The Crown Season 4 - Official Watch Party Thread - Part II

Link to previous thread.

I've never been interested in BRF drama, and never watched the first 3 seasons. Margaret Thatcher and the politics intrigued me, so I decided to watch. I'm currently half way through E10, and have really loved the season.

The cast is great

Just finished Season 4 and I'm overwhelmed by how emotionally affecting it all was. I can't really explain why it should mean so much to me but I'm really taken with the royal personal problems and how they're all born and stuck into a world of responsibilities they're unable to leave.

Will they address Uncle Dickie being a pedo?

Just finished season 4. Josh O Conner is superb he deserves a BAFTA / Emmy. Coleman with her dead fish brown eyes is a cipher. The Princess Anne characterization and the actor are spot on. The best episode for me was the chap who gets into QE II 's bedroom. Probably the only bloke she's had in there in decades. Gillian Anderson's Thatcher is a cross between Frau Blucher and Malificent all that's missing is a cloud of green smoke. Never new Maggie's signature dish was Toad in the Hole which she personally cooked and served to her cabinet. Pretty much sums up the ole ratbag's tenure as PM.

[quote] I'm really taken with the royal personal problems and how they're all born and stuck into a world of responsibilities they're unable to leave.

"Unable to leave"???

See ya later, SUCK-AHS! Beep-beep!

[quote] Coleman with her dead fish brown eyes is a cipher.

So is the queen with her blue eyes.

We shall see how long Harry stays away.

[quote]Will they address Uncle Dickie being a pedo?

(Spoiler for those who don't know BRF history). Seeing as how he dies in Episode 1, I doubt it.

Do y'all think Olivia is not giving the performance the producers, writers and directors demanded?

Re. the debate on the other thread about who or what this show is about (fantastical though some of it is):

"While you mourn your father, you must also mourn someone else. Elizabeth Mountbatten. For she has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina. The two Elizabeths will frequently be in conflict with one another. The fact is, the Crown must win. Must always win."

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R13 What the hell is a “packet” of Philadelphia Cream Cheese? And don’t they have their own variety over there like Liverpool Cream Cheese? With all that the city of Philadelphia did to undo control of British rule, its hard to believe they would embrace a product named after it.

Coleman's character of Elizabeth is so underwritten and has such a limited emotional palette that the eyes are essential. Coleman has dead eyes. Foy telegraphed every emotion with her huge eyes. The part of Elizabeth is really reactive silent screen acting. Coleman just lacks the physicality to do this.

As a first time viewer, it was a bit jarring to see Queen Elizabeth II have actual conversations. I've always just imagined her sitting quietly in the palace, writing letters in silence.

Are Charles and Camilla really considered a great love story? I find them just awful together and can’t understand the attraction, especially their callous disregard for others like spouses and children.

Kedgeree for r13

The 70's outfits the Queen wears are horrendous. She looks like a checker board dipped in horse manure. Even Thatcher dressed smarter. Guess Her Maj only moved into those bright monochromatic pastels with matching hats in the 2000's

That’s some fine British cooking R18

Coleman : C

Corrin : B

Anderson: A +

R18 There are way to many things going on in this recipe, and why of all things are peas an option? Who doesn’t like peas?

LOLOLOLOL

R23 I take it that isn’t a real news story?

Why did they give a warning in episode 3 that scenes of a disturbing nature would be shown (Diana puking her guts up) yet did not issue a warning for episode 2 with all that animal slaughter! Standards are slipping!

I don't like Anderson's portrayal. Maggie had a mellifluous voice. Anderson's is raspy. Also she looks like she has anorexia when Maggie was curvy.

They could have cast someone much more physically suitable. But Gillian is sleeping with the writer/producer of the show so there you are.

Corrin is magnificent. Coleman is fine, but much livelier than the real Queen.

They did R25. At the beginning.

Highlights from Margaret Thatcher speeches:

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Will they just pretend Uncle Dickie and Prince Andrew weren't creeps?

R30 Andrew's creepiness was heavily alluded to in the episode where Lizzy is trying to figure out which of her kids is her favorite.

r17 I guess? She's pretty much been his oneitis for the majority of his life. And I've never heard love can't make you selfish or be harmful to others.

Michael Fagin on his portrayal in the Crown

[quote] “I’m actually better looking, and he seems totally charmless,” he said, of the actor Tom Brooke.

[quote] Did they leave out the magic mushrooms? They did.

[quote] According to Fagan, the Queen said “What are you doing here?” and then left the room almost immediately. “She walked out on her little legs,” he said. “Then a footman comes in and goes, ‘You look like you need a drink, mate’.”

[quote] What happened to Fagan afterwards? He recorded a version of God Save the Queen with a band called the Bollock Brothers.

Opening montage of episode 3: there is a RAT scurrying across the room right in front of Liz!!

Just watched the mental illness episode, how dreary, hated it. Whiff of wokeness about this season. I want superficial melodrama!

Sorry if it was too woke for you. Perhaps you could watch Fox News instead

All these publications need to calm down. It's a tv show so theres gonna be creative license taken. In real life the queen and most of the family are probably boring as fuck people so they have to enhance things.

When Charles and Diana were married, Nancy Reagan gave them a punch bowl as a wedding present. When they divorced, what happened to that punch bowl? I think the US taxpayers should have been reimbursed.

Florida Evans smashed it, R38.

I think Gillian Anderson is great as Margaret Thatcher.

I think Gillian Anderson is terrible as Margaret Thatcher. She's playing her like a stroke victim.

I'm watching a doc about Thatcher now. The way Anderson played her was entertaining but bizarre, compared to how the real Maggie spoke.

I agree with the stroke diagnosis. Anderson's Margaret Thatcher reminded me of post-stroke Bette Davis. But it did not remind me of Margaret Thatcher. And it was all too much the same limited characterization in every scene. She was a vile cunt, but a strong and robust woman. This Thatcher always seemed frail, not indomitable.

[quote]And it was all too much the same limited characterization in every scene.

Same with Josh O'Connell. He's playing Prince Charles with a hang-dogged expression and always slouched over. I can't believe he's accepting a paycheck for this performance.

His posture bugs the shit out of me. He wasnt like that in season 3 was he? Wonder why he made the choice to hunch like that. Otherwise his acting is overall pretty good.

r16 that really made me laugh! Same!

[quote]His posture bugs the shit out of me. He wasnt like that in season 3 was he? Wonder why he made the choice to hunch like that.

Yes, he did that in S3, but it made more sense because he was being browbeaten by his father and attending a school where nobody liked him. So the physicality sort of made sense. But now we're supposed to believe that he's banging Camilla Parker Bowles and really happy when he's with her, but we still still the same hunched over posture. I assume he's trying to portray Charles' inferiority complex or his introvert nature, but in S4 it's just annoying.

I think Anderson is acting well and overall captured her. But her damn voice is so gravely and low. She almost got the voice right but watching videos of Thatcher her voice wasnt like that. Anderson is too thin compared to Thatcher but that's a small issue in regards to the portrayal.

Charles's posture didn't really bother me. I was abused by my father, and I've always struggled with posture as a result. It wouldn't have hurt to show Charles trying to correct his posture every now and then.

Andersen is a smoker, so that explains her voice.

My issue with sexy Josh's portrayal of Charles is the lack of aging. In this they made Charles seem like an age-appropriate mate but by the end of this season, he's nearly 40 but doesn't look a day over 25. Same for Camilla. Both actors and actresses looked perfect in S3 as the young 60s versions of themselves, but the makeup department failed to age them.

He and Diana should feel like they are of different ages. Whoever cast Call Me By Your Name should have stepped in because they knew how to (accidentally) cast a late 20s actor that looks to be in his late 30s, playing someone in their early 20s. Against an actor in his early 20s playing someone in his late teens, that looks like he's in her early teens. AKA a mess.

Anyone unfamiliar with the timeline wouldn't realize how much older Charles is compared to Diana and how much time passed between the begining and end of the S4.

It’s gravity. He’s being weighted down by his pendulous, ginormous cock.

You’re a fool, Di, a total total fool!

Josh O'Connor is devastatingly adorable in this. Like a gothic romantic figure who just wants to be loved.

Did Charles look a lot older from age 30 to 40? Some people, especially those that lead stress free comfy lives like he did age well. Should they have added more fine lines to his face?

[quote]Did Charles look a lot older from age 30 to 40?

The Windsor genes kick in with a vengeance in the 30s. Every one of Liz's children went from nice looking to absolute shit.

Prince Charles and Princess Diana in 1990. I'd argue that he doesn't look significantly older than he did at his wedding 9 years earlier.

Once Diana became Princess of Wales, she started to look like an age appropriate spouse for him. The Royal drag and the feathered haircut made her look much older than early 20s, especially to 21st Century eyes. She had lost the blushing English rose look by the end of the 80s, too--sunbathing and bulimia conspired to age her prematurely. By the time she died, she looked like an attractive woman in her mid 40s.

Charles and Diana on their wedding day in 1981. He looks a little more lined in 1990, but not much.

I seem to be in the minority but I LOVE Olivia Colman as Elizabeth. Unlike Foy's Queen, hers, as written, is often unfeeling and even stupid and thus unsympathetic, but it's a brave and honest portrayal. And I find her eyes and stillness in scenes remarkable.

After finishing the series this afternoon I rewatched the first 4 episodes of Season 1 of Broadchurch which I hadn't seen since it premiered about 7 years ago. So great to watch Olivia in that again and remember how she was new to me then. Also, as with all these great British series, there are so many great actors who I've seen in so many other series. It was also my intro to Jonathan Bailey and Andrew Buchan (who plays Parker-Bowles in The Crown).

Diana in 1997.

People with serious mental health issues rarely age well, and Diana was no exception.

[quote]R577 Philip had no sympathy for the Nazis, despite two of his sisters having married Nazi supporters.

Oh rilly.

Finished 10 episodes of Season 4. If you edited out all the scenes of Rolls Royces driving thru palace gates to stately mansions accompanied by a ponderous score you've got about 2 hours of actual spoken drama. A frightful bore.

Is Philip going to put a hit on Diana? Because that sounded like a threat in episode 10.

[quote]R34 Opening montage of episode 3: there is a RAT scurrying across the room right in front of Liz!!

That’s the Klan Granny ringleader.

Philip was the family enforcer until extreme old age forced him to give up the role. He sparred with Diana quite a bit during the divorce proceedings and even threatened to yank her title. "My title is older than yours, Philip," the former Lady Diana Spencer replied.

I enjoyed the season and mentioned earlier that I think episode 5 with the intruder was the best of the entire series. Even it was fabricated. Anderson's portrayal became much too Disney villain for me by the end. I like Josh as an actor but did become quite aware of his hunching and look up with bowed head a lot.

I liked Anderson's portrayal a lot, but I have to admit there was a touch of Ryan Murphy about it. She could have come out of the "Feud" universe.

The mental hospital episode was the only wasted hour. I would've rather seen the prep for the Queen's Silver Jubilee at the time that the Sex Pistols and punk rock were horrifying the nation.

What does English Rose mean?

Look at Diana in her wedding picture. Classic English rose--fair, dewy, rosy cheeks. See also: Young Kate Winslet.

Did not recall Charles was almost killed in a avalanche. How different history would be if he was. Diana would still be alive and probably re married.

r58 yes, I love that show but I haven't made it to S2 yet. Andrew Buchan was such a hot daddy. I had an inexplainable desire to just give him a nice long blow job to ease his pain after his son's death.

r65 I hope she really said that because it's impressively cunty and I love her even more for it, lol.

R36 don’t you mean FAUX News, MAAAAANNNN? Christ, you mental patients who think of nothing but Donald Trump.

According to Tina Brown, Diana did say that. She'd really upped her cunt game by the mid-90s.

[quote] Is Philip going to put a hit on Diana? Because that sounded like a threat in episode 10.

Yes, r63. Here's the master plan:

r73. the mental patient is you. You probably masturbate to Trump

r61 That's the funeral of the sister who married a high ranking Nazi. So yes rilly.

r70 Diana would have been tossed to the wolves and left with a massive amount of money problems because everything would have gone to the boys and the royals would have kept her at arm's length while stringing her along by their purse strings. Charles keeps his branch of the family well taken care of, that includes Diana.

Though Dowager Princess of Wales (or Whales as the Trump WH refers to the title lol) could have been very lucrative. Diana is no Jackie O so I assume she'd be in Fergie's situation. Mentally unstable. Financially desperate. Unsure what to do without real royal protection or a role. Nasty Prince Andrew would have stepped into the limelight and Diana would probably be lobbing jabs at him being a pedo. COVID positive William would have been even more of an insiufferable cunt since his place in line just moved up a spot.

I think Charles' death would have been terrible for everyone. Though I wish Diana was still alive.

r75 I've always loved that sketch. The "if we let her age as gracefully as one can while carrying the bastard grandchild of a delusional Egyptian businessman the general public are just going to love her more and more" is probably the most accurate summary of what the popular perception of Diana would have been if Al Fayeds dreams had come true.

The family took care of the widowed Queen Mary and the widowed Queen Mother. Admittedly Diana was never Queen, but as Princess of Wales and mother of the future King, I can't imagine they'd have thrown her out on her ear. At worst, she would have lived much liked she did post-divorce: in her posh KP apartment with plenty of cash at her disposal. Public sympathies would certainly have lain with the grieving young mother and widow--the Palace couldn't have afforded to treat her badly and probably wouldn't have wished to.

The issue would have been if Diana had dared to marry again and, even worse, have more children. Unless she waited a good 10 years and then married the bluest of blue-blood aristocrats, the knives would surely have been out for her at the Palace and in the press.

R76 Oh hush now, broken person, let’s just watch the Queen show. Take your Trump obsession to a politics thread, it’s boring.

Hush now, broken person. We don't need your right-wing speechifying about what you think is "woke"

Take your right-wing talking points to the pro-Trump troll threads

If it wasn’t for Diana this season would have been so boring. This usurper inbred family is so fucking DULL!

That was true of the real Royal family in the 80s. If Charles had married a more emotionally stable woman he would have been happier but the family might have made itself completely obsolete. Diana reawakened real interest in the BRF.

R75 What is a “niggle?”

Diana dragged the BRF into the modern era.

A bit of Fergie would have been fun. Also, they erased Margaret’s children.

Margaret erased Margaret's children.

[quote] Diana dragged the BRF into the modern era

Kicking and screaming.

Isn't Margaret's son a 'mo?

Well, her husband was half a 'mo, so the apple wouldn't fall far from the bicurious tree.

I'm almost 60 and this is the first season where I remember most of the incidents.

That said: I think the most successful performances have actually been the younger women -- Claire Foy, Vanessa Kirby and Emma Corrin. You can't win playing someone like Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Kennedy or Princess Di. Corrin does a damn good job. I love the fact she was royal-adjacent but still working in a kindergarten and sharing a flat with roommates when she was plucked to play "Prince Charles' wife" by the family. What a responsibility and a disappointment that must have been.

I'm assuming the next season establishes Diana as the most recognized woman in the world. Her every movement made news during that time. Her adoption of land mines and AIDS patients was seen as shockingly modern for a British royal -- and really played up how tired and old the royal family had gotten.

This whole series seems to erase children, I get the sense that they don’t like to work with child actors and put the extreme minimum in only to remind you they exist at all.

Children aren't that interesting to watch.

I concur R87. This doesn't bode well for a couple of Sloanes on the fringes of the fam, looking for a role in Seasons 5 and 6.

This is a tangent, but Diana's forced push of the royals into modern times reminds me a bit of Michelle Obama.

Laura Bush was fine, but she was still a bit wife-y and non-risk-taking.

Michelle had a bumpy rollout, but then -- installing her mother in the White House so the kids would have some stability and reality. Discussing her ambivalence about politics frankly. Stressing openly about what it was like as a mother to see her kids grow up in rarefied circumstances and saying that they had chores to do. Being honest about the fact that she sometimes felt neglected as her husband did the country's business. Wearing gorgeous fashion flawlessly but also being seen in public in $50 department store outfits.

