsoever of Captain Phillips, nor of the attempt to kidnap Princess Anne, yet there was an entire episode about Charles going to Cardiff to learn Welsh? Why?

I have no explanation for why they left out Anne's marriage and kidnapping, but they did absolutely need to do an episode about the Investiture. it was the biggest royal event between the coronation and Charles's wedding to Diana in 1981 (it was bigger than either Anne's or Margaret's weddings in many ways, and received more international press). The angle they chose about Welsh calls for independence mirroring Charles's wishes from independence from his family was intelligent, and allowed them to show Charles's awkward character as a college student and the tension between himself and his mother.

That was probably the best episode last season (other than "Cri de Coeur," the Roddy Llewellyn episode).

by Anonymousreply 45Last Wednesday at 9:27 AM

[quote] What is the story that the show is trying to tell? Can anyone help me understand because they aren't going for the easy layups so I'm trying to understand the purpose of this wonderful show?

It's basic idea is to show what it's like to be the most famous person in the entire world and have an enormous national constitutional responsibility and a front-seat to the events of world history while simultaneously having no actual political power.

by Anonymousreply 46Last Wednesday at 9:29 AM

I liked the Welsh episode, and I agree that it was necessary. Of all the episodes last season, the most pointless one was definitely "Moondust."

by Anonymousreply 47Last Wednesday at 9:30 AM

I too didn't like "Moondust" or the one about the kids in the school. They were both a huge misses for me. Charles' episode was the best one of the season. If the show had started with this cast on S3, I think the show would have been a massive disappointment for Netflix. S1 & S2 stand strongly on their own and could have started this series. S3 was a mess of boredom and booze.

We also did not need an episode devoted to Margaret when we already covered her in S1 & S2. Elizabeth's children were already grown and warranted their own stories. Margaret's' life wasn't even that interesting by that point. She drank, fought, and fucked. Oh, poor dear.

by Anonymousreply 48Last Wednesday at 9:35 AM

The other issue with Moondust is that it's set in 1969, the same year as the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wales, so it doesn't even really show time progression. There is a huge time jump between Episode 9, set in 1972, and Episode 10, set in 1977. An Anne episode covering her marriage and attempted kidnapping (1973/74) would have made perfect sense.

by Anonymousreply 49Last Wednesday at 9:38 AM

I totally disagree about the Margaret episodes--she was the one who got the most tabloid action in the 1970s (in fact, the coverage of her relationship with Roddy Llewellyn set the standard for the tabloid saturation with the BRF in the 1980s), so she was important for covering the 70s. And they needed "Margaretology" to establish the marriage wasn't working (and also to show soem more interaction of the BRF with the White House--in fact, I was sorry Nixon did not make it into last season)

But I agree "Moondust" was boring. I agree it was probably in Menzies's contract that he got a big spotlight episode.

The other problem was the coup d'etat episode was also pretty boring, since it didn't ever come close to actually happening in real life, and had far too many scenes of Elizabeth relaxing in Kentucky with Porchey (her awesomely boring friend). But they needed to show Lord Mountbatten doing something last season to prepare the way for his death at the beginning of this season (which profoundly shook the royal family to its core, and was what prompted Charles to marry Diana in such a hurry), and the little scene at the end of it between Mountbatten and his sister Alice was one of the best things in the whole series.

by Anonymousreply 50Last Wednesday at 9:42 AM

Aberfan was a really heavy episode, but it's such a huge event from that time period that there's no way they could skip it.