This brought the role of first lady into the modern age, the way Diana brought the role of princess into the 1980s. In both cases it's a tightrope act and in both cases the two women brought it off well.

[quote] [R75] What is a “niggle?”

r96 and just like that the position reverted back to a more traditional and useless place holder Melania and Camilla.

R98 Charles needed a Melania type, if he couldn't have his true love. A woman who enjoyed the perks, did the appearances, and didn't give a fuck what he did otherwise.

Camilla is like Princess Anne, she does her charities and doesn't make a fuss.

I thought that the scene where Prince Philip bared his soul to a room full of priests was a little unrealistic. All I'm wondering is, who will play Grace Jones when they get to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee?

Finally got around to watching Emma Corrin in this and she's terrible. She's so awful, it's like watching a bad 80s parody of the royals. Her facial expressions made me laugh out loud, she looks like a confused pigeon.

I'm aghast. I can't believe so many here have praised her, she's embarrassing.

Then again, I usually felt like I was the only person who liked Olivia Colman, everyone here thought she was so terrible that her casting was a war crime. Corrin apparently bitched incessantly about Colman's "horrible" portrayal of the Queen, so it's not a surprise she's so warmly received here.

[quote]Camilla is like Princess Anne, she does her charities and doesn't make a fuss.

So, not only useless but redundant as well!

As far as Camilla goes, Tracy Ullman had the look, the voice and the attitude.

R102, we’re thoroughly outnumbered in our disappointment with the actress playing Diana. For me it’s not so much her acting (but I agree about the smirky facial expressions). My thing is that she just doesn’t capture Diana.

I wonder if people who think she’s nailing it are old enough to remember Diana at that time? Back then I was an angsty young teen not at all interested the BRF, but Diana was captivating. I especially I loved that picture of her in her country outfit (which seemed so dreadful to me then). Maybe they mean to capture Diana’s star quality with the next actress, the similarly oddly beautiful and tall Elizabeth Debicki, but Diana was a star from day 1, not just later in designer gowns and jewels--even in all those pictures in her frumpy 80s outfits, she had such an aura. So this mousy, un-statuesque, poor-postured Diana just doesn’t do it for me.

That's an interesting insight R96; I'd add include that she's also a very accomplished person in her own right, so she often talked frankly about the challenges of subjugating her own ambition to Barack's.

Putting aside (as much as it's possible) what a loathsome creature Dump is, Melania paled in comparison to Michelle who had no real ambition, no taste and didn't really seem to like any of the people surrounding her (except for Barron - maybe)

R96- Gorgeous fashion? HAHAHAHAHA! No. Not once.

Are there still Sloane Rangers?

Then you didn't watch it R62.

[quote][[R75]] What is a “niggle?”

DL's reason to live. See most of the last fifteen or twenty posts.

Nice comparison photos of the real event and the Season 4 recreation.

Charles was a Man-baby, IMO. In real life, he probably was this self centered, emotionally needy person. For years we've indulged in cruel jokes about Camilla, but honestly, aside from being the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne, as a person, who the fuck would want to get stuck with such a complete asshole. Now to be sure, he was made into an asshole. He had help being one. But honestly, if Charles is anything like the character we saw in Season 4, ...ugh.

Diana was 18 when she married Charles and only 36 when she was killed. Corrin is not tasked with playing Diana as a mature and independent woman. She is playing from 18 to her late 20's. When Diana becomes a mature woman, she gets the hell out of that mess. Season 4 ends with Diana just beginning to approach that point. Young Diana was tentative and shy and often looked like a deer in the headlights. She was always beautiful and charismatic. But mature and self-assured took... as long as it takes with anyone.

I'm surprised that no one in these threads has mentioned that scene in the hospital in New York. That visit was in 1988. Diana began her AIDS work in London in 1987. For those of you too young to remember. Nancy Reagan never went near a child with AIDS. Barbara Bush didn't, either. Nor Queen Elizabeth. Nor Princess Anne. And on and on and on. Elizabeth Taylor started in 1985, but her place in show business is entirely different. The photos of Diana with those children went around the world. Unless you were there then to experience the callousness shown to people with AIDS by those in government and society, you cannot imagine what it meant for Diana to go to Harlem Hospital and be photographed with those kids.

Princess Diana and Elizabeth Taylor. NO ONE did more than they did. If that makes Diana mentally ill, then I'm all for it.

R42, but she played her really like how she was. She was an unrelenting Iron Maiden

Yes, R114. But with a sense of humor. She LOVED chewing up weak people. She relished in seeing them suffer.

The range of Anderson's performance is insufficient to show us Maggie Thatcher and the zeal with which she pursued making life harder for everyone. It's not like Anderson got what she did all wrong. It's more like she didn't do nearly as much as needed.

R113 “Nancy Reagan never went near a child.” Most likely not even her own. She would have been afraid they might make a deposit on her red outfit or be fascinated with her cotton candy hair and touch it.

Just finished watching the latest series. I enjoyed it so much more than series 3. The best episode, as others have said, was the Fagan episode. I loved watching them depict 80s England for the average person and contrasting it with the royals and with Thatcher's statements. That was the episode from the first moments I knew would be the top episode of the series and I wasn't disappointed.

I like that they showed the mentally disabled family who had been locked away and recorded as having died. Though that episode was also the Margaret centred one and I just don't find her that interesting.

I thought Olivia Colman was much better in this series than the previous one. I feel like she was allowed more facial expressions.

I also enjoyed the episode focusing on South Africa and the Commonwealth, though I was furious at the treatment of Michael Shea at the end. Would he have been bound from coming clean and saying: "Actually, I advised her not to and am actually not responsible"? Life is pretty fucked up when people can do that to others.

As an Australian, seeing Bob Hawke made me a bit depressed. He was before my time, but we haven't had a PM with any sort of character like that for decades now, just mean little men and one woman who don't inspire anyone.

[quote]But with a sense of humor. She LOVED chewing up weak people. She relished in seeing them suffer.

Yes, I always find cruelty to others by a self-aggrandizing assholes hilarious.

While not as adamant as R102, I too am not as blown away by Emma’s performance as some on here. She’s doing the kind of basic doe-eyed “Shy Di” impression that any decent actress of the physical type would be able to pull off. But as Tina Brown pointed out, she was not shy but extroverted and wiley. There’s something missing. A hint of tension or mania perhaps? Maybe the next actress will capture it.

Too bad the Stuarts didn't hold on to the throne. Every third one was gay, lesbian or bisexual.

I want to just add in that the actress I was actually least enamoured of this time was HBC. I just didn't think she did that good of a job in a number of her scenes, and I really like her so it was a bit disappointing.

I’ve heard more about Tina Brown since these threads launched then I have total in the last decade. I guess I just assumed she’d died and we were done with her.

R61

That's funeral of his beloved sister who died in the plan crash with her children, husband and mother in law. Season two had episode about it.

Queen Elizabeth is, you know, a big deal in this series. I found it odd that Cookie was able to conceal from the Queen the fate of the developmentally disabled cousins. Yet Cookie only had to answer to Margaret? As a script device, I get it. Margaret has the time and the freedom to pursue this mystery. Her reaction should be part of the script. But it seems there surely must have been a reckoning between the Two Old Queens. There must have been a moment when Big Liz, in her official role as The Queen (!) called Cookie on the carpet and put it to her bluntly, "What else, Mother? Everything. Spill it fully and spill it now."

That could have been a real kick-ass scene. For the actresses and for the audience, too. And it would have shown the crown in action. The balance between those two queens must always have been delicate. But there, Big Liz would have pulled out all the official stops and leveled Cookie. It would have been interesting.

[quote] Diana was 18 when she married Charles and only 36 when she was killed.

She had just turned 20 (July 1) when they married on July 29th. Otherwise good post. I remember Diana touching and talking to people with AIDS. It was a huge deal.

Thank you for correcting that error, R125. Oops.

The AIDS work demonstrates how different Diana was from the rest of the Royal family. But better. Better than them. She showed them up again and again, just by being real and normal and reasonable. People all over the world cheered it, but the Royal family loathed her for it and they fought her every step of the way. She showed them up and they all knew it. Everyone knew it.

As soon as she was out, so was her way of doing the job. We have seen hints of it a number of time since her sons have become adults. Reassuring hints. They have not forgotten her, nor do they follow in the family's footsteps and marginalize her. Good for them.

I never really cared about Diana, but it seems like she was genuinely caring and kind person. Podcast "You are wrong about" mentioned a lot of stories helping sick people without any media attention.

So last night, I turned on Netflix, and I watched two episodes of the Crown. The second episode showed the moon landing and Charle's investiture. I thought, "Well this season is covering a wide range of years." Then I realized I was watching Season 3 instead of Season 4. Fuck. Starting over tonight.

Margaret Thatcher was robust during her time as prime minister. Not sure why the editorial decision was made to portray her as twenty years older than she really was.

Gillian Anderson is swimming in that suit and looks so frail. Not accurate at all.

r127, her eventual charity of choice was protecting children from landmines

I think if they'd wanted to pad Gillian they would have had to dress her in only very high-necked blouses because her neck is so thin.

Anderson has stated that she was padded under the Thatcher costumes.

She must be wafer thin. Even padded, she looked sickly.

Something I did like about Diana was her genuine interest and work for the elderly, the ill, people in hospice etc. Real, unglamorous causes, challenges faced by people who did nothing to deserve it, as opposed to the vague “empowerment” bs we get today.

I am American so we really had very little exposure to Thatcher. Just an occasional image on the news. My impression -- right or wrong -- is that she was mean and obstinate bordering on loathsome. So I am loving Anderson as her, she almost makes her seem human. And I say that as someone who loved M in "The Iron Lady."

r124 the show's version of Elizabeth shows a level of deference to the elder Queens, that include Queen Mary of Teck and the Queen Mother. I think it's sweet that she offered that type of respect for their former positions as the co-head of the Firm. That's to say that the Queen seems like a mommy's girl that was not about to cross paths with her immediate family members, especially calling her own mother out. Given the free passes that Princess Margarett received, I think she likes to keep her nuclear family as close as possible (minus her children) since her father's death. Really sad that she lost her sister and mother so close to one another.

A real-life example of this is the Queen Mother's old-world manner of runner her households. The QM consistently blew past her yearly budget and was millions of pounds in debt when she passed. Obviously, a part of that was the QM insisting on staff, dinner, and entertainment that she was accustomed to from the bygone era of the Monarchy. The Queen just shrugged her shoulders and let her mother enjoy her privileges. When the QM passed, the Queen just paid off her debts and moved on.

I sort of like the fact that she respected her mother's status enough to let the old bird live. I doubt she has ever given her mother a real royal command.

I love this video clip. The Queen running. Interacting with her mother. Showing a sense of humor!

Once more when the Queen Mother lived at Clearance House. I forgot how much of a snack Prince William used to be, damn!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

William was utterly stunning as a young man. IDK what happened. Yes, the hair loss is part of it, but it's like the whole lower half of his face changed. Tragic.

The Queen Mother lived the life of an Edwardian Lady to the day she died. She never really left the 1920s.

[quote]William was utterly stunning as a young man. IDK what happened.

The horse-faced Windsor genes will NOT be denied! Sometimes they lie dormant for awhile, but they always take over.

Everyone is stunning at 21.

I believe the real queen is a lot warmer in person in real life than Coleman's character. And I think Diana's death sobered Charles up. I believe dealing with the grief of his sons, and the fact that Diana was "canonized" by the public forced him to recognize that he had to change personally and in terms of his pubic image or the monarchy itself was doomed. He also knew if he didn't he would estrange himself from his own sons. and he has been a good father since she died, as I see it.

And honestly, there was a scene in the Crown where Camila addressed the image problem and the press. When Diana 's Harlem hospital visit exploded and she became "queen of hearts" her popularity soaring, Camilla saw the writing on the wall, and realized she would be hated, especially could never compete with the popularity and Diana's public image.

I think the Michael Shea incident really spoke volumes about what the staff is capable of. Yes, Elizabeth got off without dirtying her hands, but those courtiers, the so-called palace guard, they were ruthless, cold-hearted conniving bastards. Still are. Look at how arrogant Charle's personal assistant was to Diana.

Those staffers really seemed to enjoy the backstabbing, toxic environment. And of course Elizabeth either was relieved to let it happen, or she was ignorant of the underhandedness in particular situations.

WIlliam, fortunately, inherited a lot of the Spencer genes, because those Windsor genes ain't favoring nothin'

R141 Wanna bet?

r138 can we use the English Rose reference on Prince William or is that only reserved for females and in the future King George?

[quote] [R127], her eventual charity of choice was protecting children from landmines

Too bad was not more helpful plus exciting "Be Best!"

I've never heard of a male referred to as an English rose, but you do you, R145.

Diana and Charles should have had 2 more children. Seems as soon as William started to lose his looks, Harry had his glow up. We could have down to the last of the littler by 2020, but at least we'd have another fuckable Prince on your hands. I assume Charles's sperm stay's strong with boys. A female from Diana would have been very intersting.

Harry looks damn good during this interview. Like a slutty porn star, mixed with a posh party boy, with the confidence of a nice trust fund. Sign me up.

Diana and Charles both wanted more children, but once the marriage started showing serious cracks after Harry's birth, they couldn't seem to bring themselves to add to the Royal brood.

The way genes often work out, a Diana/Charles daughter might have ended up strongly resembling her father. Poor thing.

R135, this clip was taken on the same day. It's called "The queen talks back to her mum." LOL

Episode 4 dealt with the Queens troubled relationship with her children. Phillip tells her Andrew is her favorite. She has her staff give her briefing papers on each of her sons so she won't appear out of touch with their lives. She then calls each one in for a "catching up" interview. Next scene has Elizabeth sitting down with her mum and sister saying " I need some help". CUT. WTF? . I was expecting a real heart to heart with Coleman, Bonaham Carter and Marion Bailey giving the Windsor matriarchy's no doubt bizarre advice on child rearing. This was the theme of the episode. The show runners mentioned some scenes written could not be filmed due to COVID shut down. I suspect this l lost scene could be one. Disappointing .

Clearance House, Queen Mary of Teck, Cookie...this thread is riotous!

Onward Dames of Data Lounge, ONWARD!

r152 all of these things were mentioned on the show that this thread is about.

It's Clarence House, Princess May of Teck became Queen Consort Mary of the UK, and Cookie was mentioned in Series 1 as the Duke of Windsor's pejorative for his SIL.

I find the bastardizations hilarious.

Fortunately William's strongest genes are actually from Diana's mother's side, the Roches. Diana's sisters and brother and late father all look(ed) like true Spencers, with red hair and splotchy faces; William and Diana both got the big eyes, the better complexion, and the blond(e) hair and the prominent nose.

Although sadly, William got the Spencer prematurely balding trait.

R151 I too was surprised by the sudden cut. Maybe the conversation will be a flashback in a future season, maybe when Andrew and Epstein are dramatized.

Oh dear r154. That was all me. I knew when I put that bitch's old title in this thread, thanks to Google, that I was headed into the danger zone. I don't know why I made Clarence House into the Blue Light Special, Clearance House, but I too love this mistake.

I am literally laughing out loud with tears in my eyes. Please carry on folks. I am currently whipping my own back in penance for disrespecting her Mahesty.

R156 the show isn't touching Andrew and Epstein, as has been stated over and over and over

R113- But she went near me!

[quote]I am currently whipping my own back in penance

Pics please.

[QUOTE] Morgan has said he wanted to explore stories not as known, as much as possible.

Yacht girl Kate aged 19.

Clearance House is a great DL bastardization.

And MARY! of Teck is fabulous.

Someone up thread mentioned that being American they didn’t know much about Thatcher, but as a young person at that time into the British New Wave of music I knew and hated her from the messages I got from the songs coming out from there. There were articles that listed even more songs, but this one defined most that I knew.

First, I remain haunted by Black Boys on Mopeds to this day and the true story behind it. It is chilling that it is still so relevant to what is happening in 2020. And those opening lines wailed from the heart by Sinead in condemnation. “Margaret Thatcher on TV, shocked at the deaths that took place in Beijing, it seems strange that she should be offended, the same orders are given by her.” I still know them by heart and I’m crying as I type them. It says everything about the abuse of power and the fake ear service that is given by hypocrites like her. And it starts with an international episode and focuses in on a local abuse.