"Moondust" had to be a sweetener for Menzies taking the part, one they were having a hard time casting (Hugh Laurie and Paul Bettany both turned it down). Otherwise, Phillip already had his spotlight episode with "Bubbikins," which is a much stronger episode overall.

by Anonymousreply 51Last Wednesday at 9:43 AM

If they really wanted to show Mountbatten doing something, they should have shown him encouraging Charles to fuck around, even keeping a slush fund to pay off lovers. All part of a plot to get Charles to wait until Mountbatten's own granddaughter, Amanda Knatchbull, was old enough to be marriageable age. That stuff really DID happen, and it had huge consequences on Charles' future.

by Anonymousreply 52Last Wednesday at 9:45 AM

Charles Dance as Mountbatten but didn't get enough to do. They should have saved him for the older Phillip in seasons 5 and 6.

by Anonymousreply 53Last Wednesday at 9:46 AM

[quote] If they really wanted to show Mountbatten doing something, they should have shown him encouraging Charles to fuck around,

They did. He was encouraging Charles to fuck around with Camilla until he found to his horror that Charles had fallen in love with her and the Queen mother considered her unsuitable.

by Anonymousreply 54Last Wednesday at 9:48 AM

Yes, but they could have done more with Mountbatten as Charles's mentor. He didn't just encourage Camilla, he encouraged other girlfriends as well. He's even the one who arranged for Charles to lose his virginity, and it really was all about strengthening the Mountbatten connection to the throne by having Charles marry Amanda. Having his nephew as the Queen's husband wasn't enough--he wanted his granddaughter to be Queen and his direct descendant to be heir to the throne. Perhaps that was too sensitive to show on TV, though.

by Anonymousreply 55Last Wednesday at 9:50 AM

OP that lavender color looks really good on Diana.

by Anonymousreply 56Last Wednesday at 9:51 AM

They had to do "Aberfan"--since the series is ultimately about Elizabeth II, she has said many times to her friends that the Aberfan tragedy (and her slow response to it) was one of the defining events of her life.

I don't think they really needed the first episode last season with the Queen and Philip finding out about Sir Anthony Blount being a Soviet spy, because they mostly covered the same ground Alan Bennett did in his well-known play "A Question of Attribution" (they even used Bennett's same idea about whether a misattributed Titian painting is what it claims to be or something else, and even used the same Titian painting in the royal collection). But they needed the first episode of the season to center somehow on the new actors playing the queen and Philip.

by Anonymousreply 57Last Wednesday at 9:53 AM

I also liked the "Dangling Man" episode about Charles's budding relationship with Camilla and the death of the Duke of Windsor. I confess i was really moved by the end of that episode thanks to Geraldine Chaplin's terrific performance--I never thought in my life I could feel sorry for the Duchess of Windsor. I also really liked that weird scene of Hirohito and his wife visiting the Windsors in Paris.

by Anonymousreply 58Last Wednesday at 9:55 AM

"Moondust" should have been replaced by the Anne episode, and "Coup" should have been replaced by an episode about the first Prince William, Charles' favorite cousin who died in a plane crash at an airshow in 1972. The crash would have been very dramatic, and they could have shown the effect the event had on Charles. They could even have brought in the fact that William's younger brother had to give up a promising architecture career to take up Royal duties, which would have resonated with Charles' own feelings of frustration and entrapment by Royal life. It which would have nicely bridged the Welsh episode and the first Camilla episode.

by Anonymousreply 59Last Wednesday at 9:57 AM

William of Gloucester himself had to give up an interesting career in the diplomatic service to take up Royal duties. He was also in love with a Jewish divorcee that his family didn't want him to marry. His issues would have served as really interesting foreshadowing for Charles' later problems. And, again, his history really happened as opposed to that "Coup" nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 60Last Wednesday at 10:00 AM

Basically, we all agree that Charles, Josh O'Connor, stole the show along with the actress playing Anne. Honestly, everyone else was a bore besides that Labour PM.

by Anonymousreply 61Last Wednesday at 10:05 AM

I recently re-watched the entire series, and I have to admit, while I adore Olivia Coleman, I also found her miscast. Her voice in that very first episode was positively jarring. Awful. Didn't like her interpretation at all. Claire Foy OTOH, was simply brilliant. I didn't like Vanessa Kirby's Margaret, but I adore Helena Bonham Carter.

by Anonymousreply 62Last Wednesday at 10:15 AM

[quote]Amanda Knatchbull

I certainly imagine she was in a hurry to get married.

by Anonymousreply 63Last Wednesday at 10:26 AM

I love HBC as Margaret: "BLINKIE, I'm SICK!" That was one of the funniest things of all in the whole show since it started.

I also like Olivia Colman as Elizabeth: whereas Claire Foy emphasized the young Elizabeth's curiosity and vulnerability, Colman emphasizes the middle-aged Elizabeth's coldness (especially to her son) and properness. But portrayals are very much in keeping with the real Elizabeth II.

The biggest problem I had with last season was the writing: they seemed to be in a revolving door, with too many old story ideas recycled from "the Queen" or previous seasons (Philip wants to modernize the BRF; Margaret feels unloved and neglected and without a role; the queen and Charles have to realize their constitutional role is too nothing, but at the same time the queen has to show her people she cares, which does not come naturally to her). Part of the reason for that is that not as much happened to the British royal family between Margaret's wedding and Charles's, but it is odd they avoided the kidnapping attempt since that was so interesting. I think the reason they avoided showing that and Anne's wedding was that they didn;t know how great the actress was going to be who plays Anne. I would also guess that since they have had a big wedding every season before (the queen's in season 1, Margaret's in season 2), and they knew they would have to have the biggest of all weddings for season 4, they avoided Anne's wedding to save money since depicting royal weddings are extremely expensive (they have to do CGI for the crowds outside and fill the cathedral with appropriately dressed extras).

by Anonymousreply 64Last Wednesday at 10:40 AM

This should be a much more exciting season. If Emma Corrin is any good at all, it should be fascinating, since we've never seen anything since "Charles and Diana: A Royal Wedding" (with DL favorite Olivia de Havilland as the Queen Mother!) that has dramatized onscreen the courtship and early married days of Charles and Diana that I can think of. And that was so hagiographic that it didn't show anything of what was really going on.

by Anonymousreply 65Last Wednesday at 10:43 AM

Charles will be much less sympathetic this season.

by Anonymousreply 66Last Wednesday at 10:53 AM

Josh O'Connor really did steal the show last season.

I can understand not having the budget for another big Royal wedding, but not showing Anne's kidnapping makes no sense at all.

by Anonymousreply 67Last Wednesday at 11:10 AM

Tom Byrne is playing Prince Andrew in Season 4. Do we know who is playing Fergie?

by Anonymousreply 68Last Wednesday at 11:16 AM

While awaiting the new season, is anyone put off by this trailer?

It’s dark. And the Archbishop narration....really necessary?

As someone else said, it’s straight out of a horror movie: The House on Hill Haunting.

by Anonymousreply 69Last Wednesday at 11:26 AM

That Archbishop's voice is creepy AF.

by Anonymousreply 70Last Wednesday at 11:37 AM

That's a recording of the actual archbishop at the 1981 wedding. Even then his voice seemed really ominous. He just spoke that way.

Clearly they want to up the drama quotient, which is why they're using that narration. It does make sense: Charles and Diana's marriage was incredibly harrowing until they decided to live apart (him in Highgrove and her in Kensington Palace). She was mentally ill, and he was unused to doing anything to really help anyone else since he had been surrounded in adult like with toadies and flatterers attending to his every whim. A woman with BPD and a man who is a total narcissist do not make for a happy marriage.

by Anonymousreply 71Last Wednesday at 11:56 AM

[quote] A woman with BPD and a man who is a total narcissist do not make for a happy marriage.

Ha. Switch the woman and man in that sentence and you’ve got a description of The Harkles.

That is a story in and of itself. An ongoing saga that is playing out currently. Surely there will be movies of the Harkles’ debacle....someday.

The ominous tone of the trailer would be fine almost any other year. But in 2020, would appreciate something SLIGHTLY less dark....

by Anonymousreply 72Last Wednesday at 12:04 PM

I read once that many successful relationships consist of a gardener (the tender) and the rose (the tended). And while it's possible to have a successful relationship with two gardeners, relationships with two roses never work out.