Morrissey was notable for putting assassination right out there with Margaret on the Guillotine, how clear, how grand, how purposeful. English Beat made it danceable with Stand Down Margaret. Bragg and Costello were heroes, although their songs were not as appreciated and clear to me.

These songs made me angry and see Thatcher as evil and someone to be vilified. But I was also brutally aware that what was really lacking were songs calling out our leaders in the USA. Where were the anti Reagen songs condemning them and calling for them to be strung up for all their evils especially surrounding the utter silence on AIDS or the twisted War on Drugs and who it really targeted. Not to mention things like Iran and the hostages and the Contras.

I believe Jackie on Assistance lived at Clearance House for a bit.

My sister refers to this show as “Lamps, Sconce and Chandeliers!” I feel like they could have shaved some money off the flower budget and spent a bit more on the jewels. The tiaras are too wide on the head and look like they were bought at Claires. The flower arrangements are stunning and I wonder if they are real. The Christmas decor in the last episode is probably my favorite.

[quote] Morrissey was notable for putting assassination right out there with Margaret on the Guillotine, how clear, how grand, how purposeful.

Sadly, he'd probably side with the old cunt today.

R148

A filly out of dam Diana sired by stallion Charles might have favored the Windsor genes.

OTOH, another likely colt would have added to the stable.

Do tell us more about your views on breeding the royal family. I mean, the royal litter.

American 1980s youth was all about making money, not into rebelling.

Diana was the spitting image of her American great-grandmother, Francis Work, the wife of James Roche (3rd Baron Fermoy).

[quote]A female from Diana would have been very intersting.

Diana's niece, Lady Kitty Spencer, is as close as we'll get. She's very pretty.

She's the daughter of Diana's idiot brother.

R170

Why her brother is an idiot?

Kitty Litter Spencer is quite the looker.

Kitty Spencer's mother was a model. All 4 of Charles Spencer's children by Victoria Lockwood are gorgeous. Here's the son and heir, Louis Spencer.

If Diana were still alive, she'd be 60 years old in a few months.

I wonder how much cosmetic work she would've had by now.

It's nice to think that Diana would have chilled out as she'd gotten older, focused on her charity work, found a man who made her feel secure and loved. But that's probably NOT what would have happened. Her life was spiraling out of control that summer of '97, and the public was sick of her antics. Only her early death sealed her reputation as a saint.

Charles Spencer is a jerk, but he is not an idiot. He's written several scholarly historical books.

I'd like a weekend with Louis Spencer and Arthur Chatto, Margaret's hot grandson.

Do William and Harry have any relationship with their Spencer cousins?

R174 She would be Florence Henderson

A recent BBC documentary on Princess Anne.

Arthur Chatto. Hot grandson, indeed!

"Not sure why the editorial decision was made to portray her as twenty years older than she really was."

Gillian Anderson is younger now than Thatcher was when she became Prime Minster

I just realized Margaret Thatcher is not Julianne Moore. Seriously.

Exactly - they seem to have aged her purposefully for the part, which is strange because Margaret Thatcher didn’t look like that while she was Prime Minister.

Here is GA in February of this year. In reality she looks like she’s in her mid forties.

Gillian Anderson is 52. Margaret Thatcher was 54 when she became Prime Minister.

What a shitty person Prince Charles was spying and reacting to Diana meeting again with Hewitt, while he was seeing Camilla the whole time. He never stopped or tried to stop. I'm glad the whole world is looking again at Camilla and Charles horrible behavior.

News flash r186, the institution of Monarchy creates only terrible people. Being considered better than others sort of fucks a person up. They are all terrible people.

Gillian Anderson was very smart to make her career in the UK where she's performed in so many fabulous projects on British TV, well into her middle age. Hollywood would have cast her out 20 years ago.

I loved in the Balmoral episode when Thatchers husband is reading the Balmoral history book with a German accent. He seemed very fun and easygoing compared other. Also, did anyone else find it amusing that Margaret Thatcher maintained the traditional wifely duties- unpacking for her husband and making diner for her cabinet?

[quote]Margaret Thatcher didn’t look like that while she was Prime Minister.

WHILST she was Prime Minister, you Philistine!

They will forever be Fred and Gladys to me.

They will forever be twat and tampon to me.

Her Royal Highness, Gladys, Duchess of Cornehole

This latest series I think has been the one that has gone in the hardest on how awful the people and the system is. I find it interesting - and this is an observation, I'm not attacking anyone - that many people still, after watching it, talk with fondness about the monarchy, about the Queen Mother blowing her budgets etc, when millions of people were living and are living today like those in the Fagan episode. It seems so obvious the show is trying to show how terrible it all is, but yet still people are so attracted by the wealth, the privilege, the dramatics that these people have brought upon themselves. Like what happens with the Kardashians, or the Real Housewives. It's interesting to me because I think that nothing will ever improve because the allure of it is too strong, we love to look at these things we'll never have and people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. We feel sorry for them when they complain about their lives, when they never for a moment have to worry if they will have a roof over their head or enough to eat.

In another time, a show like The Crown would've set off a revolution ending with the Queen's head in a basket. I believe I read once that a lot of the reason for Victoria's hyper-moralistic attitude was that the British were concerned if the whole Georgian excessive behaviour thing continued there would be a revolution there like one in France. God knows no one wants to see something that violent happen. The fawning over people just because they are in a better position than us is really interesting though. And they end up getting forgiven a lot, while it's the ordinary people who suffer.

Ehh I dont really feel sorry for them. It's sad when a marriage breaks up but aside from personal relationships issues I roll my eyes at some stuff the "royals" complain about on the show. Like in season 2 when they had to allow regular Joe's to visit the palace. I wanted to slap the queen mother across the face.

The monarchy is just a system for head of state. It’s not really complex. Yeah there’s a lot of anachronistic tradition and ritual attached but it’s harmless. And as the public goes it has majority support. It is not partisan. It is above politics and there are occasions in national life where that’s an extremely helpful thing. And if the monarchy didn’t exist the inequities in the United Kingdom would exist anyway. Like the inequities in any society anywhere in the world, system of government quite incidental. The cost of the crown is negligible as a part of the national budget. It’s a red herring to claim that by ridding yourself of monarchy you are somehow going to create a promised land. Capitalism - unfettered -is what fucks up countries. I’d rather have hereditary monarchy as head of state than four years or more of Donald Trump.

They have always showed them being entitled pricks with their ridiculous wealth in the first 3 seasons. But this season really upped the unpleasantness of this family.

[quote]I’d rather have hereditary monarchy as head of state than four years or more of Donald Trump.

Yeah, if the head of state is someone like Elizabeth II. If your head of state is someone like Donald Trump, and you can't even vote them out, then there's a real problem.

Agreed that Denis Thatcher, in the first few episodes at least, comes across as enjoyable company.

The character of Denis spoke the line about the Royal family that my husband and I have been quoting back and forth to each other all day:

“Boorish, snobbish, and rude.”

[quote] Gillian Anderson was very smart to make her career in the UK where she's performed in so many fabulous projects on British TV, well into her middle age. Hollywood would have cast her out 20 years ago.

You're overstating things. She would probably have had a career much like David Duchovny has had; she would have steadily worked, but in mediocre cable and streaming projects like his ("Californication" and "Aquarius"). I do agree she was much smarter to go to the UK, but I don't think Hollywood would have "cast her out."

By the way, despite the outrage depicted in The Crown, neither Princess Margaret or the Queen ever even sent so much as a birthday card to their cousins, the Bose-Lyon sisters. They didn't attend their funerals or even pay for a headstone, until it was publicized several years later. Deplorable.

[quote] the Bose-Lyon sisters.

Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic]

You might want to think about getting a life, r202.

r201 in that same episode they talk about how people outside of the monarch's orbit get pushed further and further away as their usefulness or rank diminish. Diana's chat with Phillip pointed this out clearly. when he mentioned feeling like an outsider. I thought it was a bit rich considering he's fucking the Queen, the father of her children, and the highest-ranking man in the nation. But ok, Phillip feels left out.

People need to understand that all mentally incapable people were sent to institutions or left to rot on their own. Yes, things have changed, as you can see with Edward's daughter (is she special needs or just special looking?) but I won't fault them for not sending a card to people they've never met or known.

It was more a critique of the show, r204. They showed Margaret reacting with indignation and even objecting to the use of terms, but then taking no further action. It felt off.

My mum who was a Brit always said "Americans think far more of the monarchy then we British do." Well because Americans don't have to fund the worthless hedonistic antics of Fred & Gladys,Randy Andy and Margaret Antoinette. Parasites all.

That was just Margaret being bored and needing something to do. I love how they pretend that she would drive herself to keep that secrete. As if she saw her servents as people and would even think of them go to the press.

[quote]I love how they pretend that she would drive herself to keep that secrete.

Pics please.

Nice piece on the costuming for season 4, but WTF is HBC talking about “collaboration” no bitch you didn’t help make or choose the clothes, you showed up and put them on, that’s not collaboration!

While some people on these two threads have spoken of how much they liked HBC's acting, I have to say that scene of her on the beach with the Queen Mother was, in my opinion, really [italic]bad[/italic] acting.

r190 Americans don't use 'whilst.'

[quote]but I won't fault them for not sending a card to people they've never met or known.

Lots of people aren't close to their cousins. Hell, many DLers don't even speak to their immediate family members.

Diana would have grown old disgracefully like Liz Taylor. I think she would have abandoned that dated layered cut she favoured once she moved into the 21st century where only lesbians and Kris Jenner have short hair.

Some of S3 of The Crown is downright dreary. Why didn’t they want Charles to marry Camilla? Because she was a goer?

Because she wasn't a virgin. Nor was Prince Philip, but that didn't matter.

Shame there’s not one scene showing Josh’s floppy cock.

Camilla wasn't a virgin. She had a decent pedigree, but she'd had boyfriends and been around the block a few times, and the BRF was still obsessed with finding an unspoiled bride for the heir. It was 1930s thinking in a 1970s world, and it doomed Charles to the disastrous match with Diana.

Is "let the side down" a popular British phrase? It's used a lot on this show.

R209 all that excitement about the dress and they barely showed it!

I'm disappointed. They didn't show the front of the dress or any of the wedding, or any of the honeymoon, instead featuring a boring episode full of fiction about the queen having a convo with her intruder.

Each episode has a counterpoint. I like how the Fagin episode is, in some ways about space while on the dole.

Royalty, on the Civil List, has hundreds of thousands of cubic feet while the poor Fagins are paid on the dole in cramped, people dense urban hovels. It is a Hyacinth vs Onslow episode.

I always thought The Dress was ugly as sin anyway. Looked like my grandmother's sofa and Diana seemed trapped in the fucking thing.

It set the standard for wedding dresses in the UK for the next 15 years or so, before being supplanted by the strapless gown until Kate's wedding, when her lace sleeves and bodice became all the rage.

I can't believe Gillian gets credited before Josh.

I can't believe HBC gets credited before Gillian.

Gillian Anderson was on a little show called the X Files r224. Perhaps you've heard of it. Because of that, she'll get star billing for the rest of her career.

It's too bad they chose to neglect the Queen Mother this way. With her gin-soaked, happy out-of-it-ness, she could have provided some comic relief in all the gloom.

I don't understand the praise for Gillian Anderson. Her low murmur quickly became tiresome and didn't sound like MT at all, who was vigorous and loved to destroy people.

^ Fucking the boss helps.

I am on Episode 4 and I forgot how dull this series could be. You have two good episodes a season and a scattering of good scenes in the rest of the episodes.

All padded out with shots of people on horseback. People getting into cars. People getting out of cars.

Plus this season they are leaning heavily on the theme of how useless the royal family is and how miserable their uselessness makes them.

Suddenly, two additional princes appear. I forgot they even existed since the series previously ignored them and I cannot remember reading anything about them for the last 20-some years.

I like Anderson as Thatcher. She captures that weird harsh tone that Thatcher always had. Looking back at footage of the real Thatcher I am shocked that anyone describers has mellifluous. That is definitely what Thatcher was going for but her vile coldness always slipped out.

Can we make the series focus on the PMs? They were always more interesting anyway.

I'm curious R229, what would be the two good epsidoes you would select from this recent season? I don't disagree with you, though I enjoyed my time watching this series a hell of a lot more than series 3. I do think it goes in peaks and troughs though. To me the number one peak was Fagan. The other peak I would say would be the episode on South Africa, even though it ended on such an infuriating note where I wanted to sucker punch the Queen, I enjoyed seeing the Commonwealth, the discussion on Apartheid, the Queen and Thatcher battling it out...

The trip to Australia episode was good too - even though as an Australian I would say the country doesn't quite look like that haha (I understand it was filmed in Spain with added CGI?). I never realized how low the opinion of the royal family was here, until Diana. It was a bit before my time, so I've only grown up with people generally being all for the royals. So that was interesting. I kinda resent her for it personally (haha) because I'd rather get rid of them totally, but I suppose we barely have had anything to do with them since 1986, so...

I enjoyed Anderson's portrayal of Thatcher. She looks mannered and uncomfortable in the perfect way really - because Thatcher changed herself to fit in more (ie accent), and I love how uncomfortable it looks, how it tells in the way she speaks and holds herself. I'm happy with Anderson's choices. I realise that I don't need the actor to look or sound exactly like the person, just to be believable as a person, if that makes sense?

[quote]Gillian Anderson was on a little show called the X Files [R224].

Which after doing 11 seasons of the show, she won a single Emmy Award. And the last time she was nominated for the show was in 1999, the year it stopped being interesting.

Last year, Josh was nominated for a BAFTA for his work in The Crown. And won a SAG Award for the show.

Lol at thinking O’Connor could outrank Anderson.

Matt, is that you?

[quote] Charles was a Man-baby, IMO. In real life, he probably was this self centered, emotionally needy person. For years we've indulged in cruel jokes about Camilla, but honestly, aside from being the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne, as a person, who the fuck would want to get stuck with such a complete asshole. Now to be sure, he was made into an asshole. He had help being one

Yes. There was a leaked phone call between Chaz and Camilla. All she does the entire call is tell him how wonderful he is

He must exhausting to live with

I think Gillian Anderson is a wonderful actress, but she just misses the mark here. She places great importance on getting the voice right, which is understandable as it was one of Thatcher’s great characteristics: a masculine huskiness combined with feminine hectoring tone which gave way at times to a weird coquettishness when she aimed for piety or tried to patronise. However, to get the voice right, Anderson sets her face into a very weird rictus. That wasn’t Mrs Thatcher at all. She was extremely expressive, and her face almost always gave away what she was thinking. This gave her a reputation for honesty and frankness which wasn’t entirely deserved - she seemed honest because her face gave away her thoughts even while lies were spewing from her mouth.

Anderson moves well as Thatcher, especially in the scene of her leaving Downing St for the last time (seen on the Queen’s TV). I remember seeing that scene on the news at the time (as a 12 year-old). It really did seem like a momentous moment. My parents were thrilled to see the back of her, thinking that she had won her economic victories at great social cost. Thatcher was very like Trump in that way. She cared nothing for national unity, and had a very clear idea of who “her” people were. She tried to do what they wanted, and was happy to see the rest of the nation die in a ditch.

r231 The X Files is an iconic, legendary show. Gillian Anderson will always get star billing because of that.

Think Lucille Ball.

The Fagan episode was my least favorite, I don't watch The Crown to see poor people. I watch it to see the Royal Family behaving like out of touch, selfish assholes.

[quote] The range of Anderson's performance is insufficient to show us Maggie Thatcher and the zeal with which she pursued making life harder for everyone. It's not like Anderson got what she did all wrong. It's more like she didn't do nearly as much as needed.

I could watch a whole series with Anderson playing Thatcher. She wasn't given enough to do. Her scenes were the highlight of th is season. Anderson made someone who seems loathsome interesting to watch.