Charles and Diana were two roses in desperate search of a gardener. They tore at each other with all their thorns when the other refused to tend.

by Anonymousreply 73Last Wednesday at 12:13 PM

I think that in truly successful relationships r73, the roles of gardener and rose are freely exchanged as needed.

by Anonymousreply 74Last Wednesday at 12:17 PM

That would be ideal, but in my experience, there is usually one who tends more than the other.

Charles was looking for a woman who would cosset him and manage him the way that the Queen Mum did with George VI. Diana was clearly looking for an indulgent Daddy who would never abandon her like own father abandoned her emotionally after her parents' divorce.

Boy, were they both disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 75Last Wednesday at 12:20 PM

Goals: R74 ‘s experience.

by Anonymousreply 76Last Wednesday at 12:28 PM

The Windsor men are generally more attracted to tough-as-old-boots Camillas than insecure Dianas.

by Anonymousreply 77Last Wednesday at 12:41 PM

[quote] Charles was looking for a woman who would cosset him and manage him the way that the Queen Mum did with George VI.

Well, I doubt that was his actual model, because he was only three and a half when George VI died--I doubt he even really remembers his grandfather, or the relationship his grandfather had with the Queen Mother. But it is true he felt neglected by his own mother when he was growing up and really wanted someone to mother him, which is exactly what he got in Camilla.

When he married Diana, he was clearly mostly interested in her because she was from the right kind of aristocratic family his grandmother would approve of, and also because Diana had kept herself a virgin (which the Queen Mother and the court also insisted on back then). He was also enormously sexually attracted to her at first, if Diana's own words from the Andrew Morton book are any guide. But he really married her in desperation after his beloved Uncle Dickie (Lord Mountbatten) died--Charles had said he would marry by 30, but by 32 he was unmarried, and his parents were complaining to him about that--and his Uncle Dickie had told him he should marry an aristocratic virgin who would bear him healthy heirs. I think since Uncle Dickie did not have a happy marriage and was a great philanderer (as his own wife was), he did not stress to Charles that he needed to love his wife or remain faithful to her.

Charles did think he would have intellectual companionship from Diana if he trained her, which was somewhat insane, since she had not even finished a proper high school and had no interest in discussing ideas (she liked reading romantic novels by her stepgrandmother, Barbara Cartland). On their honeymoon Charles brought along the books of his mystic intellectual guru Laurens van der Post and asked Diana to read them with him so they could discuss van der Post's ideas at night--Diana said she had absolutely zero interest in them. I don't know if Charles still reads Van der Post, or if he ever got Camilla to read them with him (I would doubt it--I don't think she's much of a reader).

The sad thing is that Diana actually became later in the 1980s a devotee of New Age mysticism herself, and so by that time she and Charles would have had more to discuss--but by that point the marriage had broken down irrevocably.

by Anonymousreply 78Last Wednesday at 2:21 PM

R64, I hadn't really thought about the budget of filming a royal wedding. But they could have shown a brief scene where the Queen and Phillips were sitting late in the evening watching grainy TV footage of Anne and Phillips waving from the balcony, and commenting on what a day it was. Or even just referenced the fact that Anne was now married. It was odd that it wasn't mentioned at all.

by Anonymousreply 79Last Wednesday at 2:54 PM

I really liked the Labour PM, Harold Wilson’s meeting with the queen. The actor who played him does a lot of comedy roles and I thought he would be too lightweight but that scene was very moving.

by Anonymousreply 80Last Wednesday at 4:36 PM

"Kate, Meghan, or Prince Andrew's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein"

R12- What involvement did Markle and Kate have?

by Anonymousreply 81Last Wednesday at 4:59 PM

I was disappointed that last season didn't acknowledge the punk scene even in passing. 'God Save the Queen' was pretty scandalous at the time.

by Anonymousreply 82Last Wednesday at 5:20 PM

[quote] I was disappointed that last season didn't acknowledge the punk scene even in passing. 'God Save the Queen' was pretty scandalous at the time.

I was disappointed in last season full-stop. As another poster stated, if Netflix had rolled out Season 3 without Seasons 1 or 2 before it, I don’t believe it would have achieved much attention or accolades.

There seems to be some question of the stories they chose to portray in S3; as much of subjects which seemed less story-worthy seemed to get attention. Also, as another commentator stated, the writing seemed really poor in S3. At points, I found myself drifting during some episodes (like Philip’s “Moonshot”), whereas in S1 and S2 couldn’t seem to get enough of the series.

Am hopeful for Season 4. Both Charles and Diana may add something to the humdrum and dreary overtones of Olivia’s portrayal of Elizabeth. It will be interesting to see Elizabeth in Season 5: how she is portrayed and is perceived.

The trailer for S4 does appear foreboding. And as someone else noted, there’s been high drama in 2020. Some drama for S4 would be fine. But if it veers into heavy, oppressive drama, that may not go over well in this climate.

by Anonymousreply 83Last Wednesday at 9:16 PM

There is a scene at the end of the trailer where Charles looks like he is literally screaming at Diana. I can't wait. Agree, when they showed Margaret, it took me a few moments to register.

by Anonymousreply 84Last Wednesday at 9:46 PM

"Moondust" was very dull, but the fuller story behind Philip and his interest in space was a hell of a lot more interesting. He was apparently obsessed with the idea of UFOs and alien life. Radio 4 did a piece on it called "Britain's X-files" ages ago which included interviews with RAF officers who claim to have knowledge of Philip's attempts to speak to anyone in Britain who might have had an encounter. Been 15 years or so since I listened to it, but it made quite an impression at the time. Philip was a bit of a freak when it came to outer space.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 85Last Wednesday at 10:33 PM

More up-to-date on Philip's UFO obsession

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86Last Wednesday at 10:49 PM

One of the things that defined Diana was her style (which could be both iconic and horrifying). One thing I've noticed in promotion stills is that the wardrobe for "Diana" takes a lot of creative liberties in terms of colors and design. The show has faithfully reproduced items worn by Elizabeth II up to this point. Since Diana wore a lot of brand name designers I wonder if there are licensing issues at play.

by Anonymousreply 87Last Thursday at 12:52 AM

Diana's 'style' wasn't up to much, really. Her charisma was the striking thing. It shone out across cultures then, and now, across time. The clothes, in truth, really weren't that great.

by Anonymousreply 88Last Thursday at 2:29 AM

I would have liked Nixon to have appeared in series 3. Since we saw JFK and LBJ meet the royals, we should have seen him as well. Apparently he tried to set his daughter Tricia up with Prince Charles (and, as it happens, George W Bush).

by Anonymousreply 89Last Thursday at 3:23 AM

Season 3 might've been dull because there wasnt much going on in 70s for the royals. They did some important bits and could've done more with Anne. Thatcher and Diana should make for interesting stories.

by Anonymousreply 90Last Thursday at 3:48 AM

[quote] During the course of that research, Eade discovered not only that Prince Philip was a subscriber to the magazine Flying Saucer Review, but that he once sent his equerry, Sir Peter Horsley, “to meet an extraterrestrial humanoid at a house in Ealing.”

If I were an extraterrestrial humanoid, I'd be miffed if Prince Philip didn't even bother to meet me in person.

by Anonymousreply 91Last Thursday at 4:42 AM

Ealing is a dump. Why would an alien choose to live there?

by Anonymousreply 92Last Thursday at 4:46 AM

The replica of the Spencer tiara is completely out of proportion, as are most of the replica jewels on this show. It’s not that big, and in fact due to the sheer size of Diana’s gown and veil, and Diana’s height, it actually looked quite modest on her that day.

by Anonymousreply 93Last Thursday at 11:47 AM

[quote] Season 3 might've been dull because there wasnt much going on in 70s for the royals.

There was far more than they portrayed.