Thatcher had cane voice

[quote]Suddenly, two additional princes appear. I forgot they even existed since the series previously ignored them and I cannot remember reading anything about them for the last 20-some years.

Yeah, absolutely nothing has happened in the last 20 years with Andrew. It's like he's been cloistered away and not heard from since he divorced Fergie in 1996.

Why is Andrew the Queen's favorite? Because he liked salmon? I could understand it not being Charles or Anne, but why not Edward?

Hope they go into the "Dockside Doris" rumors about Edward

[quote] I thought it was a bit rich considering he's fucking the Queen, the father of her children, and the highest-ranking man in the nation. But ok, Phillip feels left out.

He's not the highest-ranking man in the nation. As his character said the second season, he is outranked by his son, the Prince of Wales.

I loved the scene of Charles bickering with his siblings, should've been more scenes like that.

Charles really put the smack down on Andrew and his sense of entitlement, calling him a "fringe" member of the family. Which was absolutely correct. Andrew really thought he was more important than he actually was.

So in the scene when Diana was bowing to everyone and got it wrong, what was the order supposed to be? She had to bow to Queen, Philip, Charles, Queen Mother, Margaret.

I think it was Queen, Queen Mother, Philip and then Margaret.

a very dramatic season

Unpopular opinion, but I don't understand the love for the Fagen episode. I thought it there was one throw away episode it was that one. Obviously, the majority here seem to love it.

The Friends of Dorothy euphemism was first used in S2 when Margot met Tony and was recounting to Sister Liz that she was sure he was FoD but then he started sexing her up. I am not a euphemism linguist but seems like this was a popular one in late 50s early 60s UK and therefore would continue to be used by that same generation as they aged.

HBC is giving us Faye Dunaway-Mommie Dearest camp in this, that's what I'm getting.

I think William Cambridge Wales Mountbatten Windsor is still very handsome. I don't mind a bald head...and it is rare when a high profile man is not upstaged by his wife. William definitely has some of Diana's star power. And he is not a sulky mama's boy like Harry. That is a real turn off.

R247 for me I loved it for a few reasons. Firstly, it's just mad to me that someone was able to break in to Buckingham Palace - twice - and even get into the Queen's bedroom. While I know in real life they never had that conversation, as the news reports said in the beginning "everyone's wondering what they talked about", so it's also a fun little "what if" based on the mythology of the event.

It's also really great to be reminded of how so many people were really suffering then (and as we know, still do today). I like that this show isn't becoming some sort of nostalgia porn as it so easily could do. So many shows like this, well just read the comments under clips on YouTube. It's full of people talking about the good old days in some really disturbing ways. This show makes sure we always remember that there is a world outside the royals; that we actually see it. I found it a nice reprieve from all the Windsor drama - highlighting how so many people were really doing it hard, not just because they might have had to talk to a 'commoner' for too long or not enough people paid them attention or something, but because they were barely existing.

I think it was really important we saw the effect of what Thatcher was doing to the country, and I'm glad they did.

The music was great in it too. I love that late 70s/early 80s post-punk/new wave stuff, especially the stuff that came out of the UK.

Wouldn't they station a guard in the hallway leading to the Queen's bedroom? Is security that lax?

It was that lax r252. Different world.

I was also surprised there wasn't at least one guard in the hallway outside the Queen's bedroom. God knows they have enough security personnel for someone to stand guard all night.

The real break in to the bedroom was not as portrayed. The Queen hauled ass out the door where a page was waiting. He ran in and collared the guy. She did not chat him up while he sat on her bed. Reminder the Crown is a drama not a documentary.

[quote] Fucking the boss helps.

Oh, shit. I hadn't realized Gillian and Peter Morgan were a couple.

[quote] But Gillian is sleeping with the writer/producer of the show so there you are.

[quote] ^ Fucking the boss helps.

Oh, get over it. Most people don't know this or care.

She is getting praise because:

1. She's Gillian Anderson and she's built up enough good will to do very little and get lots of attention. Meryl Streep could put a pile of hot shit on a cold plate and someone, somewhere would want to hand her an Oscar for it. That's the way it goes.

2. Most people don't know anything about Thatcher beyond giving a brief two sentence bio if even that. They may not have ever seen her on a television actually speaking. This all happened 20 or so years ago and The Crown is one of the few shows that somehow manages to cross age and race boundaries. (Strange, I know. I'd wager that it is soapy enough that it attracts all kinds of people!)

3. She is acting her little heart out. She may not be matching what we know Thatcher to be like but she's ... doing something ... and you either like it because of the effort she is clearly putting in to whatever character she seems to be playing or hate it because she's not being entirely accurate since in this case we know the person who she is playing and can watch footage of them to compare.

An actor captures the essence of the real person they're portraying, not doing an absolute copy of that person. I think Anderson did a great job.

And it cannot be stressed enough that The Crown is a dramatization and not a documentary.

R258, that's a really great way to put it "an actor captures the essence of the real person ... not an absolute copy". I agree! I definitely preferred Anderson's version of Thatcher to Streep's.

r242 your memory is cloudy. Phillip was a HRH as a Royal Duke, but not a Prince until a few years into QEII's reign. Why she felt the need to leave her husband out in the cold is beyond me. Until 1957 Charles was outranking his own father. Then QEII got off her ass and made Phillip a Prince in his own right something rarely done in the UK (Phillip gave up his Greek and Danish Princely titles when he married Elizabeth).

Example of how rare it is to become a British Prince or Princess outside of birth. Diana, Fergie, Sophie, Kate, and Meghan are not princesses in their own right, they share their husband's titles. The gapped tooth girl that married the gorgeous Swedish Prince, Carl Philip, became a Princess in her own right at the time of marriage. Different rules based on the kingdom, so Phillip becoming a Prince of the UK was a big deal, but then again he was her husband.

No male outranks Prince Phillip while the Queen is alive. Charles actually has to bow to Phillip when they are following the are being really formal. But that could possibly only apply when the Queen is present. At no time does Phillip have to bow to Charles at least since 1957.

R240, from what I've read on the BRF forums here, Andrew was her favorite because she had him at a time when she had more time to be a mommy, and he was planned.

I thought the lunches in that episode were quite well done, for the most part demonstrating each one's character and letting us see why he was her favorite rather than having someone deliver a paragraph of exposition. Andrew, despite his loucheness, was shown to be uncomplicated, uncomplaining, and eager to do his duty (in line with what are supposed to be the Queen's values).

Just watched episode 5. Worst. Episode. Ever.

I expect them to take liberties, but this show works best when it's a realistic, believable adaption of what actually happened. This was just over the top and ridiculous.

This season sucks :(

Episode 7 = Helena Bonham Carter locking down an Emmy nom or win. She's spectacular.

[quote] No male outranks Prince Phillip while the Queen is alive. Charles actually has to bow to Phillip when they are following the are being really formal. But that could possibly only apply when the Queen is present. At no time does Phillip have to bow to Charles at least since 1957.

You're incorrect:

[quote] By (the Queen's) Order-in-Council, the Duke of Edinburgh has "place, pre-eminence and precedence" over all men in the United Kingdom [bold]—except, where provided by Parliament, Charles, Prince of Wales.[/bold]

[quote]An actor captures the essence of the real person they're portraying, not doing an absolute copy of that person.

Agreed -- that's why Tammy Blanchard's version of Judy Garland is the gold standard in celebrity bio performances. Taken side by side, she doesn't look like Judy that much ... but she makes you believe she is.

[quote} I'm overwhelmed by how emotionally affecting it all was. I can't really explain why it should mean so much to me but I'm really taken with the royal personal problems

Yep...it's unpleasant to watch but impossible not to watch. The series captures Charles' emotional abuse of Diana perfectly. Even knowing the story, watching it played out is heart wrenching. Unbearably fascinating.

R198 Yup, this monarchist fantasy some Americans have is only spoken of in relation to moderately respectable royals like Queen Elizabeth II. Just ask the Thai people how they feel about their king.... oh, that's right, you can't because it's ILLEGAL to insult him there.

I mean, the whole notion of a monarchy is absurd in 2020. People don't really stop to consider what the divine right of kings and queens REALLY means. They *literally* think god has pre-ordained them to be king or queen. I mean, yeah... it's not like QEII is an absolute monarch, but the concept is fucked up!!! The French knew what was up.

However, I am not above watching The Crown for entertainment purposes.

Also: shouldn't they have reserved Helena Bonham Carter to play Cherie Blair? I mean ...

We look forward to a Season 5 moment-by-moment recreation of Prince Harry's weekend in Vegas!

R268 I'd take Emily Mortimer as Cherie Blair.

Rachel Dratch as Cherie Blair?

R271 Even BETTER!!!

Wow...there are some loons on here.

Gillian Anderson = Lucille Ball

Really?

On what planet?

I wonder if time is going to be kind to this show.

I've enjoyed it but....while it started out pretty strong, every season since the first has floundered. And, the re-castings haven't really been at all successful. The first season worked because it was very focused on the main characters and the relationships between them. Having Churchill anchor that season also helped. And, all the "impersonations" of the real people felt mostly real even when the actors didn't always look a lot like the real person. Now they all seem a bit like actors in a parody sketch of the royals.

And, to be honest, I'm a bit terrified about Imelda Staunton taking over as "old" Queen for 5 and 6. And, I think Peter Morgan does need to reconsider on whether we really NEED a Season 6. Are there 20 or even 18 or 16 episodes left that are interesting enough to finish out the story? Or, is he secretly hoping the Queen drops dead so he has an ending to what he started?

R111 It's strange that in The Crown, Diana's wedding dress and Fergie's wedding dress have much higher necklines than the originals dresses. They both would have looked better with lower necklines. In The Crown, Diana's veil is too opaque. The tiara is wrong and is sitting too low. These would have been easy fixes.

^^ Typo correction: original dresses

Anderson's delivery is constipated. MT didn't sound like that. You could hear traces of her her native Lincolnshire accent underneath her learned elocution, slightly whiny.

S4 is appalling PR for Charles and the Queen. He comes across as jealous, aggressive, petty and venal while TQ appears a cold hearted, callous bitch.

Millennials watching this are disgusted and it garners more sympathy for Meghan and Harry. Everyone who watches S4 can see why they upped and left .

Sure we need a S6. The story of super grifter Kate and her Kris Jenner mother has never been dramatised. Kate got excellent A levels and could have applied to do a more prestigious degree than History of Art, but Carol Middleton pushed her to apply to St Andrews so she could pursue William.

Morgan said he wouldn't show the Kate Wills marriage but S6 will be set during the time they met, and everyone is fascinated by that story, especially Netflix's audience, which skews young.

Andrew was her favourite because he was warm hearted, good looking, affable, demonstrative, charismatic and not afraid to tease and joke with his mother. Compared with cold, eccentric Charles and snooty Anne, of course HM found this charming.

This legendary charm also led him into a life of vice, of course, and now he's the most loathed royal since Richard III. Prince Pedrew.

R257

I take your point. I still think Streep's performance surpassed Gillian Anderson's in every way. And was not mere "shit on a plate" as you so eloquently put hit, but Oscar-worthy because she looked the part and got the voice down completely.

Anderson is a fine actress. I saw her in the National Theatre's production of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." She was dazzling as Blanche DuBois.

However, she was miscast as Thatcher. As another poster said earlier, her face was "in a rictus" as she tried to get the voice.

R274

I don't know about season 6, but the horror that was the Wales marriage is only just beginning. You've got the Andrew Morton book, the various tape recordings and Diana's death. So there's Season 5.

I wonder who will play Tony Blair.

R273 Wasn’t that a reference to Anderson playing Ball on American Gods?

One of the avatars of the American Goddess MEDIA was Lucy.

R284 Right, Anderson played Lucy.

And she did a Judy Garland lite in the American Gods Easter episode with all the Jesuses.

Anderson as Media pisses off Chenoweth as Ostara, Spring, in the final episode of AG S1.

When she asks, What have you done?, it is an amazing moment.

They are definitely presenting Prince Edward as the young bitchy gayling. Apparently he was the gayest thing that ever gayed. Present day Edward, ever since the marriage and the title, given as a reward for marriage, he's a totally different public persona at least. There's nothing there left of that cute gay boy. I wonder if Edward has made the greatest sacrifice. He was also a tweeb with his stupid projects. The BRF pulled on the plug on that also.

I’ve never thought of it before, but Prince Edward and Michael Reagan have a lot in common.

I’ve changed my mind, in the last two episodes Corrin captured Diana very well. I was even able to see past the little nose. I wish though that the wig didn’t stick out that little bit at the neck...these wigs always have that odd space.

r264 if you had kept reading, because I looked at that same Wiki notice, Prince Phillip doesn't even go to Parliament on his own unless he's accompanying the Queen. Certainly haven't taken many day trips to meet Charles for lunch at Parliament, requiting such a role reversal in their line of succession. The Royals really only go to Open Parliament. By the time they arrive there is no bowing between them because they arrived together and that would have been sorted back at BP where Charles would have bowed to his mother and maybe his father upon greeting. There would be no point or reason for Phillip to bow to Charles at Parliament. That rule was only in place because Charles is the heir and he needed to be able deputize for the Queen, as he does today during the opening of Parliament.

Try again, love.

r267 if you believe in God, as many people do in the West, and your born into the Royal Family, it's not a stretch to believe that it was God's will. Billionaires have the same sense of superiority, their children are usually worse. I was born into wealth, so God must have wanted me to be wealthy, hence it's my right to enjoy my outlandish resources.

With the exception of that little play at being a true Republic, the the British RF have been shown year after year that they are accepted as the heads of the nation and special. It's ridiculous, but the UK and Commonwealth haven't revolted.

It was jarring to see Diana being played at just 18 and realise that she was already half way through her life.

Can I just mention I love the hollow echo of cutlery scraping on the royal china at those family lunches and dinners? It seemed to be an ongoing theme this season.

No r293, you cannot.

This is r290 I meant a role reversal in precedence. Typo, the line of succession was always the same.

My new punk band is going to be called “The Hollow Echo of Cutlery Scraping.”

That purple gown “Diana” wore to Charles’ birthday concert was hideous.

R290 is the tedious Titles Troll from the BRF threads. Loves bashing Megan Markle and pretends to be a palace insider, but is just a Klan Granny.

[quote]Most people don't know anything about Thatcher beyond giving a brief two sentence bio if even that. They may not have ever seen her on a television actually speaking. This all happened 20 or so years ago and The Crown is one of the few shows that somehow manages to cross age and race boundaries.

Jeez, R257. How do you stumble through the day with that sloppy thinking?

This is a British production. Thatcher was the British Prime Minister for 11 long years. The average life expectancy in the United Kingdom is 81 years. 20 years is but a small portion of their lives. So, most of the people living in the UK today remember her well. In fact, most of the world came to know her. She was everywhere in the UK and the headlines for years and years and years. Your statement does not hold up factually.

If The Crown really were "one of the few shows that somehow manages to cross age and race boundaries," then there obviously would be a large number in that broad expanse of viewers who remember one of the most powerful and newsworthy people in the world. Your statement collapses under its own internal logic.

Anderson took on the job of portraying someone with extraordinary fame and while she did some good work, she missed a lot. Is that her failing or the director's? Unless someone there on the set at the time spills the tea, we will probably never know.

"Prostitutes and Australians" - should become the new approbation on the DL

[quote]My new punk band is going to be called “The Hollow Echo of Cutlery Scraping.”

Your first single will be great!

R301 Wasn’t that the trajectory of most punk bands?

I'm sorry, but the way Coleman plays Elizabeth, and in fact the way she is written this two seasons, I'm mystified as to how the public could have found anything in her that generated their affection. She is rigid, aloof, and ridiculously formal all the damned time. She sits talking to her mother or her daughter she may as well be talking to the Prime Minister. Now, in contrast, as awful as Thatcher was, we at least saw cooking and serving dinner. Not saying Elizabeth should have done likewise but she could have at least relaxed and been more informal. Hell. Her father, her mother, even her sister who demanded deference, knew how to relax in private. I think it's a flaw in Seasons 3&4 that they and she decided to interpret the character that way.

For once and all it's COLMAN, not Coleman.