As others said, Anne (wedding/kidnapping/relationships/etc.), “God Save the Queen”, Nixon are just a few MORE interesting plot lines.

Heck, even spicing up ‘ole Philip’s interest in UFOs for that draining and droning moon episode might have helped.

Add that to a much different Elizabeth and the S3 was left wanting. Especially following seasons 1 and 2.

by Anonymousreply 94Last Thursday at 12:19 PM

My dad was disappointed that series three didn't feature England winning the World Cup (even though we're Scottish). I don't know how much mileage they could have got out of that, but he maintains they could have done something with it.

by Anonymousreply 95Last Thursday at 12:54 PM

[quote] My dad was disappointed that series three didn't feature England winning the World Cup (even though we're Scottish). I don't know how much mileage they could have got out of that, but he maintains they could have done something with it.

You should show him the "Mad Men" episode about that.

by Anonymousreply 96Last Thursday at 7:12 PM

R96 Is it with Lane?

by Anonymousreply 97Last Thursday at 7:14 PM

[quote] One of the things that defined Diana was her style (which could be both iconic and horrifying). One thing I've noticed in promotion stills is that the wardrobe for "Diana" takes a lot of creative liberties in terms of colors and design. The show has faithfully reproduced items worn by Elizabeth II up to this point. Since Diana wore a lot of brand name designers I wonder if there are licensing issues at play.

They couldn't even duplicate her wedding dress because it is still licensed to the owners.

by Anonymousreply 98Last Thursday at 7:15 PM

r97, yes. It's the fifth episode of the fifth season, and it's called "Signal 30."

by Anonymousreply 99Last Thursday at 7:16 PM

The whole Charles and Diana thing was a disaster from day one. Pity he wasn't allowed to marry Camilla because of the archaic standards of the time. She was considered and unsuitable match back when they were dating in the Seventies.

by Anonymousreply 100Last Thursday at 7:17 PM

According to wikipedia, this is the actress who will play Sarah Ferguson: Jessica Aquilina.

There's no word whether her part will be big or if she'll just be seen fleetingly, like Andrew and Edward were last season. My suspicion is the latter, or we would have heard more about her being cast.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101Last Thursday at 7:19 PM

R78 actually Camilla is an avid reader and is patron of such.

by Anonymousreply 102Last Thursday at 7:22 PM

Will they show Mountbatten molesting young boys?

by Anonymousreply 103Last Saturday at 12:21 PM

I've enjoyed The Crown.

by Anonymousreply 104Last Saturday at 12:24 PM

Count me in as another who was disappointed overall with season 3, though it did have some great episodes still, and the actors playing Charles and Anne were wonderful. I actually prefer Menzies as Philip as well. Probably because I'd rather fuck him than Matt Smith. But anyway...

I was so reluctant to watch this show at all, and only did by accident as my mother was watching it when I was visiting last Christmas. I was expecting to hate it but got hooked into it and watched the first two seasons in probably three days. Then watching the third season was just not the same. I love Coleman and HBC, but didn't love them as much in these roles and kinda wondered if it would've been possible to keep Foy and Kirby on for one more seasons, aged up slightly? I dunno, it just felt like the actors changed too soon.

The Moonshot episode was AWFUL for a show that is generally so good, I haven't felt the need to prop my eyes open quite like that for a long time. I also wasn't that impressed with the last episode being all about Margaret again. I loved seeing Princess Alice, but I wish they'd gone into her life even more, she was a fascinating woman - worth more than all the other royals put together.

As everyone else has said, why not the kidnapping attempt on Anne and Mark Phillips? Great drama there! Would've been one of the most interesting things to happen during season 3. Also, if season 4 is going to start around the time of Mountbatten dying, it's a real pity the show put no real effort during season 3 to show The Troubles more. That's kinda important.