R303, I think that is the thrust of the whole story arc, she learned early on that being stiff and all of was the only way she could survive the job of having "the crown"

R294 is Princess Margaret posting from the great beyond.

[quote] They are definitely presenting Prince Edward as the young bitchy gayling.

When I saw that ep last night I exclaimed "Oh, Edward is a cookie smeller!" Then had to explain to the BF what I meant. LOL

The Iron Lady.

R306 Spoiler Alert Please! You’ve just ruined the show for me thanks a lot!

R303, they spent the first two seasons showing how Elizabeth learned to rely on formal behavior to cover over private pain. Season 3 and 4 (I am not yet through) seem to be about Elizabeth discovering the limits of that strategy. If Colman played a warmer Elizabeth the episode last season about the small town that had the disaster and Fagan this season only work with a starchy, emotionally distant Elizabeth.

I think what Colman captures so well is the warm humanity trying to break out of the stiff exterior.

Man, I am fucking hating Prince Charles right now!

r309, relax. There is no episode about Margaret trolling Datalounge. Neither alive, nor dead.

R277 I agree, and it’s the biggest disappointment of the season to me.

R310. We as written we never see Elizabeth's "private pain" or "warm humanity". Coleman has nothing to work with.

[quote]Andrew, despite his loucheness, was shown to be uncomplicated, uncomplaining, and eager to do his duty (in line with what are supposed to be the Queen's values).

But he was such a show-off. Was that bit about landing that helicopter true or inserted for dramatic effect? And I can't imagine they were too happy that Andrew was dating an actress (blue or otherwise).

The royals are very cosseted, rich and spoiled, and they are taught to keep people at arms length. Generally, they do this by combining their “good works” with cold politeness and a hint of snootiness. The balance they strike is between approachability and remoteness.

I think some commenters here misjudge the relationship between Royalty and the public though. The Royals have not survived because they think they are very special, but rather because they have at crucial points understood that they are not TOO special. Their legitimacy (the only thing that makes them special) comes from parliament and ultimately the public. A succession of kings and queens have accepted that, with the exception of Charles I and Edward VIII both of whom were forced to yield to the will of parliament. All the others have ultimately accepted limits to their power, from William and Mary who assented to the Bill of Rights, right up to George V siding with the Commons to limit the power of the Lords and the current Queen relinquishing the right to dissolve parliament.

Even Victoria, who tended to throw her weight around, ultimately realised that the security of her position lay in the limited power she possessed. It was why she warned her own relatives, the Princesses of Darmstadt-Hesse against marrying into the absolutist Russian royal family, which consistently refused to reform and give up its power, They ignored her, and one of them ended up as the Tsarina, murdered in the cellar, and another ended up as a Grand Duchess, thrown to her death down a mineshaft. Even Victoria’s beloved grandson, Wilhelm, rejected her advice, and ended up paying the price for Germany’s loss in a war which he had driven the country toward. As a Kaiser who was keen to wield power, he had no-one to blame when he lost.

The UK royals are snooty, a bit weird, not always especially happy, and are bossed about by politicians even while they are above politics, but that’s all part of the secret of their survival.

r273 it's not saying Gillian Anderson is Lucille Ball, it's saying that once an actor is on an iconic, legendary show that actor gets a certain level of star billing for the rest of their career.

[quote]Anderson's delivery is constipated. MT didn't sound like that. You could hear traces of her her native Lincolnshire accent underneath her learned elocution, slightly whiny.

As if the American audience could even notice that.

[quote]The Royals have not survived because they think they are very special, but rather because they have at crucial points understood that they are not TOO special.

Perhaps, but they undoubtedly are TOO cosseted, TOO wealthy and TOO useless.

I don't think the Royals think much about whether they are spoiled or cosseted or not.

The Court (the staff around them) are the ultimate incrementalists. The Queen is a pragmatist. But day to day they take their luxuries for granted. That's normal to them.

They just do what they do. They live as they live and do the work of the monarchy and the chips for the most part fall where they may. That's how they go it so wrong in the high emotion after Diana's death but also how it bounced back for the most part.

On one hand I think they are fatalists, who accept if it ends, it ends... on the other hands I think they are pragmatists... doing what needs to be done to preserve the institution. They had that Way Ahead Group... senior members of the RF, plotting... the way ahead. They don't do radical. I don't think they are terribly forward thinkers, with a revolutionary master plan - what they are good at is reacting with reasonable follow through. Even Charles' slimmed down plan seems to have been moderated to now include and sustain Anne and the Wessexes because the great high C and stage left by the $u$$exe$ left the cast reduced. They aren't even particularly speedy, but when they make a plan, they do see it through, I give them that. They seem generally to do just enough to keep things pretty much as they are.

What if Lucille Ball had played Margaret Thatcher rather than Gillian Anderson? Would she have gotten her head stuck in a hunting trophy at Balmoral? Would she have baked bread for her ministers during plans for the Falklands War, only to be pushed out of the kitchen by it when she opened the oven door? When Sir Geoffrey Howe made the speech against her in Commons that sealed her political doom, would she have done "the spider"?

Lucille Ball playing Margaret Thatcher would DEFINITELY eat too many chocolates in the factory, and drink too much veggievitamin

Oh stop, R319. The British Royal Family lives as large as the British public permit them to live. No other royal family in any other country in Europe lives on the scale of the Windsors. The others all do nicely, to be sure, and they remain the head of state, too. Buckingham Palace could easily be handed over and turned into a state museum. The Queen would have plenty other places to sleep at night. But, for better or for worse, the Windsors are, themselves, a tourist attraction. They are a huge industry. Changing of the Guard. If the flag flies, the Queen is in residence. Blah, blah, blah.

The UK would be a dreary fucking place without all the pomp and grandeur that goes with having the most ostentatious royals on the planet. With the biggest weddings. What else does the UK have to offer? The theaters are all closed for the foreseeable future.

Americans knew who Margaret Thatcher was in the 1980s because she was best buddies with Ronald Reagan. They were enacting the same government strategies in their respective countries.

DENIS: "My dear, you mean a Harrod's Mattress 'rocks you to sleep'..."

MARGARET: "No, I mean sleeping on a Harrod's Mattress is like sleeping on a rock!"

I agree with someone upthread who said that in the favorite child episode, there was a scene that was supposed to happen but didn't. Elizabeth goes to chat with her mother and Margaret and the scene just ends. Then she later tells Philip that she went to speak to her mother. What was the need to start a scene that didn't happen?

Lucy wanted to play Winston Churchill but Gary talked her out of it.

[quote]No other royal family in any other country in Europe lives on the scale of the Windsors.

Don't kid yourself. The Great Danes have eight palaces (only one of which isn't occupied at some point in the year) and a yacht.

Margaret Thatcher was the smart Reagan just as Boris Johnson is the smart Trump.

Questions from a clueless American:

What exactly was Thatcher asking of the Queen when she asked her to "dissolve" Parliament? What does that mean? And what was to be gained by it?

TIA!

[quote]Margaret Thatcher was the smart Reagan just as Boris Johnson is the smart Trump.

Faint praise indeed r329.

[quote]What exactly was Thatcher asking of the Queen when she asked her to "dissolve" Parliament? What does that mean?

Something to do with caustic lye, no doubt.

Parliaments run in sessions, which begin with a speech from the throne, where the monarch reads out the government's priorities for the session.

The monarch, at the time, retained the power to dissolve Parliament for an election upon the advice of the Prime Minister (which the monarch can't really ignore without provoking a constitutional crisis) or prorogue it (suspend it temporarily, although the government continues to function and the party in power continues to lead.)

This all got washed away with the fixed elections act.

Not having seen Series 3, I didn't know they left the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne. Perhaps they came under pressure? It was certainly the most incredible drama.

So Thatcher was only asking for Parliament to be dissolved for a session so that Thatcher's run would not be interrupted with a new election?

Dissolve sounds so permanent, it's confusing.

R330, the Prime Minister requests a dissolution, which means that parliament is ended, and an election is held to elect a new one. The scene (which I don’t think happened in real life) implies that Thatcher wishes to “go to the country”, i.e. stop her party from replacing her by plunging it into a new election campaign. If Thatcher had won, she could have claimed a mandate to govern and faced down her party, but it would have been an unusual use of sovereign power really, as the Conservatives already had a majority to govern. The scene implies that the Queen refused to allow Thatcher to make the request, as she thought the Tories had lost confidence in Thatcher as their leader.

R335, dissolution is permanent, in the sense that it terminates the mandate of the elected MPs and puts the question “who is to govern” back to the electorate. In practice, this nominal power has been removed from the Queen and given to the commons now by the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, but the current government is intending to overturn this Act, which would probably give the power back to the monarch who would wield it “on the advice of her ministers”.

Prorogation is a suspension of parliament, which the Queen still retains and has some discretion about. Again, she prorogues parliament upon the advice of a PM for a certain amount of time, under certain constitutional rules. This caused a fuss last year when Boris Johnson requested that she prorogue to prevent MPs from taking action on his Brexit plans. Ultimately, the case went to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that the attempted prorogation was unconstitutional, and Johnson was criticised for giving the Queen false advice.

So, the flag flying at Buckingham Palace is all about marketing and tourism? It seems like such a stupid thing to announce from a security stand point. Like the intruder never would have known if she was or wasn’t there had he not had the flag announcing it.

[quote]Did not recall Charles was almost killed in an avalanche. How different history would be if he was. Diana would still be alive and probably remarried.

And England would have a pedophile king.

William and Harry had already been born when that happened, r339. Andrew was not in direct line to the throne.

I'll just accept "dissolution of Parliament" as a MacGuffin and get on with it.

A real life example of the indifference or arms length that the Royals keep from the common folks. You never forget your place. Charles has a man faint in front of him. Props to the Prince for going over to him to see if he's alright. And of course Charle's isn't an EMT, doctor, or nurse so he would just get in the way (he's practical) but the image of walking away why a man lays on the ground is just not really a very, um not the best.

Sometimes the royals seem like bad escorts. They do their events and you can tell that the clock is ticking whether their audience gets what they want or not, they are are a set schedule before they get driven back to their palace away from the riff raff.

The younger generation understands that giving just a bit more humility pays dividend in good PR. William is acting more like his mother. Take the time to ensure the person is alright, even if you personally can't be of much help. As posters have said, the fact that the generations are learning speaks volumes.

I doubt the Queen (who does care) would have gone over to the gentlemen at atll. Since she is a Queen, above it all.

Charles shows some concerns but keeps it moving.

William stays to make sure someone is alright.

Princess George will offer to suck their cock (kidding).

This progression in PR is how the institution survives.

[quote] but Oscar-worthy because she looked the part and got the voice down completely.

I actually brought up Meryl Streep as an example of someone who is praised no matter what she does at this point. She more often than not is deserving of that praise. I wasn't actually comparing her performance to Anderson's, although I can see how easy it is to do that. My brain didn't even make that connection until 5 seconds after I hit "Post." I didn't like her very much as The Witch in, "Into the Woods" but people ate it up. (Of course, that could have been because I've seen three different actresses play the witch on the stage previously.) I didn't like her in Osage County either but many thought she was just darling. I felt Anderson as "Media" in "American Gods" for the brief time she was there was a revelation. I'm not even into that genre of writing and I couldn't believe how she brought that character to life. Meanwhile on "Sex Education" she is, to me, just okay. They don't give her much to do. She is ... there? However, people were praising her because she is Gillian Anderson. I thought she was great in The Fall but the series was boring to me.

Here, I am not entirely sure I have any feelings either way about her performance. It was, "something." It all came across as a bit cartoonish to me. I was just making the point that I can see why people liked it and why people don't like it but I don't understand why who she is sleeping with is playing into those feelings at all. She is more than who she is sleeping with.

[quote]Not having seen Series 3, I didn't know they left the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne. Perhaps they came under pressure? It was certainly the most incredible drama.

Originally, I didn't think they were going to give much attention to the children other than Charles. Then in Season 3, the actress playing Anne really popped and gained audience attention. So I think in Season 4, they upped Anne's character.

r345 well I really thought they would have referenced the kidnapping during the episode with all the children meetings. It would have been a perfect addition against Thatcher's obsession with her son while neglecting her daughter. QEII seems to have a good relationship with Anne but from that episode you can tell that Anne was going through some things. It would have been an absolute perfect episode for that flashback.

Also, I know the Brits or this show's creator don't like drama, unless it involves Princess Margaret (for some reason) but when they heard that Charles might have died or not, they only gave us a hint of the Queen's pain. Phillip doesn't even attempt to console his wife. It's like someone told them that a Corgi passed away, there was concern but not that much. Really left me wanting more since this is supposed to be a a drama that pulls back the curtain on the royals.

Literally, your son may be dead. Phillip wants to pretend (for the audience) that he doesn't know why they use the Bridge codes? So terrible.

[quote][R345] well I really thought they would have referenced the kidnapping during the episode with all the children meetings. It would have been a perfect addition against Thatcher's obsession with her son while neglecting her daughter.

I understand your point, but Elizabeth had no connection with being kidnapped. She did have a connection to a marriage that was bumpy and I think it was more of a connection for Anne to discuss her marriage problems. Out of the four children lunches, I think Anne's was the poorest written. The implication of her having an affair with her bodyguard came out of nowhere. We saw nothing about it in the show and you would have to be familiar with Anne's life to know about it. Plus, they had to spend Charles' time discussing his marriage, so Anne really got shafted in that episode.

[quote]Out of the four children lunches, I think Anne's was the poorest written.

yet charles never eats lunch. . . .

[quote]yet charles never eats lunch. . . .

He did when Mummy ordered it.

I read online that royal experts and people who have worked for the royals are pissed with how Charles was portrayed this season? So he wasnt a verbally abusive, neglectful, entitled, whiny man?

That first sentence wasn't supposed to be a question

R344

I disagree that Meryl is praised no matter what she does. Sometimes, Meryl peeks through in all her performances, but if you look at the body of her work, she is obviously a superb actress. I also realize that it's almost a given that people will push back against the "best actress of her generation" accolade.

My take is, if the producer so carefully found an actress to so closely resemble Princess Di, and an actor to pretty closely resemble Prince Charles, he could have looked harder to find a middle aged actress to physically resemble Maggie. There's no shortage of out of work, middle aged actresses who are very talented.

I actually dont even care about how thin Gillian looked in the part, her height, or her oval face. It was the voice.

[quote]I doubt the Queen (who does care) would have gone over to the gentlemen at atll. Since she is a Queen, above it all.

[quote]Charles shows some concerns but keeps it moving.

[quote]William stays to make sure someone is alright.

[quote]Princess George will offer to suck their cock (kidding).

Meghan: Not a lot of people have asked if I'm OK.

Some OCD fan should make a few remix videos:

Comings and Goings: all the shots of cars driving up to and away from palaces and residencies (45 minutes)

Clattering (as mentioned): a mix of all the forks on dishes moments with no dialogue. (20 minutes)

Servants' Slog: all the shots of maids, butlers, etc, marching in and out, with a special 'maids carrying towels' sidebar. (17 minutes)

Into the Distance: Her Majesty staring glassy-eyed at ... something. (37 hours)

Just finished this season, and yes, it's the best the show has offered since the first season. That being said, this year was probably the most historically inaccurate. A couple of things: The Queen and Prince Philip were firmly in Diana's camp blaming Charles for the breakdown in the marriage. It was only after Diana's Panorama interview that they finally sided with Charles.

The Queen's relationship with Thatcher was no where near as fraught. Yes, there was tensions there (particularly over the Commonwealth) and the Queen disliked Thatcher's tendency to pontificate and talk endlessly until the subjected had been exhausted (she also hated the Thatcher had no sense of humour...the Queen's favourite PM was Harold Macmillan because he made her laugh). However, they did have a mutual admiration for one another. It's important to note, the Queen gave Thatcher the Order of Merit within 7 days of leaving office, also personally attended Thatcher's 80th birthday party and Thatcher's funeral (the Queen had only previously attended Churchill's funeral). There is also no way in hell the Queen allowed her opinions to be leaked to a newspaper. I believe she made her feeling known about Thatcher's stance on South Africa, but she wouldn't have allowed Michael Shea to express them on her behalf. Shea is on record as saying that his conversation with the Times was meant to be off record that the Queen never directly expressed these feelings to him.

Colman is stuck with the rather thankless role of QEII.

Foy had the benefit of playing a human being becoming an emotionless icon, so we were able to see her grow into that role and the necessary steeliness.

I'm sometimes thinking Colman either is underplaying or was directed to underplay, but then I remember that in reality, she was equally, maddeningly vague in any emotional expressions or expressions of any kind. Her eventual address regarding Diana's death was delivered with the smallest amount of emotion required.

R299

[quote]How do you stumble through the day with that sloppy thinking?

I think you should be posing that question to a mirror.

[quote]This is a British production.

Airing on an American (Netflix) property worldwide?

[quote]Thatcher was the British Prime Minister for 11 long years. The average life expectancy in the United Kingdom is 81 years. 20 years is but a small portion of their lives.

And 20 years is a large portion of mine!

[quote] So, most of the people living in the UK today remember her well. In fact, most of the world came to know her. She was everywhere in the UK and the headlines for years and years and years. Your statement does not hold up factually.

The show doesn't just air in the "UK." You think a 22 year old black man running around NYC would give two shits about Thatcher? A Puerto Rican woman from Florida? This is not a show primarily made for UK audiences. I think you really need to step outside of whatever bubble you're in and realize (usually people are telling us this) the world does not revolve around the British public. We were not sitting there in school in 2002 learning about any of these people! You can argue the failings of the American educational system all you want but the reason why people have to constantly be reminded that this show, while it may present factual events, isn't entirely accurate is because we never lived through it or had the awareness when we were to care!

I wasn't even born when Charles and Diana got married! Weird! I know! We exist.

[quote]If The Crown really were "one of the few shows that somehow manages to cross age and race boundaries," then there obviously would be a large number in that broad expanse of viewers who remember one of the most powerful and newsworthy people in the world. Your statement collapses under its own internal logic.

Absolutely nothing you said holds water. You neglected to touch upon key parts of whatever argument you're [italic]attempting[/italic] to make. I'm not sure if that's intentional because you get away with doing that offline because you never talk to anyone who is different than you? Younger than you? From a different country than you? Or if you just were unable to actually perceive that you could be wrong!

The key assumption you're making here (which is wholly incorrect) is that the only people that are watching the show are the people who care about the history of it, lived through it in the UK or were old enough to be cognizant of what was happening with The British Royal Family or British politics. That is completely untrue.

The audience of the show is beyond that group of people or else we wouldn't be on Season 4 right now because that segment of the world's population isn't enough to sustain a show by Netflix's standards!

[quote]Anderson took on the job of portraying someone with extraordinary fame and while she did some good work, she missed a lot. Is that her failing or the director's? Unless someone there on the set at the time spills the tea, we will probably never know.

We won't but it is the role of the director to "direct" the actors. We used to say, when I started directing and was still learning, that a director's job is to, "delegate authority while accepting responsibility."

If she gave a performance people didn't like then it was one the director approved of. There is no other way around that. That is the job.

Because Netflix is an American company, they get around Britain's stringent minority casting rules. If a British company were producing this, you'd see more non-whites roaming the halls of Buckingham Palace. Other than the Argentine men, I don't think I've seen one non-white. For example, Mark Thatcher's co-driver could have been a non-white woman.

in brazil, they would be wearing earrings, and Caftans!

I think they are going to get Barry Humphries to play the Queen Mother in seasons 5&6.

You sure are long winded r357.

Are you certain you're not the dead Maggie Thatcher?

Did they call her Iron Lady because she lifted weights? You can't tell the level of her muscle tone with Gillian Anderson playing the role.

Need some help regarding Number 10 Downing Street. I heard that building is very large and rather a mess design wise since they just kept expanding. Can someone explain to me how Number 10 went from a proud looking home, based on Churchill's bedroom scenes, to a nasty little dump when Thatcher moved in? That kitchen and family area was shockingly small and cramped.

Do the Brits just hate their PMs or is there some other reason for this public housing looking living situation.

[quote] The Queen's relationship with Thatcher was no where near as fraught. Yes, there was tensions there (particularly over the Commonwealth) and the Queen disliked Thatcher's tendency to pontificate and talk endlessly until the subjected had been exhausted (she also hated the Thatcher had no sense of humour...the Queen's favourite PM was Harold Macmillan because he made her laugh). However, they did have a mutual admiration for one another.

How can you claim to know all this definitively? The Queen has never written her memoirs, nor has she ever granted personal interviews.

[quote] Did they call her Iron Lady because she lifted weights?

Yes, Rose. She founded a women's bodybuilding league in London while she was prime minister.

[quote]I didn't like her in Osage County either but many thought she was just darling.

There was nothing "Oklahoma" about her characterization at all. She played the role like an East Coast WASP. Totally wrong.

Kathy Bates would've been on fire in that part.

[quote] If a British company were producing this, you'd see more non-whites roaming the halls of Buckingham Palace. Other than the Argentine men, I don't think I've seen one non-white.

You are incorrect. This season in the apartheid sanctions episode (#8) we saw the PMs and presidents and chief diplomats of the Commonwealth of Nations, and many of them were non-white, including the Queen's advisors on the Commonwealth issues. We also saw non-white extras both at the reception at Buckingham palace in episode 5 and in the unemployment lines of the same episode.

The Duke of Windsor had a black valet in Season 3. We also saw the Emperor and Empress of Japan last season and their Japanese security detail. Season 2 had the episode in Ghana with President Nkrumah and the Ghanaian elites at the welcome ceremony for the queen, and at the ball, and all of them were black. We also saw Middle Eastern actors playing Egyptians in the scenes with Anthony Eden and Nasser in Season 2.

On a multi-million dollar enterprise like The Crown you can be sure it's not just the episode's director who called the shots on the performances of the actors and the tone of the characterizations. There's a fleet of brilliant closely involved producers, including Stephen Daldry, and if an important element like Thatcher's voice was a contention, it never would have been allowed to progress over 10 episodes just because Anderson felt it was right.

This is not a Joan Crawford movie from 1955, a vanity production for any single actor, even one who might be sleeping with the screenwriter.

Oh r366 I never even thought of Kathy in that role. Damn, you are right it could have been wonderful. Somehow I really liked the movie. It felt like a Weinstein Oscar bait vehicle, but it had a story and I was entertained.

The Iron Lady was terrible. I've watched it three times and the final two made it clear that it was just a bunch of jumbled scenes thrown together with no real reflective story or purpose, beyond a potential Oscar for Streep. Bohemian Rhapsody got it right with their ability to building a story on a political figure.

r367, I think r358's point about the lack of color blind casting is that in this series it doesn't often go beyond historical accuracy. Of course, there will be POC cast as natives of African and Asian countries, but in most contemporary British film and TV we see POC playing all kinds of roles in British society.

The actress playing Diana looks like she could be Tammie Brown's younger sister. Just saying.

I thought the Queen’s favorite PM (on a personal level) was Wilson R355.

There's really not much point to comparing the events of Season 1 with any season that came after. And that's true of all the lead characters, not just Elizabeth. And PM Winston Churchill, I mean, c'mon!

R355, the Queen actually did permit “sources” to say that she did not personally approve of some of Thatcher’s policies. I read it at the time.

[quote] the Queen actually did permit “sources” to say that she did not personally approve of some of Thatcher’s policies. I

Yeah, well I didn't see the Queen selling one of her castles and giving the money to people on the dole. It's all "take, take, take" with them. Easy to criticize when you have several houses and want for nothing.

When I visit London, I stop in at Fortnum & Mason because Lady Thatcher had her son's wedding cake made there.

I went in there when I lived in London because I thought I'd buy a gift for my grandmother for when I returned home. I swear I picked up a teaspoon that cost £17 hahaha!

A friend of mine went there with her mother for high tea and I think she said it was really good.

Fortnum & Mason is the Queen's grocery store. I've gone in there a couple of times to see if I can see her pushing her cart around the store. And if she's dressed like those women in Poundland, she'll have a fag hanging out of her mouth, wearing leggings that are two sizes too small for her large ass and be hauling children of several different colors.

R378 So you're saying that when the cameras aren't on, Betty Windsor is essentially Dot Cotton with better clothes?

You are a sav if you use the phrase high tea outside of the home.

More like you're an incredibly insecure person if you try and police how other people use language.

Said the sav...

Here's Betty Windsor with her mum, off to shop at B&M.

This thread just sank under the weight of its own tedium, once the Titles Troll from the Klan Granny threads joined and decided to patronise everyone with a dry history lesson every other post.

As I've watched I've started to realize I've seen the actors elsewhere.

The Queen's secretary has been played by two actors, both love interests for Edith on Downton Abbey. First it was the guy who played Bertie, and now played by the actor who played Michael Gregson.

I saw Isobel's boyfriend Dickie last night as part of the meeting Thatcher had about the Falklands.

And Diana's...grandmother, was it? Or aunt? The one who was teaching her etiquette, was played by Georgie Glen, who is also Miss Higgins on Call The Midwife, the template for all prisspots of the world!

Olivia Coleman looks and sounds like Carol Burnett doing her Queen Elizabeth imitation:

Andrew's description of Koo Stark's blue movie is an almost verbatim lift from wikipedia.

[quote]Man, I am fucking hating Prince Charles right now!

Charles scowling miserably into the camera during his wedding day scene made me want to slap him repeatedly.

I'd like to see a movie of Diana's night out as a drag king with Freddie Mercury

Diana would have adored Meghan and made her welcome. She and Harry would probably still be royals if Di was around today aged 60.

R387

Now THAT is some real gossip! Thank you!

R381 thinks criticism is "policing" people

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Elizabeth and Philip first met in...............1934!

I think the Michael Fagin episode was a waste. It's padded with several scenes of him standing in the unemployment line and riding buses. Yes, we get it, he's unemployed and desperate. They took a 5 minute story and stretched it to a 55 minute episode. Although I'm glad the actor playing Fagin got all that screen time because he is very good and deserves the attention.

R395

I agree. It was depressing. I want to look at rich people and envy them.

The Fagan episode was Prince Philip in Space, part 2.

No way, Fagan was a very good episode, Moonshot was terrible. Also, I would argue, those scenes of Fagan in unemployment lines, on the bus etc are vital to show how dire life really was for so many people like him.

The dialogue in episode 6 was absolutely atrocious. The way the characters say everything that moves the plot along is so awkward. The dialogue between Diana and Charles and Diana and the Queen in particular was cringeworthy.

This season is such a disappointment.

[quote]Also, I would argue, those scenes of Fagan in unemployment lines, on the bus etc are vital to show how dire life really was for so many people like him.

We got it the first time. We didn't need to see it three more times.

He's an unemployed painter/decorator. Why didn't he become a male stripper like the men in "The Full Monty"? Mrs. Thatcher was right. There's plenty of work for those who set their mind to actually looking for work.

I have been bitching about Helena Bonham Carter, but I have to agree with the consensus that she was exquisite in episode 7. It was also the best episode of the season thus far.

It didn't bother me seeing it repeated, r400. That was his reality and the episode was about him. Personally, I liked it better than any of the other episodes. Others disagree, it's all good.

But as anyone who lived through those times can tell you, there wasn't plenty of work for those who set their mind to looking for it. That was the problem.

Oh yes R392, someone's use of the term "high tea" is surely worthy of being criticised, rather than you being seen for what you are, a pathetic snob. What a sad little life you must lead if these are the things you think worthy of criticism.

[quote] Mrs. Thatcher was right. There's plenty of work for those who set their mind to actually looking for work.

As soon as you said, Margaret Thatcher "was right," I knew whatever was going to follow would be idiotic.

I was struggling to think of when I first fell in love with Josh O’Connor (Prince Charles). I finally connected God’s Own Country to him. I loved that movie.

Josh O'Connor is really good in the new Emma too. Shows he has quite a range and can do comedy very well, in addition to drama.

R404

I think she was being sarcastic!

[quote]I finally connected God’s Own Country to him.

Not too quick, are ya?

[quote]R209 WTF is HBC talking about “collaboration”? No, bitch, you didn’t help make or choose the clothes, you showed up and put them on. That’s not collaboration!

That is not what happens when you’re a name performer. Or sometimes even when you’re an unknown. As Edith Head said, “You can lead a horse to water, and you can even make them drink. But you can’t make actresses wear what they don’t want to wear.”

[quote]No way, Fagan was a very good episode

No it was not. It was the only clunker of this season. As the other poster said, it had a lot of filler. We watch The Crown for the Royal Family behaving horribly, not for poor people.

And I'm saying yes it was, because I enjoyed it and many other people I've spoken to and read opinions of did too. I also pointed out that many people did not like it either, and it's all good. It's not a cut-and-dried case that it is a bad episode at all. Compared to Moonshot, which I haven't heard anyone praise at all.

The reasons you watch The Crown are totally valid to you. Not to everyone.

R410

I hate when people here use "We" to give some sort of power to their wrong opinion. I personally loved Fagan episode. Nice break from problems of rich and famous, great acting and awesome music of that time.

Fuck yes, R412, the use of the music of that time was great!

[quote]R403 Oh yes [R392], someone's use of the term "high tea" is surely worthy of being criticised, rather than you being seen for what you are, a pathetic snob.

I’m loathe to get in the middle of this, but there is a difference between “tea” and “high tea”.

The latter is more substantial in its offerings. You might have a very light dinner later on, following one... if any at all.

[quote]I’m loathe to get in the middle of this, but there is a difference between “tea” and “high tea”.

This is irrelevant to Americans.

I imagine a measured response like yours R414 would've been appreciated more than being called names and patronised.

For me personally, I don't mind if I am corrected and get to learn more - and I assume most people are like this - but some people really are insufferable with the way they talk to others and then they wonder why people's backs are up.

Instead of the Fagan episode, they should've done an episode that showed more bickering between Charles and his siblings. Those scenes were gold.

It’s too bad that the royals never did anything like the Battle of the Network Stars with other international royal families. Anne would have done well with that horse jumping stuff and Charles with his polo.

r418, who would have been the equivalent of Robert Conrad?

They did do It's A Royal Knockout though, which was considered to be a disaster.

The problem with the Michael Fagen episode is that it's all made up. They didn't sit down and have a friendly chat like it was portrayed. And when he went into the bathroom, why didn't the Queen leave the room?

I thought it was interesting that the real Michael Fagen was put into a mental hospital in Liverpool even though he lived in London. I wonder if the show paid him any money to use his pictures at the end?

I didn't know about the Queen's cousins. That's a sad story.

I can't believe they're paying Helena Bonham-Carter. I've finished Episode 5 and she's probably had about 5 lines total in the first half of the season.

R423 -- Hang in there for episode 7; that'll be her Emmy submission episode.

reply 414 2 hours ago

I’m loathe to get in the middle of this, but there is a difference between “tea” and “high tea”.

This is irrelevant to Americans. —Anonymous

It doesn't seem irrelevant to those ignorant enough to think that "high" means something more snobbish, elegant or elite than just "tea"

Do people think that though? Here in Australia we just use "high tea" as the name for a particular kind of outing where you'll be served coffee/tea/juice and various pastries/scones/chocolates/savories. We're hardly a snobbish people.

I still don't understand why the episode about the Queen's cousins was supposed to be sad. Institutions were a common thing in that day in age. They were great in America for keeping the homeless off the streets. Back to the story, what was the alternative? They would have either been locked away in some dusty Scottish cottage or a facility. At least the family put them in a nice enough place. Seems like they were quietly paying the bills. What more did you want from the royals? Remember, when they'd go on 3-6 month trips they've leave their children at home, despite an army of nannies and servants to help care for them. If they couldn't give a shit about their royal offspring, why would they care about mentally challenged cousins?

The Queen Mother's great uncle was born hideously deformed and hidden away at Glamis Castle.