Anyway, having said this, I'm pretty keen for the next season, it should be much more interesting just based on the whole Charles/Diana thing alone.

by Anonymousreply 105Last Saturday at 3:44 PM

When do we get to see the fire, I’m excited for that.

by Anonymousreply 106Last Saturday at 3:53 PM

But she had been anointed with holy oils!!!

by Anonymousreply 107Last Saturday at 4:06 PM

[quote]I love Coleman and HBC, but didn't love them as much in these roles and kinda wondered if it would've been possible to keep Foy and Kirby on for one more seasons, aged up slightly?

I definitely think they could have. HBC was way too old to be playing Margaret in the 60s when she was still relatively young and hip.

Since this season mostly took place between '65 and '72 (there's only one episode set in '77), they could have easily ended Season 4 in '72 and kept Smith, Kirby, and Foy. Season 4 could have started in 77 with Imelda Staunton playing Elizabeth. She'd have been about 10 years older than the character, but they could have made it work with lighting and costuming.

by Anonymousreply 108Last Saturday at 4:25 PM

In 1972, Elizabeth was 46. Claire Foy is 36. Margaret was 42. Vanessa Kirby is 32. Phillip was 50. Matt Smith is 37, the biggest stretch of the bunch. But aging 10-12 years is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That's what makeup and costuming are for, and a decade isn't so much of a cheat that the aging makeup would have looked unnatural.

by Anonymousreply 109Last Saturday at 4:30 PM

Good points R108 & R109.

Think keeping Clair and the S1/S2 team for S3 would have been the wiser move.

Olivia and HBC just did not seem to cut it. But without them, we wouldn’t have realised how well the early team played their roles.

And to add to others’ thoughts, I prefer Menzies as Philip to Matt Smith as well....so it’s not just about having an older team for S3. As much as I like Olivia, Elizabeth does not seem to be a role for her. And as others have stated, HBC does not meld into Margaret. HBC is too much of herself in this role.

by Anonymousreply 110Last Saturday at 5:28 PM

HBC looks more like Margaret than Kirby did

by Anonymousreply 111Last Saturday at 5:30 PM

I disagree r111 i think Kirby was a better Margaret overall. Natural likeness incl.

by Anonymousreply 112Last Saturday at 5:38 PM

LOL, Margaret never looked like Kirby

by Anonymousreply 113Last Saturday at 5:46 PM

Margaret in her 20s could be very pretty so Kirby worked. Also Kirby is less well known. With HBC, she is too good looking and too distinctive to play the older, frumpier Margaret. Olivia Coleman was good as the dowdy, mature queen who had finally settled into her role.

by Anonymousreply 114Last Sunday at 5:19 AM

Menzies just doesn't work for me as Prince Philip. I much preferred Matt Smith. Didn't like Vanessa Kirby as Margaret, Carter was very good because she is always very good, but she was too old for Margaret. Olivia Coleman was not a good ER2. Prince Charles and Princess Anne were the standouts in Season 3. Loved them.

As for Diana, and Charles, they were totally incompatible from the git. She was extremely young for her age with ridiculous expectations of marrying a Prince, particularly Charles, who she had been crushing on since she was a young adolescent. In fact her emotional age had to have been about 13. Charles was a wreck. Constantly trying to live up to his parents expectations, conscious of his DUTY as Heir, and emotionally torn because he truly did love Camilla, who seemed to have spurned him eventually, but felt like he had to do what was demanded of him.

Dick Mountbatten was a terrible role model. Dickie and Edwina had what could be politely called an open marriage. Both hardly passed a year of their entire married life without numerous affairs. While I think Charles was wrong to have cheated on Diana, I also think without Camilla around, it would have still be a complete disaster with her bulimia, and crying jags and all the rest. He was simply not equipped emotionally to dealing with someone like her. And yes, IMO she was unstable.

by Anonymousreply 115Last Sunday at 5:55 AM

the trailer looks terrifying

by Anonymousreply 116Last Sunday at 6:01 AM

The actress playing Diana, while lovely, doesn't capture the magic that Diana had. But then, nobody could. Diana completely pulled focus from whatever else was going on. You couldn't help but watch her. She really had the elusive "It" factor.