When I was in Scotland, I made a point to go to Glamis particularly because of the stories of the monster in the walls that I had read as a kid. It's a very interesting place and I recommend going. Quite spooky too. Getting there was quite an adventure in and of itself as it's really in the middle of nowhere - at least nowhere easily serviced by a train, unless things have changed since I was there.

Jo Brand should play the Queen Mother next season.

[quote] It doesn't seem irrelevant to those ignorant enough to think that "high" means something more snobbish, elegant or elite than just "tea"

Speaking of "snobbish"...

Nobody gives a fuck about this high tea bullshit, whatever it is.

[quote]I still don't understand why the episode about the Queen's cousins was supposed to be sad. Institutions were a common thing in that day in age. They were great in America for keeping the homeless off the streets.

In America, many of them were great for violently abusing and violating their patients. We don't even need to start on all the forced lobotomies. That's why it's "sad."

Furthermore, today (and for the past couple of decades), if you had the means to take care of someone with any number of developmental deficiencies you'd do it. It'd be looked down upon to send them away.

[quote]Jo Brand should play the Queen Mother next season.

They could get her to reprise her rant from Absolutely Fabulous.

"Oh piss off you sad twats! Thpppppttt!"

What was also so sad about the story of the cousins was that they had been recorded officially as having died, decades before they actually did. One in 1940, the other in 1961. That episode where they were both still alive was set in 1985. One of the sisters lived until 2014. It's so inhumane.

Agree with R410. There are plenty of gritty social drama movies out there covering this territory. This came across as unnuanced overty porn, and of course he was just a downtrodden, loving father who wanted his opinion heard. Sort of a way for them to assuage people's guility consciences for being so into the Crown by letting them feel good about pitying the poor (and the Queen has a social conscience too!) The real story of Fagan would've been more interesting.

Why would anyone feel guilty about liking The Crown?

comedy gold.

That video reminded me of something I thought seemed a bit odd when watching those scenes. I don't really care about it to be honest because Prince Andrew is a creep, so show him as one, but I find it hard to believe the Queen would be horrified at Koo Stark being a 17 year old. Be horrified at the abusive storyline of the movie, sure, but her gasp "Seventeen?!" is a bit ridiculous when the age of consent in Britain is 16 and has been since the late 1800s. It seemed like a very modern thing to write, and also in keeping with the incorrect idea a lot of people have now that the age of consent everywhere is naturally 18 because that's the age in most places a young person becomes an adult.

With the boozing, the cousin fucking, the constant extramarital rutting, the churchy bullshit and hunting and shooting, they're just rednecks. They take their tea hot instead of sweet tho

What was that whole thing about Edward being outraged about fish for lunch? Is it primarily a dinner meal in England and not eaten for lunch?

R441 he was complaining that's all they ever serve for lunch -- poached salmon

Edward complained about the salmon his mother served. Andrew was very happy about it. I think the implication was that Andrew was his mother’s favourite child because he was far more easygoing and set out to amuse her, rather than complaining or challenging her like the other three.

Prince Charles fly fishing was atrocious!

"I've never cared for... Fish" - Edward Earl of Wessex watching a footman bend over

It is an interesting exercise to time the amount of space given to shots of walking though hallways, walking on grass, driving past trees, driving past people, stepping into cars, stepping out of cars, and other empty meaningless shots.

The show is much less about people than about showing off the production budget.

[quote]It is an interesting exercise

No it isn't.

I didn't think the Fagan episode was terrible but yes, they overdid the leadup to the scenes with him and the Queen talking. Which was a compelling scene, but would have rang more true if he had talked a bit more about his family, which is ostensibly why he went to speak to her - because the system ultimately didn't work to help him.

If they'd balanced it with more Thatcher that might have made it better.

I realize this and the Mark Thatcher episodes were meant to give us a breather from Charles and Diana but the pacing/placing of the sequence of episodes was a little off right about this part of the season. (and starts regaining fine form around episode 7)

The Fagan episode would have been perfect for the Queen to bond with Anne over her kidnapping, and it could have been a metaphor for how nobody is safe in Thatcher's government. I think the episode fails because the show is about "the crown" and there really isn't much that the Queen can do about Fagan's predicament. They don't take the time to reflect about how limited in power the crown actually is. They go more for the cheap idea that Thatcher is overtaking the monarchy.

In addition to showing Fagan on the unemployment line and riding buses, that episode spends a lot of time showing him wandering around the Palace grounds. I wonder if it was designed to give Olivia Colman a vacation?

olivia colman deserves a vacay

I want to clear up the high tea argument.

In England, afternoon tea is the tea/sandwiches/scones ritual. Often middle and lower class families will use the term "tea" in place of the American word "supper." "What do you want for your tea? Oh, just egg and chips." High tea references a meal, often for the children in upper class homes, where they are served their supper before going to bed, served when the parents are having a dinner party and want the children out of the way.

In the US, there are millions of women who "live" royalty. The British lifestyle is a fetish for them. They will sit down to watch Downton Abbey with a pot of tea, scones and clotted cream. In this royal fantasy, they erroneously use the term "high tea" to mean the sandwich/scone ritual because they think by using the term "high" that it sounds more royal when all they are having is afternoon tea. I feel sorry for all the servers in the UK who have to put up with these royal women coming in and asking "Do you serve high tea" when the sign out front clearly reads "Afternoon tea served 2:00-4:00 pm"

Just re-binged Olivia Colman in Broadchurch, first place I saw her. She's so great in it, so natural (and slim!) and emotionally accessible.

I can imagine that if you told her back then that in a few years she'd be an Oscar-winning actress playing Queen Elizabeth in a multi-million dollar series she'd have laughed in your face.

[quote]If they'd balanced it with more Thatcher that might have made it better.

More Margaret Thatcher never made anything better. And never could.

Luv, if you ain't got mugs and beakers, it ain't High Tea, and pass me a sausage roll.

Olivia Colman was great in the series "Beautiful People" about a gay teenage boy, based on the life of Simon Doonan.

As mentioned up thread Morgan's pacing is glacial. Endless repetitive shots of shrubbery set to a ponderous score. If he cut the "sumptuous driveways" out we could easily get two more hours of dramatic scenes that actually advance the characterizations. Do his actors get paid by the line?

[quote]Nobody gives a fuck about this high tea bullshit, whatever it is.

Well, then how about a theatre trip to New York?

[quote]If he cut the "sumptuous driveways" out we could easily get two more hours of dramatic scenes that actually advance the characterizations.

I often wonder if these writers get bored with longterm projects. Technically, Morgan has been working this theme for years. "The Crown" came out of his work on "The Queen" (2006) and "The Audience" (2013). I predict that Seasons 5 and 6 are going to be a disaster because he seems to be losing interest in the show. It's much easier to film several minutes of filler than to write a strong character driven scene.

The Fagan episode is to show what Thatcher was doing to Britain, to drive it home, and is therefore connected to all the scenes about Thatcher and her political ouster.

British screenwriters are still obsessed with Thatcher, so when they get the chance to actually do Thatcher instead of Thatcher-by-proxy (The Full Monty, Brassed Off, etc), they leap into it with gusto.

R458 I think he's also leaning on others more in this season. I saw much more of Benjamin Caron than Peter in many promotional pieces. It could be that he may step back and let others write more of the episodes.

Actually, you are right, R447. It is not interesting.

I think I was just desperate for something to hold my interest during those shots.

This season has touched off a full blown Diana obsession for me. It's ridiculous. I am completely transfixed by Emma Corrin's performance and how incredibly she brought Diana to live in this series.

Except, R449, that the series goes to great effort to show that the conversation with Fagan moves the Queen to confront Thatcher, which connects to her to release negative comments about Thatcher's policies to the press.

[quote]The Fagan episode is to show what Thatcher was doing to Britain, to drive it home, and is therefore connected to all the scenes about Thatcher and her political ouster.

I understand this, but the show is about the Royal Family, not Thatcher. Prince William had been born two weeks before the Fagan break-in, yet the show chose to do an episode about Fagan/Thatcher. The Queen had very little influence over what Thatcher was doing. If they wanted to do an entire episode around the Fagan incident, it should have been about the Royal Family, not about Thatcher.

it's about the crown

Watch The Night Manager. Olivia Colman was FABULOUS in that, it's a great miniseries. Elizabeth Dubicki, who will be Princess Di 2.0, was also in it.

These twits are SO worth millions in taxpayer money a year.

[quote] Prince William had been born two weeks before the Fagan break-in, yet the show chose to do an episode about Fagan/Thatcher.

I forgot about that. There was one shot of pregnant Diana lying in bed but not even a nod to the birth of a male heir to the throne.

In retrospect he made some weird choices. Ignore the birth of William, ignore Anne's marriage, Anne's kidnap attempt, the Queen Mother's relationship with Charles., that great confrontation between Camilla and Diana at the birthday party (although that may yet come.) They didn't do a very good job of showing the disintegration of the marriage, lurched straight to Charles being the villain of the piece, when in fact the basic incompatibility was just as intriguing.

Yeah I wanted a couple more scenes to build up how Charles and Diana didnt make sense together before they despised eachother. The australia episode was good but their arc needed a little more.

I guess Edward was wearing the only white dinner jacket at the Christmas party because he's got a sense of style (i.e. read "fag")

This is the season where I've really started disliking the royal family. Which tracks closely to reality. When Charles and Diana wed in the early 80s, there was much excitement around the world. It was like a fairy tale come true, and many people bought into that. But as the 80s and 90s progressed and their marriage began to fall apart, and as the spotlight began to fall on the disgusting behavior of other royals, the perception of the family became more and more negative. The hostility towards them culminated in 97 with Diana's death. I remember thinking too bad it wasn't the old bag in that car instead of Diana.

If the royal family and Liz in particular is aware of the shows' depictions I bet they preferred the early seasons about the young queen beginning her reign in promise circulating online versus the messiness and tabloid fodder of this season and the next.

prince Charles is livid

I guess Josh O'Connor can forget about being knighted by King Charles.

Obviously it wont be entirely accurate but did Charles think showing his cheating and awful marriage would make him look good?

Expand on that r474?

R463 If you’re feeling that way, give yourself a treat and get a copy of the Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown. In addition to being highly detailed and full of insider information the book also places Diana in the context of the history of the British aristocracy, in particular her almost total lack of a formal education. (After she finished eighth grade Diana was sent to finishing school in Switzerland for a few years, but left without graduating).

[quote]The australia episode was good but their arc needed a little more

I'm still confused as to where Charles' declaration of love came from. He seemed to mean it, for about ten minutes, but there was nothing to suggest it was coming.

[quote]In retrospect he made some weird choices.

Well, at least we got to see the Queen of England wipe her snatch.

I have to assume there was a gap in Diana episodes because they didn't want us to burn out or overload on that story, but it was strange that they didn't feature William's birth. Then again, they didn't really play any of the others except for....was it Andrew or Edward she needed to have bedrest for?

R479 when he told her he loved her I couldnt help to say out loud, "no you don't!" at the tv.

Those who are so eager to have seen Wlliam's birth dramatized, what exactly are you looking for? There was no drama.

R483 they just want to see yet another childbirth depiction. The reason the 2 youngest of Liz were shown is because one lined up with Margaret's wedding and the other was a difficult birth, right?

R455, aahh Beautiful People is so good! I loved that show.

"Johoyo says 'Ho! Ho! Ho!' I am a brilliant hairdresser! Far better than that dead bitch cousin of mine! I cut hair off! I cut it up! I cut it out! CUT IT OUT! Off with the hair with my cutty-cutty boom-booms!"

"Scissors?"

"You say potato, I say potato."

I don't think we needed to see her shit out the baby, the point was more that it's surprising they didn't have at least a quick scene peppered in there about young William and the strain of a newborn

It's interesting to me that posters who hated the Fagan episode because they felt it was boring want it replaced with an episode about the birth of Prince William. I mean an episode about a birth with no drama about it whatsover, or an episode about a man who managed to break into Buckingham Palace twice... I mean, people like and dislike what they do, that's fine, but I know which one sounds more interesting to me, anyway.

The Crown used to hold the distinction of being one of the few shows I would binge within a few days of a new season being released (the other being The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt). However, this season I am savoring each episods, even though I have a hard time turning it off. I just finished episode 2 and it was both exciting and terrifying when Diana is walking down the street and the camera pans away to reveal all the phtographers snapping photos (as Vilvadi plays in the background).

Christ some of you are stupid. I'd say literal but it's plainly stupid.

No one was calling for an episode about William, but a scene or two would have made sense of a couple of things... for one thing, they were supposed to have been happy then. Diana famously told a story that Charles was disappointed Harry was a boy and said 'oh, and he's got red hair.' That would have been a moment. Not quite as fascinating as the writer's girlfriend making meat loaf for the joint chiefs, but there you go.

[quote] Obviously it wont be entirely accurate but did Charles think showing his cheating and awful marriage would make him look good?

No--he's apparently been dreading this season since Peter Morgan announced years ago they would be eventually covering this period of time.

Just keep in mind that Season 4 of "The Crown" is nothing more than an elaborate and expensive promotion for "Diana," the never-opened Broadway musical that Netflix taped in September and will stream in early 2021.

[quote] I understand this, but the show is about the Royal Family, not Thatcher.

No, this show is not about the Royal Family. That's why Edward and Andrew have had so little screen time, and why Fergie did not even have any lines. If the show were about the entire royal family, they would have had far more screen time.

As its title states, the show is about "the Crown," during the reign of Elizabeth II. The focus is on her and the people who allow her to function as the monarch, which is why it focuses primarily on (besides her) her heir apparent, Prince Charles, her closest confidantes (her husband and her sister), and her prime ministers.

[quote] Just keep in mind that Season 4 of "The Crown" is nothing more than an elaborate and expensive promotion for "Diana," the never-opened Broadway musical that Netflix taped in September and will stream in early 2021.

Only a deluded Broadway queen would think that a $100 million season of a show (which had three $100 million seasons previously) is somehow a promo for a musical.

Since the show was first announced, people were speculating on how the Diana years would be covered. Seasons 4 and 5 always promised to be about Diana, so I doubt some stupid musical influenced anything.

The Queen's relationships with each of her PMs has been central to the show from the beginning. Of course Thatcher is going to be important to this show.

Also, why are the people who hate the Fagan episode so angry about others liking it? The posters who like it I've only seen say "I like it, if you didn't cool, but I thought it was good", the posters who hate it are all: "you're stupid! you're wrong!" It's really not worth getting so upset over.

[quote]it's surprising they didn't have at least a quick scene peppered in there about young William and the strain of a newborn

The royal brat screaming and crying all the way from London to Australia didn't give you enough "strain of a newborn".

[quote] Only a deluded Broadway queen would think that a $100 million season of a show (which had three $100 million seasons previously) is somehow a promo for a musical.

Good grief, I can't believe anyone could be dumb enough not to realize that was a joke. Obviously a poor one, but a joke.

Thatcher...a cunt.

Charles...a cunt.

My takeaways so far.

I would not have minded a scene with Harry's 'real' dad fucking Di.

Season 5 MUST include this in closing credits for an episode!

Yes R500! God, that song takes me back, being a kid and going on Sunday drives with the family while my dad played that album, (plus Behaviour and Introspective).

[quote]R474 prince Charles is livid

Good. Maybe he’ll have a heart attack.

[quote]r438 Those who are so eager to have seen Wlliam's birth dramatized, what exactly are you looking for?

Diana’s snatch.

A lot of couples started videotaping their kids births around that time. Did Di do that? Was the footage ever broadcast?

It would be interesting to see...

[quote]I 'm still confused as to where Charles' declaration of love came from. He seemed to mean it, for about ten minutes, but there was nothing to suggest it was coming.

I see it as him being very calculating; like he suddenly realized that if Diana isn't happy, she's gonna sulk her way through the tour, ultimately causing it to fail. Diana was still young and naive enough to fall for it.

They left so many infamous moments out of the Charles & Di story line -- where's the see-through skirt scene? Where's the "scandalous" black strapless gown that she wore at her first official outing with Charles -- that reportedly pissed him off? Where's the scene of her throwing herself down the stairs while she was pregnant with William?

But by all means, remind us again that she was her sister's house cleaner!

They don't bother with anything about the birth of William, but they show the Queen sitting on the porcelain throne? What sense does that make? We don't want to know that the Queen takes a shit. She's supposed to be above that.

R505 I agree. They picked the weirdest things to focus on. This season sucks.

I WAS PISSING YOU PEASANT R506!

[quote]Where's the "scandalous" black strapless gown that she wore at her first official outing with Charles -- that reportedly pissed him off?

That didn't happen until later, maybe we'll see it next season.

And where's the scene with her on the dance with John Travolta??

There was a scene towards the end where Diana pauses at the top of a staircase and I thought it was when they were going to show her throwing herself down them, but she was just steeling herself before heading down to whatever she was going to face. And I think it was a few years too late for that anyway, come to think of it. But I did keep expecting to see it.

People keep going on about the birth of William, but my memory is foggy--was there any particular issue surrounding it or any development it will dramatize?

The problem with The Crown is that in general it picks strong incidents for its focus, but then pads them out with a lot of filler scenes.

When Morgan actually buckles down and writes it is strong. I think it was astonishing how it manages to let us simultaneously see Charles from Diana's point of view and Diana from Charles point of view. The portrait of Diana as both naive and calculating feels very real. While the writing for Charles is generally not strong, suggesting that his anger at being in Diana's shade results from his being in his mothers shade his whole life makes sense of behavior that in real life was baffling.

And scenes where the Queen is baffled by Diana's attempts at emotional engagement trace changes in society that the royals were shielded from till Diana stepped into their lives.

If only the rest of the series had this much dramatic intelligence.

[quote]And scenes where the Queen is baffled by Diana's attempts at emotional engagement trace changes in society that the royals were shielded from till Diana stepped into their lives.

The Royals were shielded from everything in the real world.

Take Prince Charles for example. He's a Boomer (b. 1948) but there is absolutely nothing about him that is of his own generation. He hates pop music, he doesn't watch movies or tv shows. Nothing that happened to his generation in the 60s and 70s affected him at all, he was in some ways completely ignorant of it.

R510, I can play myself. I haven't aged a day since then!

[quote]That didn't happen until later, maybe we'll see it next season.

Maybe you're thinking of the "I'm way hotter than that Rottweiler" dress she wore the day after Charles gave the interview saying he never loved Diana, aka, the "revenge dress". I'm talking about the taffeta ballgown she wore on her first formal engagement with Charles (by the Emmanuels, who designed her wedding gown).

Princess Grace was still alive, that's how early in the relationship she wore it.

What episode had the queen on the royal chamber pot?

Minute mark?

Royalty used to have a Guardian of the Stool. They were responsible for wiping the king and queen's asses. When did they stop doing this?

Camilla is a royal bitch, she would be ideal on the DL

[quote]What episode had the queen on the royal chamber pot? Minute mark?

Episode 5, 31:08. It shows the Queen getting ready for bed, brushing her teeth, sitting on the toilet (reflected in a mirror) and then saying her prayers.

R519 She says her prayers on the toilet? The Anglican Church is a strange one.

"You don't marry a girl like Camilla Shand."

Still laughing at this line from Phillip.

[quote][R519] She says her prayers on the toilet? The Anglican Church is a strange one.

Buckingham Palace is very drafty. She had already warmed the toilet seat, so she might as well say her prayers because once finished with both rituals, she can then run and jump under the covers and not catch a chill. If she had to stop and pray, she would catch a chill and probably get sick and possibly shuffle off her mortal coil.

Was she peeing or taking a dump?

R523 The Queen of England does not pee and take a dump, she tinkles and uses the loo.

R515 Yes it was early in the relationship and the first time her low cut dress caused the press to focus on Diana's clothes. Diana apparently did not wear the correct bra for the dress and her boobs were on the verge of falling out. She appealed to Princess Grace for help. They retired to the ladies loo . When they emerged Grace told her friend "we got them under control".

R525 There’s some secret boob knowledge that princesses have that the rest of the world doesn’t know about? Did she McGuyver them with her tiara?

scary mistresses

The actress playing Camilla is so much better-looking than the real Camilla ever was. Even as a young woman, Camilla was a total hag.

What years does this season cover? (haven't started it yet.)

The Thatcher years: 1979-1990

[quote] The actress playing Camilla is so much better-looking than the real Camilla ever was. Even as a young woman, Camilla was a total hag.

Emerald Fennell is definitely pretty, but she does have a certain horsiness of Camilla's down.

...and as lez nurse Patsy on Call the Midwife

Thank you r519

Queen Consort Gladys!

Season 5: Harry and his pals!

Why will no one answer my question @ r503? It’s a simple question!

In France, it was common for the entire court to watch the childbirth, so they knew the royal babe being raised to rule was actually the right one.

This tradition should be brought back, I feel. On television. How else do the tax payers know their hard earned money isn’t going to an imposter?

r536, Yes, and splash guards should be provided for the front row.

Millennial here. I liked the Fagan episode as it put the historical and economic climate in context in relation to the prime minister and the Queen.

Diana singing Phantom of the Opera and dancing to Uptown Girl....I am firmly on Prince charles’ side now

The awkward present exchange really showed how much they didn't understand each other...at all.

[quote]There’s some secret boob knowledge that princesses have that the rest of the world doesn’t know about?

Hot glue.

Grace was famous for her hot glue gun skills and always had one in her purse.

Hard to believe that Margaret didn't know the difference between her relatives with congenital learning difficulties and her own depression/anxiety.

For the Ultra Diana Fans they're not going to be satisfied unless every moment and every DRESS has its own moment on the show.

Every day in every way

Prince Charles naked

Josh should spend the vast majority of his life that way r545.

I love the "Clearance House" reference - though is living in Clearance House better or worse than Froggy Cottage?

As far as how horrible the courtiers are, I'm guessing they are just doing the dirty work of the BRF. I wonder if they view themselves as "Team Charles" or Anne, or whoever and anyone who is a threat to that person's importance, stature, popularity is by default *their* enemy. Hence the bad treatment Diana gets at the hands of Charles' staff - she's going to outshine him, outdo him & generally undermine him, so they're looking to take her down first.

Charles came across as awful in episode ten. What a selfish hypocrite.

R455 - wow! I loved Beautiful People but did not realise until your post that mum was Olivia Colman. She certainly has range! I miss that series and it was too short.

R536 To paraphrase an old Joan River’s joke, ugh, don’t show me the movie of the birth God damnit, if you are going to show me a movie I want to see the conception! Especially before DNA testing, I would think that would be the more important thing to have witnessed.

It could be both. Write to Big Liz and let her know your (and Joan’s) feelings!

Things have to change; the public’s been ripped off for too long.

Tobias Menzies plays Philip as if he grew up hearing impaired. The voice is all wrong.

[quote] Hard to believe that Margaret didn't know the difference between her relatives with congenital learning difficulties and her own depression/anxiety.

Margaret found a way to make it about her, of course

R541 Apparently Harry has secret moob knowledge per R535

[quote]Tobias Menzies plays Philip as if he grew up hearing impaired. The voice is all wrong.

He also keeps loudly exhaling through his nose. Is that a trait of Philip's? I've never really listened to Philip speak.

Here is talking around the same time Menzie's portrayed. I think the voice is quite indicative. He does seem to speak through sort of gritted teeth and a tight throat.

You know how everybody's always carrying on about Charles' sausage fingers? Take a look at the video...I think he gets them from the Duke.

Tobias is so hot but he really is miscast as Philip. He was more convincing last year but his wig game is off this year.

I'm shocked at how young he looks out of the Philip makeup.

But both he and Matt Smith certainly have the BDF that the role calls for.

Google Menzies naked... the BD ends at the F.

I liked the joke about the raping bear Camilla and Charles told.

r547, Cleareance House is MAGNIFICENT.

Cookie "ruled" from there for decades after Bertie moved on.

Because Cookie had a staff of FABULOUS homosexuals, it was the House of Old Queens.

As an old queen, of all the royal homes, Clarence House is the best.

It's Fred's and Gladys' in-town home now.

If Philip is of Greek (ultimately Danish and German) background how did he get that posh English accept without a trace of any other accent? Did he grow up around English upper class speakers. On the other hand I have read given the German origin of the British royal family and repeated infusions of Germaness (e.g. Albert) that German was the preferred language of the BRF until and including Victoria. I even heard that Edward VII spoke with a slight German accent. Any truth to that?

[quote]Tobias is so hot but he really is miscast as Philip. He was more convincing last year but his wig game is off this year.

He was a last minute replacement. Paul Bettany was originally cast and then pulled out of the show.

Uncle Dickey gave him oral lessons. R562

R562 if only Philip's history wasn't thoroughly researched and available on the internet.

Did Diana videotape her births?

So if Charles ever makes it to King, where does he live then?

Just like his mother, he will probably move from home to home during the year. Windsor, Balmoral, Sandringham, and the official residences of Buck House and St. James' just to begin with.

[quote]So if Charles ever makes it to King, where does he live then?

Elizabeth only lives in Buckingham Palace because she was forced to, in the 1950s she didn't want to be seen going against tradition. As a young wife, she preferred Clarence House. I have a feeling when she dies, they will make Buckingham Palace a meeting hall where they host royal dinners and receive guests, but I bet Charles will decide to live elsewhere. He may make his official residence Windsor, but shuffle between the other houses he owns.

Charles will stay in Clarence House for the rest of his life. It's gorgeous and renovated to his tastes. That's why they spent so much on Wills and Kate's Kensington Palace apartment: They know they won't be moving to Clarence House when Charles becomes King.

Wills is apparently becoming a right young prick just like his royal father at the same age.

Def cheated with Rose "no chin" Hansbury and perhaps with a few others.

No wonder Kate is looking so tired and worn-out and thin. It's not just baby #3.

The gossip is that Rose Hanley, Marquess of Cholmondeley, showed up at the Trump state dinner in 2019.

Kate threw a fit. Said she would leave the banquet hall if Rose wasn't moved to the other side.

There's no reason a woman in her 30s with all the access to care and beauty treatments she has looks like that unless....you know.

R572 - You're making stuff up. Kate threw a fit? Really?

[quote]Charles will stay in Clarence House for the rest of his life.

Charles doesn't like living in London. He prefers the life of a country squire. I think he'll only spend the required amount of time in Clarence House and the rest of the time, he'll spend in the country.

R562 - Philip was BORN in Greece but mainly grew up in Britain. He went to school in Scotland and joined the British navy. Of course, he would have an English accent.

R573

Sorry, inaccurate wording. I meant, she threw a fit Kate-style.

Eyes welled up, and asked the Queen's page to send Rose to the other side of the hall.

And I'm not making this up. Do a little Google research if you care to. Kate and Wills' attorneys threatened to sue for the reports in the British tabloids. And the takeaway is: there's no smoke without fire.

When the Queen Mother lived in Clarence House, they had a bagpipe player play every morning in the garden. The Crown better have an entire episode dedicated to what happened to that bagpipe player when the Queen Mother died. The audience demands it!

R576 - "She threw a fit Kate style? What the hell is that suppose to mean? Was she dainty with her tears? Did she whisper demurely into a page's ear? Good God, get a grip.

I still think you're making it up.

Why have they saddled Tobias with that awful wig in Season 4? Looking at the clip of Phillip above, he doesn't have that much hair and it's all plastered down which Toby could have accomplished with his own hair.

I don't think Kate's that forthright. She's more cunning. She probably walked into the dining room and rearranged the name cards.

Where in London is Clarence House located? Is it not a tourist attraction like Buckingham Palace? Is the privacy part of its appeal as a royal manse?

I can't believe someone is dragging up the Rose Hanley business again. Kate and William have a solid marriage and 3 lovely children. Whatever private arrangements they do or do not have about their sex lives is their business.

What does Charles’s friend Stefanie Powers think of The Crown?

The tea started when Kate banned Rose Cholmondeley from her circle of friends.

Then a "the lady doth protest too much" article appeared in the Daily Mail saying that there was no rift.

Who said they didn't have a solid marriage?

They have a very solid one, because she's willing to take whatever Wills dishes out.

Starting with the fact that it took 8 years for him to propose.

R581 learn to google you stupid bitch

[quote]Where in London is Clarence House located? Is it not a tourist attraction like Buckingham Palace? Is the privacy part of its appeal as a royal manse?

It's actually not that private, it's just that people don't go looking for it. It's only about 200 yards from Buckingham Palace. The large road that leads to Buckingham Palace is called The Mall. If you go down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace, Clarence House is on the right.

Haven't you Crown watchers learned anything.

Di and Charles pretended for YEARS that all was well with their marriage.

Does Camilla still smoke?

she's smokin' hawt

[quote]Does Camilla still smoke?

Only when she and Charles have sex.

Emma Corrin was fabulous this season. I loved the evolution of Diana, especially the last 2 episodes. I loved seeing he willfulness standing up to Prince Phillip in the final episode. Diana behind the scenes feels exactly how I would imagine them to be. It also shows the chasm between her and Charles. Her displays of love through performance made me cringe as Charles did. I wish they would just keep this actress for season 5. I think the only scene missing that would have been powerful and showed Diana's state of mind would have been her throwing herself down the stairs while pregnant with William and how absolutely horrified the Queen was, but maybe that was the line that they just didn't want to cross.

BTW, Diana had 2 strapless black dresses. The first was when she was first married at one of her first royal engagements. She wore a black strapless pictured upthread that was a misstep because royals only wear black for mourning and it was all wrong for the occasion. The second was the revenge dress Di wore with the choker the night that Charles interview about his affair with Camilla aired on TV to steal the thunder. We will hopefully get to see that next season.

Wills and Harry starting feuding at the same time.

Harry is known to care deeply about Kate, like a sister.

[quote]R582 I can't believe someone is dragging up the Rose Hanley business again. Kate and William have a solid marriage and 3 lovely children. [bold]Whatever private arrangements they do or do not have about their sex lives is their business.[/bold]

The taxpayers have a right to know.

Awful. I stopped watching after 4 episodes. The acting is lousy. Looks to deify Queenie and do a hatchet job on Diana. Who needs it?

Watch The Royals if you want a dose of monarchy--it's much better and gets the characters more to the life.

[quote]This season has touched off a full blown Diana obsession for me. It's ridiculous. I am completely transfixed by Emma Corrin's performance and how incredibly she brought Diana to live in this series.

You are not the only one.

Millennials & Zoomers: Mommy, tell about Diana.

Nice article about the actress who plays Anne, she sounds lovely.

Why is no one willing to talk about Princess Di filming her children’s births??

[italic]What is everyone so afraid of??

She gave birth during an alien abduction. THEY have the recording.

Here’s a nice compilation of information going ahead with the series.

I doubt Charles will stay at Clarence House. It's a fairly vulnerable building, if you've ever seen it. It is not the historically the King's London residence and Charles, for all his love of compost, is known to also very much love all the trappings of monarchy, so I have a hard time imagining little Clarence House as sufficiently majestic for the King. But the truth is none of us knows and it's a bit ridiculous for anyone to state definitely what he will do.

There is no requirement for anyone to live anywhere. Clarence House is not by convention the home to the heir so there is no guarantee the Cambridges would move there as the Wales. William's home at Kensington Palace was formerly Princess Margaret's apartment. It was unoccupied as a residence when it was selected for the Cambridges. Marlborough House was commonly used prior to its occupancy by the Commonwealth Office. So was St. James's Palace. It's a question of what's available when and what's suitable. I read recently Prince Charles muttering about how they could never get Marlborough House back now... which you could interpret as his preference for places grand.

It's totally made up. First, Google it and see the kind of publications pushing the story.

Second, there's no way Kate wouldn't have been advised Rose Hanbury was to be present. If she was going to put a foot down it wouldn't have been during dinner.

Finally, the Cambridges and the Cholmondleys were in the same party at church at Sandringham this past January. To the best of my knowledge Ho'sy Rosie wasn't seated in the steeple.

One thing I was thinking about today - imagine what The Queen and the rest of the Royal family thought about Dump & family after he visited. IMAGINE the cuntiness of their discussions about the Dumps after he had walked in front of the Queen and shit all over her.