I know. Mary!

by Anonymousreply 117Last Sunday at 6:54 AM

Yes, they've never successfully cast Diana, even when using movie stars like Naomi Watts. The girl in the trailer evokes the youthful Diana--that hunted deer look--so she will suffice.

by Anonymousreply 118Last Sunday at 12:14 PM

Was that Naomi Watts movie any good? I'm running out of things to watch, and maybe I'll give it a try.

by Anonymousreply 119Last Sunday at 12:28 PM

R117, I do know what you mean. One of the things that The Queen did so well was that it didn't show Diana (except for a couple of real life clips in the beginning) and yet you felt her strong presence throughout the entire movie.

R119, I sorta watched it years ago. From what I saw it was not a good movie at all.

by Anonymousreply 120Last Sunday at 12:43 PM

R119, I've never seen the Naomi Watts film, but the reviews were BRUTAL. Might be worth checking out for the "so bad it's good" factor, actually!

by Anonymousreply 121Last Sunday at 12:57 PM

[quote] Was that Naomi Watts movie any good? I'm running out of things to watch, and maybe I'll give it a try.

The critics panned it as mentioned above.

But I saw it recently and did not think it that bad.

As others have noted, Diana seems to be difficult to portray.

She was an unusual mix: innocence matched with charisma mixed with volubility and unpredictability.

The upcoming Crown actress does have that “stunned” look about her, but it will be interesting to see how she fares in capturing a complex individual.

by Anonymousreply 122Last Sunday at 1:17 PM

Glad to see the actress is holding her head on the side like Diana used to. I remember being a little kid and asking my mother: "Why does that woman hold her head like that?" (Mum's theory: "she's shy".)

by Anonymousreply 123Last Sunday at 1:37 PM

Diana is so difficult to portray because it is all so fresh to us. We have the image that is believed, true or not. and any actress will have a hard time.

by Anonymousreply 124Last Sunday at 2:10 PM

"Fresh?" She's been dead for almost a quarter of a century.

by Anonymousreply 125Last Sunday at 2:27 PM

Sweetie, tell that to the old queens here about a quarter of a century.

by Anonymousreply 126Last Sunday at 2:37 PM

True, r126. I forgot that DL can be a weird time warp. The 1990s are still recent for some here.

by Anonymousreply 127Last Sunday at 2:40 PM

[quote] The actress playing Diana, while lovely, doesn't capture the magic that Diana had.

There's absolutely no way you can possibly tell yet from just the released stills and the trailer. We've yet to hear Emma Corrin even deliver a single word (much less a line) as Diana yet--she doesn't even speak in the trailer.

Clearly you've entirely prejudged her performance before you've even seen it.

by Anonymousreply 128Last Sunday at 3:24 PM

[quote] When do we get to see the fire, I’m excited for that.

Season 5. This season (Season 4) only goes up to 1990.

by Anonymousreply 129Last Sunday at 3:25 PM

I thought Naomi Watts did a good job as Diana. And the movie overall was good. Focuses on her relationship with Hasnat Khan.

by Anonymousreply 130Last Sunday at 5:20 PM

"Diana" pretty much killed off Naomi Watts's career, which is too bad because she's a genuinely good actress.

by Anonymousreply 13120 hours ago

I watched it on an airplane flight, right after watching the Nicole Kidman as Princess Grace movie. Now that one was truly bad. You never forgot that you were watching Nicole Kidman. Plus it was a terrible, stupid story.

The Naomi Watts Diana was better than expected (but again, I was watching it on an airplane). It was panned because she was “too old, too short” but I thought she captured the body language very well, that chin down looking up through her bangs look.

by Anonymousreply 13220 hours ago

That Lifetime movie about Megz and Haz was truly awful but I still watched it. The actors looked a lot like the real versions and esp for Megz the voice was spot on. Years ago the Charles and Diana movie with Catherine Oxenberg was a real shitfest.

by Anonymousreply 13316 hours ago

[quote] Megz and Haz

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13416 hours ago
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!